< June 27	June 29 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was speedy delete. spam/blatant advertising W.marsh 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACECAGE[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FACECAGE

Reason the page should be deleted --Wildnox (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hughes[edit]

Non Notable wrestler, de-PROD-ed. Darrenhusted 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article is sourced and well-written, and Hangman Hughes has had a notable career in Puerto Rico. DanZero 04:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article is not well written, a slew of redlinks don't look good. Darrenhusted 11:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, With all the AfD's going on around here, can a slew of redlinks be anything but expected? --DanZero 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are always AfDs going on, and you'll find that yesterday nearly 30 wrestling articles were deleted through PRODs. The redlinks in this article are for articles no yet created not for those deleted, doesn't change the fact that the wrestler is not notable. Darrenhusted 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending better establishment of notability via non-trivial treatments in reliable independent sources. Which may well be available, judging by a brief web search. Adrian M. H. 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as the red links don't bode well. Bearian 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Arowhon[edit]

Non-notable summer camp. Is fairly old, but does not appear to be covered in reliable sources that would enable a decent, NPOV article to be written. (See [1] and [2]. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a summer camp. Kids go here to use summer camp facilities and do summer camp things. Unless information taken from reliable sources independant of the camp, its members/participants, or its supporting organisation(s) can be provided to show that this facility is far above and beyond all other summer camps per a series of WP:Notable incidents or events, it should be deleted. -- saberwyn 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a nice opinion, but do you have an argument based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pasting a comment from one debate to another indicates a lack of objective assessment against the inclusion criteria. Adrian M. H. 20:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ObiterDicta. Subject fails WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. A quick search showed the official website and a handful of trivial advertorial entries on related sites, and nothing of much use per WP:V. Adrian M. H. 20:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, small camp. Even the assertion of notability of alumni fails, with all those red links. Bearian 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Allison (referee)[edit]

I'm not sure if referees are notable or not, but I have my doubts here. Claims such as "In his seventeen years as a referee he controlled 463 matches in the Football and Premier Leagues, one of the highest ever figures." are weasel-worded and unsourced, and the article is totally devoid of wikilinks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this was also a disputed prod. Forgot to mention that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe WP:BIO's athletes section extends to officials at the top level as well. With that said, I'm not certain I'm right about that. For the record, I'm the person who disputed the prod precisely because I think the uncertainty means there should be a discussion about it before a decision is reached. Edit to add: The article does claim some offline sources, but I agree it certainly could use improvement. Erechtheus 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Needs references. Callelinea 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for this specific article; undecided about the policy idea. In competitive team play an umpire or referee is likely notable, since much of the discussion about the match will be about him and his acts specifically (see Kerry Fraser, for instance and ad nauseam). I think someone who spent 17 years as a Premier League referee must have some name recognition and have been written about, and is likely far more notable than a guy who played one game (and therefore passes WP:BIO). My only qualm about saying that all referees are notable is that even the busiest referees in individual sports such as swimming and tennis are not written about and don't get the kind of third-party attention that someone like Allison or Fraser does. --Charlene 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referees are about as prominent on the football pitch as the players. Since this is Premier League level, this person is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some tidying up, including introducing a source for some of the claims in the article..... ChrisTheDude 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think refereeing at the highest level makes him notable. I don't think the quality of the article comes into it. Dave101→talk 08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - refereed at the top level, notable GiantSnowman 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course referees are notable, and ex-Premier League status is almost an automatic vouchsafe. I would kindly suggest being more sure of WP:NOTABLE before nominating for AfD. The article can of course be developed and sourced further to give it a sense of quality. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Perfectly notable, and rather than just being nominated for deletion, sources could have been found just as ChrisTheDude did and the article improved. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - indeed, some work has now been done on the article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous Records[edit]

Delete - disputed prod. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of this subject. Otto4711 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V; no reliable, third-party sources have been provided. The edit summary for the prod removal stated "Mobb Deep is notable". Ok, but WP:NOTINHERITED. --Geniac 04:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a record label and has plenty of artists just look at Mobb Deeps myspace profile it links to most of them.Tru Soulja 05:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace profiles are not reliable sources. Otto4711 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This fails WP:N. The number of artists is irrelevant; as is MySpace. It seems unlikely ever to properly meet WP:V either, with a lack of non-trivial secondary sources [3]. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Barrington[edit]

Article appears to be complete fiction, fails notability guidelines for bios, or a combination of the two. Google test turns up nothing, so is probably unverifiable also. Entertaining article, though. kotra 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are 81 references to Felicity Barrington on Google. Of these 81 references, I have isolated fourteen separate people, none of them are notable and none of them seem to be the person that is mentioned in the article. Trusilver 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "In December 2007...." I've never seen a bio violate WP:CRYSTAL before. Or shall we wait until then in case it's verifiable? --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (First time I have seen the prophecy tag.) However, even if everything described came true exactly as the article predicts, would the subject meet notability requirements? (Unless the subject thinks of patenting the "trebuche bungeeing" concept, which sounds like fun.) I think this is probably a speedy delete candidate FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is that trebuchet bungeeing? Clarityfiend 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible, per all above comments. When an article starts discussing multiple future events as if they were the past, that should be a sign that it does not meet Wikipedia's needs, and in this case is a sign that the article is patent nonsense. --Metropolitan90 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - what the? Kripto 01:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principal I Ltd[edit]

Advertising without useful content Jfromcanada 23:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete', sizable but apparently unnotable regional IT firm. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable spam advertorial. Adrian M. H. 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. spam created by a single purpose account. Dimitrii 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. spam Magioladitis 09:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and that it's a small, non-notable company, without any other sources except its own site. Bearian

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantate[edit]

Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day; no references cited (the Language Construction Kit is a guide to how to make a conlang, it doesn't reference Cantate at all); listed as having one speaker, thus clearly fails the notability guidelines. PROD tag removed. Miskwito 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dewrad 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. You beat me to it, you bastard. --Miskwito 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to "delete as nominator". By writing the nomination and doing the legwork, it kind of implies that you stand for the article's deletion. -- saberwyn 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not definately, we only presume that. he might have intended it to be merged into a page which deals with nonsense on the net! Mike33 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a merger is covered by WP:BOLD and does not require AFD if that is the intent (there are rare exceptions). It's generally unnecessary for the nominator to add "delete as nom" in AFD, although it seems to be the practice in a few other places like WP:RM. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My bad, sorry. --Miskwito 00:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator says it all. Calgary 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear-cut WP:NFT case. --Haemo 23:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Big round of applause for gumption but its not the place. Mike33 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unsourced, non-notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Johnston[edit]

This guy may well be notable, but the article's so POV it's unsalvageable; there's not a single sentence that doesn't scream his praises. It reads like a resume. If he's really won some of those awards, a complete rewrite may be in order, but I'd suggest deleting and starting over if someone wants to take it on. With independent sources. delldot talk 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something specific is actually found. DGG 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced with no clear claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First paragraph appears to be a direct quote of here.[4] Searching the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences yeilds no hit for his supposed Emmy. The Freedom Foundation also does not list him, [5], nor does it appear to have a 'Thomas Jefferson' Award. The person appears to be real, his accomplishments do not. Edward321 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, made up in one afternoon, autobiography. Bearian 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Oswego High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lake Oswego High School

Does not meet WP:N ~~or WP:SCHOOLS~~ criteria for notability. Will nominate more schools but at work right now. Tatonka79 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:SCHOOLS page is a proposed policy that was never adopted, thus not relevant to an AfD nomination. Tatonka has made a number of nominations for schools to be deleted, apparently (to me) with little regard for the specifics of the school in question, and under some misconceptions about WP policies and guidelines. I oppose deletion, without having looked too deeply into this article; I am open to changing my position if someone can make a more compelling case for deletion. -Pete 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use editing to remove trivial material, but school itself is notable for its academics, athletics, and numerous famous alumni. --Sprkee 23:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Sprkee. Many high schools will be notable, and in any version of that guideline, this would probably be notable. Does need sources, but it seems they would be found, given the alumni and the athletics. Sourceable is the criterion, not sourced. Some of those alumni have very impressive careers, but "Notable alumni" without a WP article should be removed.
Keep per Pete and Sprkee as the article contains pretty interesting and detaild info about the history and other stuff about the school. However, I would suggest the editors to add some references in order to improve the quality.--JForget 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple notable alumni constitutes a strong claim of notability. Article will benefit from improved sourcing. Alansohn 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a strong supporter of giving every high school a Wikipedia article, but this article is decent enough to remain. I can even think of one famous alumna who isn't mentioned in the article. --Metropolitan90 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are notable as I argue here. Noroton 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if there was nothing else to write, the navigational value of the alumni list would be a good enough reason to have an article. --fullcourt 20:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as Noroton says... -- DS1953 ^talk 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle High School (Oregon)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/La Salle High School (Oregon)

Does not meet WP:N or WP:SCHOOLS criteria for notability. Tatonka79 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This one seems borderline. The alumni need to be actually specified, and some sources found. DGG 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per DGG. If a rewrite of this article provides some more information, I will be willing to reexamine my position. Trusilver 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sports championships and notable alumni, accompanied by reliable and verifiable sources, establish notability. Alansohn 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not live up to Wikipedia's standards. Of the four "notable alumni", two are not even notable enough to have their names mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the article does not even state what town the school is located in ("near Portland, Oregon" is not good enough). I would prefer to delete this and let somebody else start over later. --Metropolitan90 07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are inherently notable as I argue here. Noroton 00:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the article "does not live up to Wikipedia's standards" is not a reason to delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clackamas High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Clackamas High School

Does not meet WP:N or ~~WP:SCHOOLS~~ criteria for notability. Tatonka79 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a large school that has a population of over 2200 students, so I don't see how this school is any less notable than an article about some small hick-town out in the country. This is a ridiculous argument.
Keep. Notable high school serves several towns, has numerous athletic achievements. Based only on a cursory look; further claims to notability are likely present in this extensive article. Several Google searches reveal a strong presence in reliable sources: Clackamas Review search, Google News search, Google News archive search. -Pete 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup: I just added two citations, and formatted an existing citation, for some of the more specific claims to notability: the school's solar panels as an example for other schools to follow, and a national Teacher of the Year award (carrying a $25,000 prize) won by a teacher there. Also, as noted in a different AfD, WP:SCHOOLS is an outdated proposed policy - not appropriate for an AfD nomination. -Pete 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then what is the current accepted policy? All the school notability lists I can find have been rejected. Surely there is some accepted criteria? Tatonka79 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, not to sound snarky, but: You're the nominator, so it's up to you to show us why this article should be deleted, thus it's up to you to find the criteria. If you can't find any, maybe it's time to rethink what appears to me to be a single-purpose campaign. Latr, Katr 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's the criteria I was using, but if one is to strike those down, then the burden is on them to provide the current criteria. Wikipedia talk:Schools seems to do a good job and is a current discussion. Most of these schools still would fail notability under these new proposals. Tatonka79 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:Notability is the relevant guideline. As far as I know, there is no policy broad-brushing this issue, and rightly so; each case must be considered on its own merits, because schools and their reasons for notability vary so widely. The only school-related comment on Wikipedia:Notability is that they may be better merged with the article on the town they're in; but an AfD nomination is not the best way to accomplish a task like merging, because it can be more time-consuming than is reasonable for a 7-day process. I appreciate your inquiring about criteria; I hope you'll consider Katr's suggestion, and hold off on further strong action until you have a more thorough understanding of the standards. -Pete 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some serious editing to remove listcruft, but school is notable for academics, athletics, and its unique architecture. --Sprkee 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Academics and athletics are found in every school. Here's another discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Schools, which through these criteria, currently being discussed, most of these schools don't qualify. Tatonka79 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tatonka, why are you insisting on Sprkee providing evidence, when I provided exactly the evidence you request just above? To re-frame that according to the as-yet unadopted proposal you now link: The school has won regional recognition for its architecture (as a leader in solar-panel installation.) In addition, a teacher won significant national recognition in 1997 (which does not technically meet that standard, but I contend it does in spirit.) Your insistence on our meeting multiple unadopted standards, when you have admittedly not studied them in-depth yourself, is becoming a drain on all of our time. -Pete 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wikipedia talk:Schools is the talk page of the deprecated guideline page already discussed, besides which, talk pages are not policy. Latr, Katr 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rewrite is in order, but there is definite evidence that there's enough material here to prove notability. Trusilver 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide the evidence. Tatonka79 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will be a good article,when trimmed as Sprkee suggests. This is of a quality that should be kept as a separate article--under any realistic interpretation of the guidelines. The sort of article to merge is one like the LaSalle High School. When the guidelines don't help enough, the way to judge is by consistent practice at these AfDs. Though precedents don't actually compel decisions , recent consistent discussions here are a good guide. DGG 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see athletic or similar achievements. Provide something at a state or national level and that might be notable. Tatonka79 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article has substantial content, but desperately needs pruning and better sourcing. Alansohn 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable high school. --Liface 22:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clackamas High School is perhaps one of the top 5 most notable landmarks of Clackamas County, Oregon with an expansive history and distinctive achitectural and technological developments. The artical does need some relevent updates and trims, but not deletion. Guerberj 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are inherently notable as I argue here. Noroton 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guerberj (and also Noroton). -- DS1953 ^talk 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with User:Noroton that high schools are inherently notable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion." —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philomath High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Philomath High School

Fails to meet WP:N guidelines Tatonka79 22:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The school is the subject of the notable documentary Clear Cut: The Story of Philomath, Oregon. Latr, Katr 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reason mentioned above, plus pop-culture fame for Tami Maida and subsequent Quarterback Princess movie. --Sprkee 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the information above, though it is fair to say that it is not even mentioned in the article as it stands. Based on [6], it wouldn't be notable.DGG 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep multiple film subject with a rather strong claim of notability. Alansohn 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a keep now. Every high school that wants to be listed on Wikipedia needs to establish legitimate notability like this. Tatonka79 01:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Chemical Romance's Upcoming Fourth Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/My Chemical Romance's Upcoming Fourth Studio Album

Source doesn't work; MCR are currently touring; Gerard has stated that they will continue to tour until the end of 2008, then take a year off mcr616 Speak! 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete sort of falls under WP:CRYSTAL as not enough sources are confirming it, and the source was linked wrong, it's [7]. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Come back when you have a title, a tracklist, and a specific release date for this theoretical album, with that information taken from sources independant of the band, or its members, label, producer, or associated organisation. -- saberwyn 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking independent corroboration, it's unverifiable--therefore it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Darkspots 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a link saying that they are making a new album, however, still not enough sources per WP:CRYSTAL. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it I agree. Let's wait until something happens. Alex 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really crystally. I mean, the Koh-i-Noor is less crystalline than this. Will ^(talk) 23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm bonney[edit]

Not sure if this person meets WP:BIO. No outside links or references. KJS 77 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or real information, doesn't really give much context, and judging by the creator being called Mbonney, may be an article about themselves--Jac16888 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have considered speedy on this. To say someone did some paintings and nothing more isn't enough of an assertion. He might be notable, but the article has to give some indication of it. DGG 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely vanity; subject totally non notable. Bigdaddy1981 02:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web blog or a message board for bands. 24.218.172.197 17:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:SOAP. Unverifiable, messy, rambling, soapbox of an autobiography. Bearian 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, nothing to merge. --Core desat 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Phoenix[edit]

Unnotable hotel, not even mentioned in Hyatt Regency#Notable properties. Clarityfiend 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see the next entry. Bearian 22:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With few exception (the Hyatt Regency O'Hare is a remote possibility), individual locations for a hotel chain don't tend to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pheonix.--JForget 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you mean Phoenix, AZ, but what's there to merge? It's a hotel, and doesn't fit into the scope of the article I just linked to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No external reliable sources have been provided and I did an additional news search in case anyone in the discussion had missed anything. All that there was were a few passing mentions. no original research and verifiability are not negotiable and there is no point in having a 1 line stub of the form "Hyatt Regency Birmingham is a large hotel in Birmingham." If someone can find significant sourcing that meets WP:RS they are welcome to recreate the article. JoshuaZ 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Birmingham[edit]

Unnotable hotel, like thousands of others. Clarityfiend 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as common and non-notable chain hotel. Bearian 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the Birmingham building is not notable although, you're saying non-notable hotel chain, euh Hyatt is one of the biggest international hotel chains.--JForget 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. If I had meant to say that the Hyatt Regency was a nn chain, I would have nominated that article. Clarityfiend 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Certainly a lovely building, but that doesn't make it notable, it just makes it aesthetically appealing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Birmingham article.--JForget 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not for the fact the fact that it is actually hotel, there are plenty of hotels in Birmingham which have articles, but for the building itself. It is a prominent landmark on Birmingham's skyline. - Erebus555 11:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as what seems to be a fairly noteworthy building. That's not to say that every Hyatt hotel should have an article, of course. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment needs more sources, though, to cover WP:V. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Its an abomination too, but I'm ignoring that in my "vote". Bigdaddy1981 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettable by Frederick A. Babb[edit]

Non-notable book. Article contains one sentence about the book and a plot summary. (Even if kept, it should be renamed to Unforgettable (romance novel).) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I'll try to relink the discussions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "critical acclaim" appears to consist of an Amazon.com "top 500 reviewer". She liked it very much. No evidence of notability; spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A vanity press publication that has very little notice. Fails the criteria found in WP:BK. Victoriagirl 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have nominated Frederick A. Babb as an AfD. Victoriagirl 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Forgettable, in fact. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and also as unreferenced, unverifiable, advertising. Spam at its worst, it merely quotes a long paragraph from the text. Bearian 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip DeSimone[edit]

Egregious BLP violation, all information comes from court transcripts, making this OR. Corvus cornix 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing found in Google News Archive search. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of minor organized crime figures. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider court transcripts a possibly RS depending on what they say, but these are indictments, not convictions. The information in them is unproven, unless further information can be found.
Delete Calling someone a criminal without evidence that they have been convicted of a crime is an egregious BLP violation. Court transcripts may be a RS that something is true, but they are not a RS that something is notable, or half my high school graduating class would pass WP:BIO. --Charlene 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flame to End All Flames[edit]

apparently unencyclopedic, no references, no category, no context Joshua Crowgey 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic, non-verifiable, possible Urban legend, definitely all the reasons made per the nom. Bearian 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a Usenet in-joke; and not a notable one, at that. If every Usenet joke had a Wikipedia page... --Haemo 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as utterly worthless unmitigated drivel from a forum. Adrian M. H. 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesux and Yellow Hat GNU/Linux[edit]

Renominating these two articles from an earlier failed deletion. Both of these articles describe fictional Linux distributions. These were funny when they were first announced, but the joke was over long ago in both cases - Jesux hit Slashdot in 1999, and Yellow Hat was announced in 2003. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Smerge More importantly, these jokes both would be difficult to make a strong NOTE case for, neither is more than three or four sentences long, ~~and both could be dealt with in two or three sentences total in Linux distribution~~ and both are now adequately dealt with at Linux_distribution#Niche_distributions. MrZaius^talk 21:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Fictional or not, they are not notable enough and are listed elsewhere. The fictional aspect just makes a bad case worse. They don't really warrant redirects. Adrian M. H. 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. While I may not like professional wrestling all that much, I do know winning the WWF Championship shows notability. Non admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Anoa'i[edit]

This is being nominated for deletion because the subject arguably fails WP:BIO due to a lack of multiple non-trivial sources. There has been a huge back-and-forth controversy about reliable sources and several trolls feel it absolutely necessary to reinstate unsourced material at any cost, spitting in the face of our verifiability policies. Burntsauce 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seriously BS, a former two time WWF Champion? Is this really the way to fight WP:BLP issues. Maybe if you talked to the project there wouldn't be such fierce opposition to your actions. Darrenhusted 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You've got to be kidding me. Deleting the article of a person that is clearly notable just because a couple of anons keep readding the stuff you keep deleting? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a rationale based in policy for inclusion of this article, as WP:ILIKEIT is generally discounted. If "the project" (known for vote-stacking) wants this article so badly, perhaps they can locate a reliable source or two. Burntsauce 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that it needs references, but this is going too far. He CLEARLY passes WP:BIO, please provide actual policy that says this article should be deleted other than "It lacks sources". Half of the articles on Wikipedia could be deleted because of that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understand that this back-and-forth has been ongoing since March, April, May, and now the end of June 2007. If we cannot locate multiple non-trivial sources within that time, perhaps we should not have this article. Burntsauce 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WE? You haven't been helping in the location of sources at all, you've been blanking pages and then not notifying anyone so it is usually luck that anyone finds the victims of your handywork. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scorpion0422, please try to WP:AGF and avoid strawman arguments here. Either the sources exist or they do not. I will happily withdraw my nomination if this article is corrected, but for now it most definitely fails several core policies and guidelines. Burntsauce 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources exist, and I have added some. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and the project are in the process of PROD-ing and AfD-ing the articles which are not worthy of space on Wikipedia. Darrenhusted 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seriously needs references, the WWE is not a good reference for anything except for its Kayfabe storylines. Corvus cornix 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then tags would be a better solution than AfD. Darrenhusted 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There you go, there are now two sources that pass WP:RS that are completely independant from the subject. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so now this passes WP:A using WP:RS and is certianly not a WP:BLP issues anymore will the nom withdraw this AfD? Darrenhusted 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As can be seen by other wrestling articles, the sources for these articles exist. However it's hard, time consuming work sourcing so many (There are 31 separate roster categories alone) articles that span so many years, especially with people going out of their way to blank, then try to delete them. It certainly feels trollish.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable wrestler who once defeated Hulk Hogan and was a long time champion who participated in multiple main events. Those facts can easily be attributed by reliable sources if not now, eventually thus justifying keeping the article. MrMurph101 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Wow, this is just ridiculous. He appeared at multible WWF PPVs and TV Shows, even headlining a PPV. If Burnt is just going to keep nominating obviously notable articles, maybe his account should be blocked from editing wikipedia? Kris 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Obvious Strong Keep Hmm...former WWF champion, I remember he was at WrestleMania IX and X, clearly a notable and widely-known person. A citation problem is just that--a problem. Unlike most articles that are deleted bacause appropriate citations do not exist, this article contains a good deal of factual and citeable information, it's just that it's lacking the appropriate citations. Tag it for that, but deleting it altogether is ridiculous. Calgary 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the point of reliable sources is to back up notability; notability can exist even if sources are currently lacking. Given the numerous books written about professional wrestling, I suggest someone heads to the library. Deletion is not clean-up -- you're looking for clean-up here. Or do some Googling:
source

source

even news sources

yet more
Non-notable people don't get their deaths covered by stories in The Independent. --Haemo 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous born again christians[edit]

Unmanageable, subjective, and unverified list. NawlinWiki 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even certain that "born-again Christians" would be a good category. Certainly it doesn't work as a WP:LIST. Shalom ^Hello 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as with most such lists, they are interesting but 1) incomplete at best 2) terribly biased to the present 3) impossible to maintain 4) not appropriate for an encyclopedia. In addition, the lack of any sources makes this an egregious WP:BLP violation. Bigdaddy1981 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Born-again Christian is an incredibly subjective term. Even if it wasn't, it falls under WP:NOT#DIR and is impossible to maintain per all the reasons already stated. Trusilver 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a Christian, but I agree with the statements above. I think this list is maintained elsewhere. God only knows who belongs on the list, literally. Mandsford 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article that, in addition to Bigdaddy1981's comments, is also 5) terribly biased towards United States Protestants, 6) does not even state its criteria for inclusion (being known as born again and being born again are different matters), and 7) even if it were encyclopedic, does nothing that a category would not. In addition, without sources, one does not know which Michael Jones or Phillip Johnson is the supposed born-again Christian, which could be a massive BLP problem if one of the Michael Joneses or Phillip Johnsons were insulted by being referred to as 'born again'. --Charlene 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; for potentially huge lists, categories are better; I also question whether born again Christians is sufficiently definable or objective to have such a category; if kept "famous" should be removed, because if you aren't famous you shouldn't be listed anyway, and Christians capitalized per norms of spelling. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 09:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of post-hardcore bands[edit]

Appears to be superseded by Category:Post-hardcore groups. The page states it is only for bands with pages already that use the designation post-hardcore, so it serves no purpose beyond the category except as a battleground for anonymous IP wars. Chubbles 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, OR, no text. Corvus cornix 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all lists of bands by genre - as OR. Punkmorten 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Post-hardcore groups exists and the list does not have a red wikilink which will not really result in a lost of data--JForget 23:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion[edit]

The result was DELETE/MERGE. I have userfied the article at User:Gwern/Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion. Would those interested in salvaging info, please use that page to merge content into the corresponding articles. While wikipedia is a unique medium, it shouldn't be simply a plot summary. I believe because WP:NOT specifically has this as an example makes the delete comments all the more persuasive. While it is acknowledged that editors did put time and effort into this article, I cannot deny that we are primarily an encyclopedia, and we must have concise, encyclopedic information. I believe an encyclopedia entry on a plot summary is an oxymoron. This was a very close call, but hopefully working to merge the content will be beneficial and examine bloat and how to be more concise in other articles that are admittedly too large. While content forking is an appropriate way to deal with large articles, I do not believe the specific solution here (forking out the plot summary) was the best solution. Finally, I can't ignore the source/verifiability issue here, and the reliance on a primary source in such depth. Critical commentary, secondary sources, and reviews are all great things when examining film/literature. But using the subject in question as the sole source for so long is problematic.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just a plot summary. By design, it fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As I recall, the main reason that this article was created was to keep the size of the main Neon Genesis Evangelion article from blowing out of control. You've raised a valid point, and it should be addressed, but I hesitate to simply delete the article outright. I'd say that this article could undergo a massive condensing and be merged back into the main article, but it's gonna take some work. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you the main article will has length problems then merging is a bad idea. Jay32183 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I love the series, and considering how deep the plot really is, it still sadly violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. If it's getting too big for the page, then trim it. NGE is no Lord of the Rings, so why does it need more space for a plot summary? --Haemo 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are you sure about that? 70.55.86.129 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While NGE is not particularly long, its plot is infamously complex (mindscrew ending), as such this is an appropriate split-off page. Additionally, between the numerous sources available on the main Evangelion page it should be completely possible to write an encyclopedic article about the plot, its inspirations, context, and so on. --tjstrf talk 01:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this page used sourced information to clarify the plot then I'd see keeping it. Just describing the plot doesn't work though. I know how complicated the anime gets, but this page is just a plot summary, it doesn't clarify things, or have any encyclopedic value. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Adding the information for the series to the main article increases it from 82KB to 90KB. Just a note. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now per WP:NOT. First half belongs in the main article; second half belongs in End of Evangelion (with perhaps a 1-2 paragraph summary on the main article). However, if out-of-universe information can be added, then the article can satisfy WP:N without issue. I'd rather not see it deleted, because as tj mentioned above, there is clear potential for a good article. How about moving some of the creation and reception information related to the plot here, and then expanding on those? That's the best option. — Deckill er 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information that's currently in the (really OR-ish and overdetailed for a main article) sections of the main Eva page regarding symbolism and the like could possibly be merged in with the plot summary for a better independant article, but I'm not sure what it would need to be titled exactly. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Deckiller and tjstrf's comments above. Also, see WP:FICT, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:NOT. Greg Jones II 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT#PAPER is not a free pass for articles that violate policy. It does not matter how mnay times or in how many different AFDs you opine to keep on that basis, it is not, and it never will be, a get out of jail free card for articles that violate policy. It says right in NOT#PAPER However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done.... WP:SS is also not a free pass for articles that fail policy. WP:NOT#PLOT could not be any more explicit when it says that Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. Otto4711 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Clear indeed. Especially since this article has obvious potential to include out of universe information as well. --tjstrf talk 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a plot summary is sufficiently notable and useful when it's for a highly influential multi-billion dollar anime series. But if it does get deleted, I'd appreciate it if a copy could be userfied for me to use when I get around to splitting up Neon Genesis Evangelion. --Gwern (contribs) 17:45 1 July 2007 (GMT)
- Reply No it's not. It specifically violates WP policy :|
Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Neon Genesis Evangelion. The sourced analysis parts (themes/meanings) can be merged, but most is just re-telling of the plot. --maclean 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: would this be considered a derivative of copyrighted material? now being re-licensed as copyleft (GFDL)? --maclean 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know exactly what you're asking, but including plot summaries that are too detailed can be taken as copyright infringement because it serves as a replacement for the original work. Jay32183 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article only exists as somebody cannot distill a plot. Alientraveller 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. An article should not exist simply because somebody can't summarize a plot into three or four paragraphs. The main article has already bypassed any sense of being small; eight additional kilobytes is not going to make a difference. ' 00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article. The summery isn't particularly long and there are much better candidates for splitting then the plot summery. Inspiration and symbolism being one such example. --Farix (Talk) 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge70.55.86.129 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would linking to invidivual episode guide articles count as "Sourcing"?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 00:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. Please look at WP:RS for what are considered reliable sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Antonio[edit]

No Ascertation of Notability, fails WP:NN Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 20:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a situation similar to the recurring problem of reality show contestants. You don't become famous for competing in an event, in general you become famous for winning an event. The events themselves are also low on the notability scale. Shalom ^Hello 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Shalom. Bearian 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King in popular culture[edit]

This article is a directory of entries only loosely associated by the passing mention of The Lion King. It is essentially trivia, which should be avoided. Much of the content in the article is based on original research, and the existing sources only mention the appearance in passing, instead of providing significant coverage, per notability standards, to cover the topic. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as loosely associated trivia. Useight 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think maybe a handful of these may be relevant enough to hang onto, but then it wouldn't be enough to merit it's own wikipedia page.
Delete. Laundry list of every time a line or theme from the movie appears somewhere else. One or two of the "appearances" may be significant, but they are significant to their resident work, not to The Lion King. -- saberwyn 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list of thing which loosely connect to the Lion King. A "cameo" is not a cultural reference -- it's a cameo, and trivia to boot. --Haemo 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Lion King article--JForget 23:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This trivia was removed from the Lion King article in January; no need to return it. None of it is notable enough to deserve a separate article. --Charlene 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent; if there is anything worthwhile to merge to the article, it should already be there. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. This particular afd debate has no consensus. It appears the article has already been merged, which seems like a suitable editorial (as opposed to afd) decision. Peter 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by longevity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I put this up a month ago, and it came back as no consensus. As such, I'm putting back up so maybe one could be reached this time. The list itself violates WP:NOT#STATS, and is redundant to List of United States Presidents by age, which is sortable. I'm not going to nominate the other lists in the previous AfD yet in case this again comes back as no consensus. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Useless and duplicate. ~Ed Boy^[c] 20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The work on creating a unified table is incomplete. Let the team working on the project decide when its time to delete them down to one copy. The sort function is still not working. Its treating the numerical sort as an alphanumerical sort still. Many kinks still need to be worked out. Sort on a numerical column and you will see its goes 2,000 1,000 100 900 800. And if you read [:WP:NOT#STATS]], It says that there should be no raw statistics without sufficient explanatory text, not that there should be no statistics. A reference work without statistics is useless. When the work is complete, there will be one table and all the explanatory text from all three articles. The completed master table needs to be compared to each of the other tables until the project is complete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no proof of work. There were two contribs after the AfD tag was removed on the page, and no discussion to show that a merge is in progress. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add-on Can you prove with a link that there is a discussion that has had comments added within the last seven days and not after the AfD was formed? Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this time around, there is no information presented in this list that is not also given under List of United States Presidents by age, which as has been stated is sortable and thus serves perefctly well as a "list by longevity". This list is redundant and not needed. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be an encyclopediac list--Sefringle^Talk 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's been AfD'ed three times. If it could be one, it would be one by now because if an AfD is keep, there's usually a problem to work out (usually, not always). Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some sortable list of American presidential biographical data that this could be merged into or redirected to as redundant? -- saberwyn 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is, all are being merged, but the work requires modifications in the underlying software that sorts and displays the data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, List of United States Presidents by age Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very well. Merge/redirect to the abovementioned article. -- saberwyn 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States Presidents by age. It's duplication of information that already exists. --Charlene 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia per Wikipedia:Overlistification proposal Bulldog123 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Charlene. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --Tentu 13:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). AndyJones 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, there's an active and productive effort on the talk pages of these articles to address this. So why drag it through AfD? Why not let the merge discussion run its course? And if you feel that List of United States Presidents by age is superior (and I do, I created it!) why not participate in the merge discussion? Just as a clarifier, I created LoUSPba as an attempt at compromise after the 2nd or 3rd AfD between people who felt a list only about longevity was not encyclopedic enough, and those that felt the information was encyclopedic. Given time (and support at merge discussions) I could create sortable tables for many longevity lists, and we'd have a compromise that would be satisfactory to everyone. The sortable tables are more complicated than you might expect, so it does take time, but if people identify other lists like this that could benefit from sortability, notify me on my talk and I'll add it to my to-do list. --JayHenry 05:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boho centers[edit]

Direct copy of a blog entry, with no useful references. The only ghit was the blog. While the concept relates to Lifestyle center (retail), I believe it could be mentioned there. Maybe. Acroterion _(talk) 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog link is here [8] Acroterion _(talk) 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-encyclopedic Bigdaddy1981 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, almost ((db-nonsense))-worthy. Not even worth a mention on lifestyle center (retail). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to opt for a Strong delete, too. This really is unsalvageable spam with no tangible notability. Adrian M. H. 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Disaster[edit]

Completely pointless disambiguation page - leads nowhere. If there were actually two songs named "Beautiful Disaster" that had valid Wikipedia entries, this might be merited, but keeping a disambiguation page to list two album tracks and an unknown single which have no pages of their own seems pointless. lone_twin 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I beg to differ. Did a cleanup and made things better. Dalejenkins
Keep as the songs are not noteworthy. I don't see how WP:MUSIC is met.Alun 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC). PLEASE NOTE I have changed my vote to keep after the comment immediately below. My checking up was sloppy and I didn't realise that they were singles. Poor form by me, sorry. I've left my original comment for comparison.[reply]
Keep Actually, two of the three songs would be considered notable (the Clarkson one is the non-notable one). The McLaughlin one is his debut single, released to radio and with a video currently in rotation on VH1 etc. The 311 one was a decent-sized hit for them a few years ago. The Clarkson one is just an album track, so doesn't deserve its own article, but is fine as an entry on a disambiguation page. Seriously, if this were redirecting to one album's page, nobody would take it to RfD; however, it can't just redirect to one page because the page to which it should redirect is unclear, so disambiguation is the best option. GassyGuy 09:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disambiguation of this multiply-used song title seems appropriate, since the songs were released by mainstream artists and two are singles. I have further improved the disambiguation page. --DavidK93 12:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking age[edit]

The article is about the legal tobacco smoking age in various countries. I have trying to clean up and wikify the article, but I also feel like it is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of information. The information could be useful, but maybe in an article with a different name or focus. This afd is not so much that I think this page definitely needs to be deleted, but that the article itself and its content could be used in a different, more effective manner. Clamster 19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think the page should be used and organized in a similar fashion to legal drinking age. Clamster 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see this being indiscriminant list at all. Notable legal characteristic of countries, and having an at-a-glance summary of the whole world works well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some rather serious cleanup, but this seems every bit as valid an article as legal drinking age and age of consent. You should probably remove the bits on laws regarding smoking, though, as those aren't really related. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some massive need for work. I would recommend transforming this into a table rather than split off by sections, preferably sortable. I'm willing to work on that myself. There is a serious problem with sourcing, and I'd like to see the page moved to a slightly more intuitive title, such as Legal smoking age by country. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article a little harder reveals a problem - this is less about minimum smoking ages as much as it is about smoking laws in general. Several of the entries do not list what the minimum age is at all, and the majority of the information seems more concerned with advertising regulations and bans rather than ages. I still think a sortable table by age is warranted, but I'm wondering if there's more that needs done here than just that. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write up as an article about laws regarding smoking in general. Start off with your sortable age table, then delve into each nation's additional restrictions. Maybe. -- saberwyn 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable concept deserving of encyclopedic treatment; the current state of the article is not irreparable. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of work needed, but should be kept I think. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carlossuarez46. --EarthPerson 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Researchers and policy students will find it useful to have a comparison all in one place. Hu 09:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Hall of Fame[edit]

The result was KEEP. Two word delete entries do not help raise consensus. Please try to raise more compelling arguments, or reference policy or something. Saying "non-noteable <sic> award" and "per above" are more in the spirit of voting than in the spirit of discussion, and I think most people want to move away from a sheer vote. Not only do the keeps outnumber the deletes, but their arguments are clearer and more compelling.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-noteable award. Dalejenkins 19:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~Ed Boy^[c] 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 150K GHits, over 100 Google News Archive Hits, and 4 interwiki links. Its the very definition of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does need to be expanded, but there is verifiable information present in multiple sources independant of the organisation itself, which can be used for expansion. Keep. -- saberwyn 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Norton and Saberwyn. Carnegie-Mellon started this to draw attention to robotics, and as Norton points out, it's notable. Mandsford 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Cannot really cite a compelling reason to delete. Modestly notable. Adrian M. H. 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Robotics Institute, a division of the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. Presumably they are responsible for this coordinating this activity. (sdsds - talk) 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We shouldn't do merges based on hunches. The website says "... ceremony conducted by Carnegie Mellon University's School of Computer Science in association with the Robotics Institute and the Entertainment Technology Center." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Kamala Das and Delete. History of the article has also been merged to take care of GFDL issues. utcursch | talk 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala das[edit]

duplicate article that has not been merged despite sufficient amount of time to do so. Taking here as a matter of form since my prod was contested. Postcard Cathy 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can be bold and merge it yourself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it or delete it. Obvious duplication. Bearian 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the one who changed the prod to a merge tag. I probably should have already merged them, since it's pretty straightforward. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this article has more content than Kamala Das. John Vandenberg 01:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. —Kurykh 20:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

References that establish WP:N and WP:V do not exist. Article fails both guidelines. AFDed over a month ago, result was "keep", but it was determined that the single reference from a reliable source only included a trivial passing mention. The "organization's" website is someone's personal Comcast homepage they got for using Comcast as their ISP. No improvement to article since May, therefore I don't think it CAN be improved as no reliable third-party sources exist. Not Notable. The Parsnip! 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP If it has survived two AFD's including one just a month or so ago, then obiviously people think it belongs here. I belong to Mensa and know from personal experience that the term has been around for more than 30 years and is often used in conversation among Mensans. Postcard Cathy 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, you know. Just because it got voted Keep last time, doesn't mean it'll always be a keeper. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, there're a couple sources, but per the previous discussion, it seems that sources have been few and far between. Therefore, I doubt its notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references added by User:Chubbles1212. Notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The (apparently fictional) group or meme flourished long before the internet came along. It has been mentioned in a humorous context in several articles in major newspapers. I have added back the reference section which the nominator removed from the article before launching this AFD, along with an article by Boxer in the New York Times (1999) which the nominator thought too trivial to prove notability (ok) but then deleted (not ok). Even a few words about something in a major newspaper establishes it is not a hoax, and shows that it has some some currency in the culture. I have added back an article by McGowan in the New York Times (1987) which the nominator deleted because he/she could not find it in the New York Times index. It shows up in Proquest.(Surprise: The New York Times index is not perfect). I added a mention in a Wall Street Journal article by Queenan (1989). Additionally, in the previous AFD, launched by the same nominator last month, UncleG pointed out the following references, quote "The Colorado Springs Gazette ("Mensa sound too tough? Densa may be more your style", 1994-09-22), The Miami Herald ("Are you Mensa or a Densa?", Don Shoemaker, 1983-10-12), and The Syracuse Herald-Journal ("Densa: The club for people who dare to be dense", Maryln Schwartz, 1983-09-13). " This shows that the stub article has plenty of sources not yet added, to allow expansion and improvement, even if these articles are not all handy to look at free on the internet. Edison 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Per nom.--Bryson 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom. Dalejenkins 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per Edison. There's some sources. ~Ed Boy^[c] 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup but has enough sources (NYT mentions especially) to pass notability. Chubbles 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read the sources; don't just vote and assume they're correct. All of the one's I've read—the Boxer piece especially—shows everything contrary to the article's ability to pass as notable. --CA387 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added an interesting article from a Mensa journal describing the exact circumstances of the August 1974 initial appearance of "Densa- the low IQ organization" in the journal of the Boston Mensa group. They were an early meme, appearing as the subjects of a series of article widely reprinted in Mensa journals before spreading to college papers, with people creating their own quizzes, etc. and later creating websites and t-shirts. The idea of Densa was enjoyed both by folks in Mensa and by the rest of us. As a meme it may have been reinvented by people who had only heard the name, and those who generally thought "Mensa" and "IQ" were four letter words. Presently, 33 years later, see how pervasive a meme it still is. Googling "mensa densa" finds it mentioned in 56,000 hits. The inclusion of mensa is suggested to avoid the numerous occurrences of the Spanish word "densa". Edison 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon looking at the sources that Edison provided on the article's talk page ([9][10]), I'm even more convinced of Densa's lack of notability. Though these sources don't match up to WP:V standards, assuming that they're correct, "Densa" was created as a subject for various puzzles for the Boston area Mensa chapter: it isn't an actual organization. This certainly matches up with the other "sources" available for Densa, such as the Boxer article in the New York Times, where the mention of Densa is just as trivial (Boxer's article is a humor piece, not an actual article about anything. In it, Densa is mentioned once, and only fleetingly). If anyone wants to put a bit about Densa on Mensa International, feel free, but it certainly doesn't belong in its own article. Frankly, the people at Talk:Mensa International don't want it there, and I don't blame them. ---CA387 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See below --CA387 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and format better. Well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since people seem to want to vote without bothering to actually read any of the sources, I've taken the liberty of posting the full text of the Boxer piece:

rm copvio

It appeared in the B section of the New York Times in the "Arts & Ideas/Cultural Desk" section. --CA387 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you ever read WP:COPYVIO and are you familiar with the "fair use" concept when it comes to pasting entire copyrighted works into Wikipedia? That said, even a 2 sentence reference to something in a New York Times article from 1999 can be useful in showing it is not something someone made up in school yesterday, and for a meme, such articles over a period of many years show its endurance as a fictional organization. Edison 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was under the impression that was for article content, not things on talk pages. If it presents a significant problem, please remove it. However, as a common fictional organization parodying Mensa, I'm okay with it as a part of the Mensa article (a redirect was proposed by another user to the same extent in previous AfDs). --CA387 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a well-known parody, with years of newspaper references. How many times do we have to go through this? Clarityfiend 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a Lexis-Nexis search and found a bunch of articles that mention the organization; I added three more refs to the article. Chubbles 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and CA387. Elbowdrop 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't have to actually be funny, though I think it is; if so many good newspapers have articles--and over a 20 year period, it's important. DGG 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just a joke created by another group, it doesn't meet any of the Wikipedia standards for notability. DreamGuy 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how many press references do we need to dig up to establish notability? Chubbles 00:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability has only been established in relation to Mensa. Alone, nothing has been given to show that Densa merits its own article. --CA387 15:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I do not see anything in WP:N that says something has to be the only subject of a news story for the coverage to ocount toward satisfying notability. There are also several article where Densa is the primary subject, with Mensa along for the ride. Then there is the book which is only about Densa. Edison 22:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I haven't read the book, but we seem to have quite a number of sources now—certainly enough to justify this article. The prose of the article is much better than it was for the past two AfDs, as well (I've just done some WP:MOS editing, and clarified that the organization is fictional). I've been finding more and more that I'm playing devil's advocate rather than arguing a sturdy position, so I'm changing my vote. --CA387 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I agree it seems to be fictional, although we obviously cannot prove than there was never some group of people who met weekly at a bar and called it a "Densa chapter meeting." As a fictional organization or meme, this shows the need for a WP:MEME to supplement such guidelines as WP:ORG which hardly seems to fit fictional organizations. The rejected WP:MEME would need to be expanded to include pre-internet memes. And as for the 1987 McGowan article in the New York Times not showing up in a search of the NY Times index, as was asserted in the talk page of the article, I find it at [11], but I no longer have access to it and I do not recall how much was in it about Densa. Edison 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:5P "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" not a joke.Tstrobaugh 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well-known jokes are encyclopedic. Chubbles 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're probably right, why isn't it under Category:Joke organizations?Tstrobaugh 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Wydner[edit]

This stems from a pattern of edits by
Dbp653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
207.160.210.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brucewydner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
to insert material sourced by Bruce Wydner (with a COI - see WP:COI/N#Bruce Wydner) that puts Wydner in a pivotal (but previously unsung) role in the origins of machine translation (MT), Novell, WordPerfect and some kind of US military programs. Here's his own statement on grounds for inclusion: [12].

I've further just found these news archive items: Man accuses firms of stealing software and 'Bizarre' $10 billion suit dismissed where such claims were thrown out of court. This casts serious doubts on Wydner's notability and on the version of MT history posted here on his behalf. Per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for propagating claims of dubious reliability.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language technology. I am also nominating the following related page, which also writes Wydner into a central role in MT history (as well as blatantly advertising his book).

Strong delete per above and as violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP. Bearian 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: given the pattern of contributions relevant to this and related articles, the fundamental requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:RS do not seem to be honored, acknowledged or applied. Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely that reasonably fair-minded and unbiased WP contributors will step forward to make this content suitable for inclusion in WP. dr.ef.tymac 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free medium for self-advertisement. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 2003 Wydner vs Novell, WordPerfect et. all. law suit was dismissed on "statute of limitations" the court record became a generous gift of KNOWLEDGE as to the events surrounding the claims. dbp653

No legal inference intended at all: merely evidence that material via Mr Wydner is not the sole viewpoint on the subject, making it unreliable to use uncritically. Gordonofcartoon 12:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep; AFD isn't for proposing merges. --Core desat 04:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor: Battle of the Stars[edit]

As this is a one-season mini-series, it's safe to assume that this can be merged into The X Factor (TV series). Dalejenkins 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; So propose a merge on the talk page, there's no need to nominate an article for deletion if you just want to merge it. Masaruemoto 03:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as nominator does not want the article to be deleted. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable. This also isn't "AfM" (articles for merge). Matthew 12:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Anas ^talk? 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Jagannathan[edit]

This is some kid who claims that he has played cricket for US under-15 team. Comes nowhere near the notability criteria for WP:CRIC which needs the player to have appeared in first class cricket or List A matches Tintin 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. Reading the article, the kid does not suffer from an excess of modesty! JH (talk page) 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Jhall1. The Parsnip! 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Sorry, kid, you are not there yet. Bearian 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 (non-notable bio). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, promotional. Sr 13 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AJ's Playhouse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AJ's Playhouse

This is a local radio program, and while there are a few sources, they do not appear to be adequate to show notability. Prod (and prod2) removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notability standards. Promotional. -- Merope 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty blatantly advertising, no assertion of notability --Orange Mike 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is about a local radio show and appears to be NN. --Stormbay 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "notariety" (sic) does not mean notability. Bearian 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; article has tripled in size since we commented if anyone wants to check it out...does't add to notability in my opinion. --Stormbay 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per some of the other delete votes. Advertising. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete; breach of important BLP concerns. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley's favourite books[edit]

This article appears to be nothing but a vague list of books from one bookstore, with a personal essay. The external links are one to the bookstore in question, another to an Amazon list which is mostly books about Elvis (which he probably didn't read, probably having been dead when they were published) and an interview with an Elvis hanger-on of some sort. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Suffers WP:POV, WP:OR, and on a side note, favorite is spelled incorrectly (not a reason for deletion, but I had to bring it up -- since he was American, should be using American spelling) --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if possible forget you ever read it. Uncited, trivial, POV, and cringe-worthy. Not all reasons for deletion, but there's they don't help persuade otherwise..
Delete as I'm sure Elvis would be turning in his grave at the mere thought of such tripe. Dalejenkins 19:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Bryson 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on what I know of Elvis, I'd be extremely surprised if these were really his favourite books. However, that's not why I'm voting to delete. This sort of indiscriminant list is covered by WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one can close early, I think. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it's getting kinda cold in here. This is 100% original research in the form of a bad essay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as total bollocks. Bigdaddy1981 03:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Sheesh. --Charlene 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. 'Nuff said.--JayJasper 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD has left the building Delete! Lugnuts 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to make an article entitled "Trusilver's favo(u)rite books". Is that cool with everyone? But seriously... as much as I hate actually justifying why this needs to be deleted, It is completely uncited, and an A+ candidate for WP:OR.Trusilver 06:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Village (Houston)[edit]

Deletion based on the notion that malls are not inherently notable - There are no features about this mall that sets it above malls. Its the only mall in Texas that houses a Donald J Pliner, but I dont think just that gives it any notability Corpx 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable mall. It's just a high-end strip mall, home to some frou-frou boutiques. It gets a few mentions in reliable sources, but said mentions are all trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the information here. The lists are non-encyclopedic, the tone is that of a press release. But if it's been there for 50 years it might actually be notable & there might well be sources. The article has to talk about it though. No prejudice against recreation of an acceptable sourced article. DGG 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find sources and came up with nothing useful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. No prejudice if that changes in the future. Adrian M. H. 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No original research is more important than notability. There is no evidence presented in this debate that these articles aren't original research, unverifiable with secondary sources. There is also a lack of consensus that these articles (as opposed to the main program page) are actually notable at all. Peter 12:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

3-2-1 Blast Off![edit]

Non notable per WP:EPISODE, I am not redirecting because someone did before me and his redirect was reverted. So I don't want to make the decision on my own, and start an edit war. Jackaranga 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have noticed administrators have contributed to several of these articles, so I prefer a wider opinion please, rather than removing their contributions myself. Jackaranga 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, none contain any references:

and also

Jackaranga 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know how to bundle a category for deletion into an afd like this, can someone please help. Jackaranga 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article establishes it's an episode of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman, therefore it's notable. Matthew 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They don't fit the notability criteria of WP:EPISODE or WP:N and for a show like this, there is no way to improve them. There is a process that you can use in the future instead of going with an AfD. And a side note to Matthew, please, please stop saying that. You know what notability is on this site, and if you really dispute it that much, you really should take it up at WP:N. TTN 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major children's show on a major network. Needs expansion, but no reason to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the show article, as per WP:EPISODE. Totally OR, no valid sources, probably won't be any. Corvus cornix 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe someone should change WP:EPISODE, because it is causing much confusion, especially the phrase that says :

It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available.

In the case of these articles there are no sources, let alone "secondary sources". I really don't understand, on one hand Andrew Lenahan, is saying not only should we keep these articles but also expand them. And on the other hand there was the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes thing, where everyone keeps reverting the redirects back and forth, I'm so confused. Can the administrators here please explain to me simply (and on WP:EPISODE) if possible whether or not it is OK to have each individual episode like this. If you look at Category:ER_episodes you will see there are only 3 episodes listed, even though ER is much better known that this TV series. I would be very grateful for a clear explanation, it is one of these things I don't understand about wikipedia, sometimes the rules seem perfectly clear but it turns out they meant something else, and only apply to certain articles. Sorry for this rant I'm just very confused now. Maybe if someone could write a list of series that are entitled to an article for each episode, I can avoid mistakenly nominating them for deletion.Jackaranga 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add one more:

Jackaranga 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These are a very important collection of articles. Besides, I don't see the American Dragon: Jake Long episodes articles being deleted and their plots are like what, 25 words? [13] And those articles don't have a reference! RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because someone hasn't gotten around to nominating episodes from other shows for deletion, has no bearing on the discussion of this set of episodes. Please explain what makes anything on Wikipedia "important". Corvus cornix 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matthew. - Presidentman 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not going to be possible to make many, or any, of these articles pass WP:V or WP:EPISODE and they are not notable by WP's definition. The episodes are outlined in the series article, which is where they belong.Adrian M. H. 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into tables, one table per season, linked to the main article, just like its done on other TV show articles. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, notability is not transitive. The show may very well be immensely notable. That doesn't mean the individual episodes are. I think we're falling into a severe case of accute ilikeitis. — Coren ^(talk) 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Show is notable, individual episodes are not. Whispe ring 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik A Williams[edit]

I can't find evidence that this person meets the notability guideline; he has appeared in several films, but apparently in very minor roles, and my googling didn't reveal any independent sources, though someone else may find something I've missed. Previous AfD resulted in deletion FisherQueen (Talk) 17:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. The guy is an extra in second-rate movies, so are a thousand other people that fail to meet WP:BIO as well. Trusilver 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:BIO. On a side note, though this is not solely a reason to delete, but it appears the main editor of the page is Erik Williams himself --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's certainly an additional piece of evidence in support of deletion as that it also suggests WP:COI issues. Trusilver 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I sincerely do not want to seem like a jerk but this is seriously ridiculous! I should not have to prove the validity of my being notable to ANYONE nor should anyone else. I realize that the policy of Wikipedia is to keep people from creating vanity pages but I certainly have notable credits on notable productions and no one has thought it necessary to put my page up for deletion until just recently when the D.P. for All Night Production Studios attempted to submit a page for that (perfectly legitimate and notable) company. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to prove that I'm "worthy" of being on wiki but I'll try to throw some things at you here: 1) The film "Abbey of Thelema" (in which I have a supporting role) has an appearance by Ron Jeremy as well. 2) I have a lead as the part of Max in the film "Gameheads" which is now running the national festival circuit (no you won't be able to find it via a google search yet because it's yet to premiere but will very soon and all over the place). 3) Although it was only a part as an extra, I do indeed appear in the party scene in Bruce's mansion in "The Dark Knight." I don't suppose you consider that film to be "second rate" do you? The credit is not yet on IMDB because Warner Bros. wishes to keep the main cast up without extras until closer to the release date. 4) You know who Jason Mewes is don't you? Sure you do. But if you look at his IMDB credits, you'll notice that although he is very notable, all the films he's been in have been "cult films." So if you're using that as your criteria, than either I am perfectly legit or Jason Mewes is most certainly not legit. Thanks for reading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Reply The notability guidelines are here, which explain how we decide which actors we need articles about on the encyclopedia. You and Jason Mewes are both actors in a limited number of cult films. Jason Mewes is notable because many independent nontrivial sources have written about him. If you're as notable as he is, then you have also had independent nontrivial sources who have written about you-- this would be a perfect time to link us to those articles, because that's what is needed to show notability. But the right thing to do would be to allow the article to be deleted, and wait for one of your fans to write an article about you instead; writing an article about yourself is a violation of the conflict of interest guideline. I think I'm pretty awesome, but I would never write an article here about myself; I'll wait until there are enough independent sources for one of my many admirers to write one about me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Per FisherQueen's original nomination, there are no independent sources that assert notability. And you are right that you shouldn't have to defend your own notability because you shouldn't be doing it to begin with. The fact that you have made more than half of the substantive entries into the article is itself proof of a WP:COI problem. Trusilver 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.I personally know Erik A Williams and he is a very reputable actor who, whether you believe it or not, has been in a great number of movies and has had a wide variety of roles. The fact that Erik A Williams has his own Imdb (Internet Movie Database) page makes me wonder how you have the right to delete him out of Wikipedia. If you are suggesting that this page was written by Erik himself, maybe you as an editor and administrator should have taken a better look at this when it was created. I find it a little ironic that his page came up for a possible deletion when he was mentioned in the creation of a film page. I seriously hope that this is not a biased, upcoming encyclopedia, for I think that if word made its way around about this, many people would be skeptical about creating a page for something that may or may not be true.

Multiple, independent, nontrivial sources are the way we verify that information in articles is true. Without such sources, we can't verify that articles are accurate. That's why we don't have articles which don't include reference to multiple, independent, nontrivial sources. That's what keeps us unbiased. You, on the other hand, have not made a single edit which wasn't focused on promoting yourself or your friends. That makes you very deeply biased. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just having an IMDb listing is not proof of notability; heck, even I have an IMDb listing! and I'm certainly not notable enough for an article. --Orange Mike 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply An individual is most certainly capable of writing something from any viewpoint he or she chooses. Check out a novel sometime. That viewpoint can and in this case is unbiased. I really do not like this type of Orwellian oppression that you folks are using.Bethaltohistorian 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)bethaltohistorian[reply]

It sounds like you are not arguing that Erik Williams meets the criteria at WP:BIO, but instead, you are arguing that the criteria themselves are not right, and should be revised. If you want to work on revising the criteria, you should do that on the discussion page at the notability guideline page, not here, where we're just applying the criteria as it now is to an article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)I have added a link to an article in the Alton Telegraph about "Gameheads" and myself. 2)FisherQueen, I understand that you are trying to defend the policies of Wiki but seriously, don't you dare start circling around our discussion here with easy, , vague, blaise statements like "If you want to work on revising the criteria, you should do that on the discussion page...etc." You and me both know this isn't about the what wiki should or shouldn't change. It's about denying people the right to have their work on here just because they're not Tom Cruise or Nicole Kidman. I'm sorry but that's bullsh** and you know it!(Talk) 17:50 28 June 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the link. Erik Williams is only mentioned once, very incidentally, quite late in the article. Has anyone ever written an article about Erik Williams? Are there two or three articles that have Williams as their primary subject? Do you seriously think that Tom Cruise wrote the article about himself- or that he's pleased with what it says? -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more links: 1 from the producer/co-director of Abbey of Thelema and my publicity page on my IMDB profile.

Those are both PR, not writing from independent sources. Has any newspaper or magazine on the planet ever written an article about you? -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many newspaper articles that I have been the subject of from all over the place but only the two that are listed on my publicity page on my IMDB profile have had links online. The one for The Telegraph is the only one that still currently exists online. If you go to my IMDB profile, though, you will see the proof of the article in the Centralia Sentinel dated April 20, 2007 by Monica Seals.

Now we're talking. Even if your sources aren't available online, I've seen people upload scanned versions to verify notability. You'll need more than just the one, but if there are many, many articles, just choose the two or three that best explain why you're an important and significant actor to scan, stick them on free web space somewhere, and link here to it. I understand that'll probably take you a day or two, and that's fine; nobody's going to close this tonight, I think. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the news articles I have are at my permanent address in Centralia, IL and I cannot retrieve them until at least the first week of next month because I am currently on location in Edwardsville, IL filming the indie feature "Jealousy."

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note that this editor has made the same comment on every article nominated for deletion on the 28th. Plus, with the fact that he was making one comment every minute or so, it suggests he wasn't reading the article and the afd's before making the comment. but rather basing it only on an inclusionary agenda which is counterproductive to reaching consensus. His last edit was two minutes before this one... I'm a fast reader but I can't read an article , check references, read the AfD and do everything neccessary to make a qualified decision on an AfD in ten times that much time.Trusilver 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am wondering why this warning of deletion came up after his name was mentioned on the failure to launch a page for a film. ANPS Cinematographer 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer[reply]

Reply. Just because an article about someone who is entirely non-notable managed to avoid detection for a while doesn't mean he gains de facto notability. I was wondering why I have noticed two new accounts formed in the last 12 hours whose entire purpose "just happens" to be to argue about this AfD. Trusilver 07:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, See Also WP:FISHING. There are hundreds of articles here at Wikipedia that don't meet relevant policies and guidelines but nobody has gotten around to reviewing them yet.--Isotope23 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Aside from the major conflict of interest, I see no non-trivial independent third-party sources yet, and the subject simply does not pass WP:BIO. Having an IMDB page connotes absolutely, positively, NO assertion of notability whatsoever. The third key grip on a 1932 movie will have an IMDB entry. Actors whose only credits are "Man in Car" have IMDB entries. People with no credits at all have IMDB entries. --Charlene 07:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charlene. According to IMDb, the subject has had only one of his movies released yet, and that one went direct to video without a general commercial release. His only other credits in released projects are one episode of a television comedy and an appearance on a talk show. He may have a lot of movies coming in the future, but either those films are not established as notable yet, or he is only an extra in them (as is the case for The Dark Knight), or possibly both. The reason he has an IMDb page but should not have a Wikipedia page yet is that the IMDb and Wikipedia are different types of works with different criteria for inclusion, as explained by Charlene. --Metropolitan90 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is missing here is multiple, non-trivial coverage of the subject per our biographical article inclusion guidelines. I'd wager a guess that the subject has a very good chance of meeting the guidelines in the future, but right now this article is premature per said guideline.--Isotope23 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If you think that he is on his way to becoming eligible, you might as well leave him and forget this stupid headache. If you delete the article, it will eventually just come back. Don't be stupid. If he's not famous yet, someday everyone will know the name Erik A Williams! Twfora 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's only contributions have been to a deleted article about the company producing Williams's current film. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I was Erik A Williams, I would not be worried about having an account on Wikipedia. While in school, I was given the task to write a number of research papers all with NOTABLE sources in my Works Cited page. The criteria for this was to use books, encyclopedias, and the internet. The one thing that I found was that everyone one of my teachers would not allow other students or myself to use .com sites or Wikipedia because it was not NOTABLE enough. So when administrators try to argue whether or not each individual entry is NOTABLE enough or not, maybe they should instead look at the reason and/or reasons why they themselves are not NOTABLE enough to be considered relevant for sources of important writings.ANPS Cinematographer 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer[reply]

Comment. I find it fascinating that four of the user names that have taken part in this AfD have had absolutely no contribution to Wikipedia except for promoting this non-notable actor and two of them seem to have been created for the sole purpose of objecting. I certainly wonder why that is. Trusilver 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find it facscinating that you, Trusilver, have nothing better to do than bash me and the people trying to help me. Whether some just created a profile or not, there are people coming to my aid which is quite the opposite of "smelling of a problem." I have friends, colleagues, and peers in the industry who are willing to defend me because they have no doubt that I am more than "notable." I am not trying to be vain, I am not trying to simply "get my way" or anything of the sort. Some things are justifiable simply because they are what they are. I am important and deserving of a wiki entry whether I have one credit or a million "non-notable" credits. The fact that I have people coming to my aid should prove that. This is not simply my opinion. It is an immovable fact, beyond policy, by-laws, or terms of service. It is right and just and far beyond what any of you can argue, discuss, or fight about. I hope each and every one of you know what it is to feel insignificant, to know that your life means diddly squat to every other person on the planet. Only then can you understand what I'm talking about. If you think you've experienced that, think again, because to know that feeling is to stop arguing to have me off wiki and to let me have my page the way it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Are you serious? I was going to try and defend E. Williams after I saw his post on myspace asking his friends to help save his Wikipedia page, but after reading all these arguments, I'm afraid I now have to disagree. Your acting like the admins. of Wikipedia are personally attacking you or something. I mean, look sure you've done a lot of stuff and I know you're trying to make it all, so go DO THAT instead of spending all this time and energy with this stupid argument. This is not a personal attack against you, you are not some kind of martyr, this wikipedia page is not going to make you a better actor or advance your career, it is just another thing for you to list on your resume. Big deal. Is your self-esteem so low that you need verification from a stupid website to validate your existence as a person or an actor? If so, them maybe THAT's something you should work on. If you want to be "notable", then go out and SHOW them you are, rather than whining and trying to convince them you are. Come on Erik, you're better than that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runrabbit (talk • contribs)

He is "notable" now, look at the Hollywood Reporter Production Charts. "Jealousy" is there, and he is one of the two main actors. Look also at the two other articles cited at the bottom of his page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.31.4 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sourcing Reviews from hometown papers are not exactly reliable sources for articles like this; notes or passing comments in articles are not significant either. This isn't the rule for this article alone, it's the rule for every article. I recognize that people with many smaller roles may not get large notices, but it is necessary to show that someone authoritative enough to get published in a reliable source does think that you are important and says something to show it.DGG 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow...Whoever wrote the article about Erik making himself notable makes me laugh..I think he or she should go back and read what they wrote. You are trying to tell Erik to go make himself notable, yet it is obvious that he already is. Also, I never saw that posting of Erik's so-called " cry for help" and so yea, maybe I am just a third-party person coming to defend someone who I believe should be given the chance to be on this site. No, Erik's life and career does not depend on this page but then again what does it hurt if it's on here. The purpose, as I thought it was, is to build up an account of more things in more categories than any other encyclopedia out there. If all these administrators seek out and take off pages they don't see as "Notable," then what are the chances of building up the information. Erik is not the biggest deal in the world but neither are you and therefore I do not believe you have the right to take him off if you are no better than he is. First rule...don't judge others!!! Another thing, if you really want to build up your information stockpile, I would consider being a little nicer because when people, such as Erik, do make it big in the world and start having things written about him, I think that he will remember what he went through and deny others the ability to post something about him on your site. Like the saying, "what goes around comes around" and if you don't watch yourself, this may come around and bite you later on. Just a word of wisdom. ANPS Cinematographer 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ANPS Cinematographer[reply]

To those of you who have fought against me, thank you, I have now possibly lost two friends because of your ignorance. To those of you who have fought alongside me, thank you, for you do not realize how honorable you have been. My final thought is this: I'm done fighting. Delete me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs)

Right now, I'm going to quote rule 12 of the Simplified Ruleset:

Ignore all rules - rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. When a rule seems wrong, and it prevents you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia, ignore it.Bethaltohistorian 08:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)

The Woodlands Mall[edit]

Up for deletion based on the notion that malls, unlike high schools, are not inherently notable. Also, being "one of the largest" malls in a city does not give it any more notability than any other building that might be "one of the largest" of its kind in a given city Corpx 17:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. 40,300 ghits, but it doesn't cite anything and is a substub. If anyone and expand it and establish notability, weak keep.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No valid assertion of notability Lurker 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dalejenkins 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rewrote the article, adding much more information. It's still a stub, but notability is now established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The size of a mall should not be criteria for inclusion. This would mean any building above <arbitrary size> would be notable among the buildings in the same category. Any police station bigger than __-sqft would be notable and any firehouse that houses more than __ firetrucks would be notable or any jail that has more than ___ cells would be notable. I think the inclusion criteria for malls should be based more on History/ultimate size (biggest in the state/nation)/attractions and similiar factors. Corpx 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have put that comment in the wrong place. Personally, I agree with you, that malls of a certain size aren't inherently notable -- but I believe that the article now sufficiently states notability beyond square footage (e.g. first Vans store in Houston, children's museum, 1.4 mile waterway in outdoor section, etc. etc.). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the stores/officies a mall houses should be a reason to consider a mall notable. However, I think having the waterway of that kind makes it unique and sets it apart from other malls. Thanks for expanding the article. I'll withdraw this nomination tomorrow, so anyone who wants to leave comments can do so. Corpx 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the bar for auto-notability is super-regional, either way, TenPound's rewrite fits. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Most of the actual news coverage of the existence of the mall seems to be endless repetitions of press releases. Is there anything else to say?--Pleasantville 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, neither malls nor high schools are intrinsically notable. To a certain extent notability of malls does correlate with size--the largest ones are likely to have the most public attention and consequently notable events & features and acceptable sources. This is over the bar. DGG 00:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you; however, this is not one of the largest malls in the nation. Corpx 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's aware of that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolson's Cafe[edit]

Non-noteable and unsourced cafe. JK Rowling wrote some of a book there once, big deal. Dalejenkins 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Aside from the JK Rowling reference, this place is no more notable than the gas station down the street from my house. Trusilver 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete places that have some tangential connection with somebody notable doing a little bit of notable thing there doesn't necessarily become notable. If they turn the place into a museum for JK Rowling, and lots of WP:RSes cover that, come back. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The lack of references is a serious problem, (surely easy to fix) but the cafe itself is considerably more notable than a great deal that escapes deletion eslewhere in this encyclopedia. I don't think writing Harry Potter is simply 'a little bit of notable thing' even for non-fans. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Cafe was quite notable in Edinburgh for it's connection with Rowling. I've seen it mentioned in a few articles about her. See this article from The Scotsman. Leith p 12:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure that there's a gas station off the freeway that J.K. Rowling once took a leak at. Is it notable? Because that's the only thing which gives this place any notability at all. It is an absolutely unremarkable place. Trusilver 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a petrol station toilet where someone wrote one of the best selling books of all time, then yeah, it would be notable. Leith p 17:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being serious though, I would happily change my position to support if she had written the majority of the story there. The truth is though that this is a business which doesn't even exist anymore where J.K. Rowling wrote an unspecified part of her first book. There are masses of authors that wrote their first book in poverty and I really enjoy reading the stories about them, but that doesn't mean that the place she wrote part of her first book warrants anything other than a mention in her own article. Trusilver 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Unless sources are added to show it received truely remorkable attention as a result of Rowling's work there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD. -- Leith p 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into J. K. Rowling or Harry Potter. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep For its connection to a very notable series of books Lurker (talk · contribs) 15:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - umpteen cafes lay claim to HP, including the Elephant House. --MacRusgail 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to HP connection. The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Herald write about the connection. [14] [15]--Oakshade 14:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't warrant its own article. The cafes with HP connections are already mentioned in other articles. Lurker (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chosson[edit]

The result was DELETE has already been sent to the transwiki queue at wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or translation tool, and an article on Jewish views of marriage is more encyclopedic than a single sentence/dictionary definition on a foreign language term.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Hebrew/English dictionary. Chesdovi 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--DLand ^TALK 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify - so tagged. The Evil Spartan 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is a transwiki even appropriate for this entry? As a Hebrew word, its main entry in Wiktionary should be in the Hebrew alphabet. I couldn't find a clear explanation of Wiktionary's policy on this. --Metropolitan90 07:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. There are special laws concerning a Chosson in halacha, which should be mentioned in this article. If not, then the article is merely translating a dictionary term and should only be transwikied or deleted. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bridegroom on the en wp, Hatan on the he wp, 'Chosson' can go to the yi wp. --Shuki 07:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand per Rachak --Shuliavrumi 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect - What little there is belongs in Jewish views of marriage—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already transwikied. theProject 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content.--Sefringle^Talk 06:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Elipongo GabrielF 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content and this is not a ditionary. --Jayrav 03:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ResCom[edit]

Another WP:WALL like PSU organization. The computer support organization of a university is not notable of its own encyclopedia entry The Evil Spartan 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. I reject the blanket assertion that "the computer support organization of a university is not notable" but this article does not present any real evidence establishing that this particular organization is notable. --ElKevbo 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ElKevbo. Perhaps this article deserves a bilp in the Pennsylvania State University article, but there is nothing here that established notability by itself. Trusilver 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- every college has such a system. Otherwise, merge with the parent article. Bearian 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as a POV fork/original synthesis. --Core desat 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling[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)).

This article was created by Libertycookies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after extensive discussions at J. K. Rowling, in which most of the content is already there and other content was deleted on the basis of violation of WP:OR. The article was previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_and_influences_of_J.K._Rowling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork and merge any useful content to J. K. Rowling as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Jossi. Utterly obvious WP:OR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on this article is well cited and from legitimate sources. user: Jossi is advocating for the deletion of this material for unknown personal reasons. user:Jossi originally claimed this was a POV fork, apparantly on the mistaken belief that it is meant to confuse people with the biography J. K. Rowling. A main article link has been added to redirect any people searching for the more general biography. This article is merely a longer article on Rowling's influence and activism than would be appropriate in the main biography. user:Jossi has also engaged in an intimidation campaign to suppress information on Rowling's liberal views and activism suggesting that this may be politically motivated. The content user: Jossi claims as WP:OR is well documented and from legitimate sources indicating that his OR claim has no basis in fact. An indication of user:Jossi's bias is shown in his attempt to compare Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling with the new article Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling which has no WP:OR and is NPOV, and has been well received by unbiased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertycookies (talk • contribs)

Retain article as it is a more concise summary of all of J. K. Rowling's well documented political activities and moral writings. As everything is well sourced, there is no damage by keeping the information available for other editors to build upon., Add link in main article to Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling, Remind User:Jossi of his responsibilities as an admin to remain unbiased. Libertycookies 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and redirect then protect POV fork, OR, major WP:OWN issues. It's a personal blog post on Wikimedia servers. Lurker 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename to Influence of, activism is not releavnt as a title, SqueakBox 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Libertycookies appears to be indulging in canvassing. I thought people should know Lurker 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be quite an understatement. Libertycookies has canvassed all over the place: KnowledgeOfSelf, Jreferee, Andysoh, Bigdaddy1981, SqueakBox, Tony1, Etcetc, yet another blatant violation of the rules. Aula ^TPN 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that seems a little out of the time sequence. But to clarify it is roughly the same amount of Canvassing by Seren back when he rallied folks originally. No telling if he ever got email working to be more covert in canvassing. Aula, you seem to have a personal vendetta. Get over it and just discuss the content. Libertycookies 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, hence my being here, SqueakBox 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Lurker, just to clarify, I learned the technique from user:Serendipodous who recruited user:Jossi and other commenters to rally against my content based on their definition of OR and POV. Doesn't look like the process is frowned upon, just controversial, but I think we should have a fair debate. You okay with that, or should only the negative position be allowed to canvass?Libertycookies 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with people asking admins for help, which is what Serendipodous actually did Lurker 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are okay with 1 of the solicits, but you don't like the majority of his calls for backup. Libertycookies 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What calls for backup? The only one engaging in WP:CANVASS is you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Serendipodous merely asked for support in policing the unsourced edits you were making to the main article in order to keep it compliant with WP:BLP Aula ^TPN 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only clarifying the slander. Anytime you wish to stop spinning the prior actions it would be appreciated. Libertycookies 19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, the calls for backup are the ones that AulaTPN is attempting to defend. I think he contacted you as well because he found you to be sympathetic to his views. Check your talk page if you don't remember. Libertycookies 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertycookies, it might not be a bad idea to take a step back and breathe. Your comments are unconstructive and are borderline personal attacks. Wikipedia functions on consensus, not on intimidation or grandstanding. There is no need for rhetoric or soapboxing on either side, the system will work as it's supposed to. Trusilver 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt this time. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for JK Rowling to spout off her numerous political opinions. And by the way Libertycookies, the only person I see that is being deliberately POV is you. Trusilver 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jossi appears to be trying to keep impartial comments on the deletion of this article by deleting links to the article from the main page. Makes the whole POV Fork seem less credible. Libertycookies 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it this time as you can well see. I did so because it violates so many policies and has no place being associated with article. Again, try not to make ad hominem attacks and also try not to assume you can read the motives behind other people's actions. Aula ^TPN 18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete & Protect. This is Libertycookies (talk · contribs) second attempt to circumvent consensus. Last time resulted in a blatant circumvention of AfD as the user merged the content into the main J. K. Rowling article, hence my vote for protection. Material is almost entirely OR, violates WP:BLP and is a blatant attempt at quote-mining and POV pushing. Aula ^TPN 18:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, looking at this user's contribs, the account seems to be virtually a single purpose account, only making edits which relate to the supposed political & social influences of J. K. Rowling as per the user's research. Aula ^TPN 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No doubt about it in my mind, this is clearly OR. Blueboar 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Clear attempt at circumventing previous article deletion and consensus to remove similar content on J.K. Rowling. Also violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete & protect -- reposting of previously deleted content, violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. If this article is deleted, as it should be, Libertycookies needs to be sternly warned to adhere to our content policies and to stop POV-forking. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Jossi. Other well-known artists support many causes, and their activist activities are included in their main bios. I see no reason this case should be different. The most notable examples should be merged into the Rowling bio. -Jmh123 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The unencyclopedic part is the WOMBAT tests; the remained is sourced. I see no BLP issues--it describes where she stands on public issues basedon her own public statements. DGG 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOMBAT removed and added to talk. There are other sources and quotes that describe her politics in the books which would be less contentious. Libertycookies 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content that is well sourced is already incorporated at J. K. Rowling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for all the reasons the previous version of this article was deleted. This is an attempt to fork off material from the main page because it has been rejected there. Unacceptable. --Haemo 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a little of what is in this section into J.K. Rowling and delete the rest. The first half of the article is not encyclopaedic (nor relevant to the title). Some of the second half is over-detailed: not everything done by a notable person becomes noteworthy. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 06:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Main article already covers this topic well, no need for a POV fork. CWC 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Christianity" section has been merged with Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series and the "Human rights and civil rights" section has been merged with Works analogous to Harry Potter. Apart from that, the only section in this article that isn't in the main article (aside from the WOMBATs, which everyone seems to agree should be deleted) is "Maggie's Centres for cancer patients", and that could be merged with "Other donations" or given its own subsection in Charities. Serendipodous 09:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Serendipodous and Jossi point out, little if any of this material is OR. The article merely consolidates related material that is spread out on several differant articles and sections to allow the reader to make cohesive sense of the topic. It is my intention to go into greater detail, with approved quotes and hopefully other editor contributions, than would be appropriate in the main article, which should be a more cursory look at her influence.

Rowling's influence as a writer is significantly greater than other writers due to her widespread popularity, which is why the significance of the books should be acknowledged.Libertycookies 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But virtually all this info is already in various articles so why is this article necessary? Serendipodous 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An equally valid question is why is it necessary to delete it and keep the information scattered and diffuse? Being in favor of making things easy for the reader who is interested in Rowling's influence and activism, I think it should be consolidated.

Also since the material is sometimes contentious, I think the talk should be moved from the main J. K. Rowling site to an article dedicated to the subject. Stamp the whole article as in dispute if you must, but why is it necessary to limit discussion and snuff it out immediately? Libertycookies 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. It's an encyclopedia. One person's take on JK Rowling's career (yours) isn't a valid topic for an article. You could write it in a magazine, or a blog, or a news piece, or an editorial, but not here.

Plus you make a number of odd and flat out contradictory claims. Your line "There is a lot of politics in Harry Potter" is sourced by Rowling saying "There is a certain amount of political stuff in there. But I also feel that every reader will bring his own agenda to the book. People who send their children to boarding schools seem to feel that I'm on their side. I'm not. Practicing wiccans think I'm also a witch. I'm not." In other words, there is very little overt politics in the books, and people will read their own politics into her work. Which, by the way, appears to be exactly what you have done. Serendipodous 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with some editorial Comments: If any encyclopedic material remains in the POV-Fork that does not appear in the Main J.K. Rowling article, then merge that information back in. The original consensus back at the J.K. Rowling talk page called for LibertyCookies to produce a simple paragraph or two of some basic sourced material regarding Rowling's notable and documented political leanings. That permissive mandated that any such material must NOT contain any sort of POV, Original Research, point-making or, in particular, Argument Synthesis. But the material inevitably consisted of mostly synthesis and point-making, eg: Rowling is or was in some way associated with a Person or other Entity, or read their work, or contributed to it, or wrote about it, (etc.), and such Person or Entity is a known or suspected to be associated with some political affiliation "X" or "Y" , therefore (implicitely) Rowling is also "X" and "Y". It may well be that Rowling is a Socialist/Communist/Marxist/Fascist/Leftist/Laborist/Environmentalist/Satanist/Whatever, and if so and it can be sourced, then state that and be done with it. One paragraph and done. There is absolutely no cause for producing a laundry list of indirect tie-ins between Rowling and her alleged political leanings or sympathies, via her associations. Find a reliable source that quotes Rowling as saying "Yes I am a Socialist and contribute to the Green Party" or whatever, and then leave it. Done. Keep it simple and it will be accepted as encyclopedic. Dragging it out with 12 paragraphs of possible links between Rowling and "X" and "Y" and therefore Rowling = "XY" is unacceptable. And attempting to use her tongue-in-cheek "in-(HP)-universe" WOMBAT quiz, which she posted for amusement on her web site, as "evidence" of her political leanings, is really just sad. It is the sort of thing that is leading the nearly-snow drive to stamp this thing out once and for all. That said, I believe there is room for a paragraph or two in Rowling's article about her documented politics and beliefs. There is no need for an article which constituted a POV Fork. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, claiming to understand why Rowling posted the WOMBAT test is your POV. The test merely showed that the books have political content in them, and the article did not attempt to analyze what, if any, real world analogies exist. The article didn't claim any tie ins with any of her charities or activities to her politics, and if any Right wing associations exist they should certainly be added. Libertycookies 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I would agree that we can post a simple list (in the Main J.K. Rowling article), carefully avoiding any POV commentary and OR synthesis about her possible motivations, of the Causes that Rowling specifically mentions support for on her web site or elsewhere. This list could include: Thinness ("For Girls Only"), One-parent families, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Scotland, Amnesty International, Cage Beds, Missing Madeline McCann, Children's Voice campaign, even bullied children and perhaps Thin Girls and Fat Boys if you want to go there. I'm sure there are additional published reliable sources for other causes she has advocated, which can then be added to the list. When compeleted, I think a bullet-pointed list, without editorial comment, of the 10 or 12 causes she has expressed support for would be sufficient to cover that. The second paragraph can be a quote or two where Rowling clearly expresses her political leanings and religious beliefs as expressed in her interviews or elsewhere. That should be sufficient for documenting her activism and personal politics, in my view. You have to understand this problem was kicked off with previous commentary that expressed or implied things like "Rowling supports Anarchy in her books and elsewhere", based on: 1) the OOtP movie poster says "The Revolution Begins", and 2) the Hogwarts Students took matters into their own hands in terms of DADA training (etc.) when Dumbledore's "benevolent dictatorship" as Headmaster is circumvented and replaced by Umbridge's "non-benevolant and fascist dictatorship" or whatever. Everything since has descended and snowballed from that sort of nonsense. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 11:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, and I agree that my prior article was way over the top and warranted deletion. I realize that there is a certain amount of prejudice against my contributions because of my prior mistakes. I am hopeful that more people will get over the ad hominem attacks and debate the current material not the contributor. Libertycookies 12:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concede majority rules, delete it. I'll add the content that is unique to the main article. Thanks to the few people who noted the content wasn't all OR and was well sourced. Wag of the finger at those who engaged in ad hominem attacks and apologies for following suit. Libertycookies 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wag of the finger...? Normally I don't go in for troll-feeding but you're the one making personal attacks and the fact that you can still make such comments and make claims such as in your response to T-dot just shows how little you understand/care about what wikipedia is about and what the editing community are trying to do. Other editors and I have given you links to all the relevant policies countless times but I'm starting to seriously doubt whether you've even bothered to read any of them? Aula ^TPN 23:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:OR, plus for WP:N, Rowling's political opinions not in themselves being notable for an article. — BillC ^talk 23:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, from the Telegraph review of the new Order of the Phoenix movie: "It is hard not to look for hidden meanings as the fight turns political. Harry knows Voldemort is back, but the Minister of Magic blindly insists that he isn't. Subservient media obediently echo ministerial spin against Harry."[16] Libertycookies 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean this stuff desrves its own article, though Lurker 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean it deserves to be deleted. Uninteresting and unnecessary articles should be allowed to die from neglect and lack of interest, not by abortion. Libertycookies 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, things just don't work that way when WP:BLP is involved. Aula ^TPN 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. ArchStanton 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork--Sefringle^Talk 02:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by an amused reader: there's section on how she successfully pressed government of the Czech Republic against caged beds in mental institutions. While this is true it is only half of truth: the decision was widely ridiculed in the country (like whether some child book writer is our new ruler), the minister who made it soon lost his place, the decision itself was partly reverted, president of the country sent R. complaning letter, few months ago R., visiting the Czech Rep., apologised for the pressure. The complete story feels like a comedy by someone very talented, the current short section is painting only one-side of it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phroth[edit]

This is a non-notable magazine that is published at Penn State. While I think it's a lovely and funny magazine, it's published by a non-notable fraternity (well, perhaps notable, but not of a Wikipedia entry) - it's a magazine we only see bi-annually. The Evil Spartan 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student activity at a single school. The opening sentence "Phroth is one of over 600 recognized student organizations at the University Park campus..." Sort of illustrates how unreasonable it would be for all such student groups to have articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comment. Nothing notable about it. Adrian M. H. 22:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo jewelry[edit]

Reads like an advert. Was previously speedily deleted as spam. There is nothing about this reposted article to suggest any different intention to the original deleted article. I Suggest deletion and protection Lurker 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam created by spa Ntourism. -- RHaworth 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad, but allow for recreation, there is most definitely an article with this title waiting to be written. Corvus cornix 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only thing that is stopping this article from being complete adspam is an external link to a commercial site. Trusilver 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and agree that we should not salt this, as the same title can easily apply to a different, legitimate subject matter. Adrian M. H. 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but agree with Corvus cornix and Adrian M. H. on recreation with legitimate (non-ad) info. Oregongirl0407 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete - sockpuppet's hoax page.-Wafulz 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless / The Morning Zoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Speechless / The Morning Zoo

Hoax article about an episode of Naruto that doesn't exist. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per (1) DGG's argument, which most everyone seems to accept; and (2) the improvements to the article since it was nominated. Non-admin closure because it's not controversial and we have a backlog today. Shalom ^Hello 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clément Gosselin[edit]

Delete. Subject is not more notable than any other of 20,000 revolutionary soldiers. If him, why not the whole officer corps? Interesting bio, but looks like somebody's ancestor. In other words, this is s genealogy page for somebody.Student7 11:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes, he was somebody's ancestor, as are most historical figures who didn't die in childhood. But the suspicious-looking link to the family web page is actually to a transcript of the entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biiogrtaphy So the main source for this is Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which we have accepted before as evidence of notability, as with those for other countries. (I admit that their standards seem a little more flexible than the oxford DNB) Based on their article,"Thus from the summer of 1778 until the summer of 1780 Gosselin returned secretly to the colony a number of times, spreading the rumour that an invasion by the Congressional armies was imminent and that this time they would be accompanied by French regiments.." He seems to have been a notable spy. The article, in apparently machine-translated French, does not really show the notability clearly. (It leaves to a footnote that he figured in a major CBC series)DGG
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. I liked the article. Callelinea 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you like something doesn't mean we should have an article on it. So you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - KEEP First of all thank you Callelinea and DGG for your support :-). As for Morgan and Student7, I totally agree with you that I'm not objective. But I let people correct me and I don't argue when they do. The 2nd Canadian Regiment article was done by an Army Captain currently in Irak, others people are investigating french canadian in the West during the revolution. Comments I get are that this is interesting. I totally agree that my pages are not perfect yet and that I need your help. And if you keep this one page I will put all information about his spy activity. This spy action was important because it made the British stayed in quebec fearing an attack. Clément was also a founding member of the Order of Cincinati with Steuben. So he was not an ordinary soldier. Clément repport was ask by congress and sent to Georges Washington, he did not just spread rumor (even if those action did a lot to worried Haldimand) but he also provided many information on the state of the British in the North (we still have is repport in the Washington paper). They also built a military road to worried the British in the North. As for point of view I agree that this regiment is hard to name. Were they american, canadian, french ? He was much more then just a spy, he was a recruting agent for 2 regiment in Quebec. Contributing to Saratoga and Brandywine actions. for the Family bio it's true that the link is a copy, I'll remove it if you keep the article. Coming into Quebec when you are notoriously not welcome is the stuff that James Bond was doing :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etienne2007 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Officer of no particular distinction. Even as a spy, he isn't notable. Spreading rumors? Not exactly James Bond or Mata Hari. Clarityfiend 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am willing to concede that inclusion in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography = Sufficiently notable for people of Gosselin's vintage - heck, people with some selection criteria selected him to write about and wrote about him nearly 200 years after he died, this is more than a flash in the pan (or media spotlight were this guy just dead and the "scandal" of his career splashed across the press). Carlossuarez46 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Dictionary of Canadian Biography is relatively select in whom it features. This man is notable enough that scholars are writing about him 200 years after he died, which makes me think he passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 05:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Perrine[edit]

I'm not satisfied that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. The article does make two claims of notability; namely, that Perrine is "part of the team" that helped her station win some awards. However, without knowing her precise involvement, it's not possible to say whether her role was at all notable. Apart from the awards, there's no evidence that she's the subject of multiple, independent published works. Finally, this article was created and authored entirely by a WP:SPA who is likely Perrine herself (see Image:Final Perrine Shannon .jpg for the admission) which leads one to suspect WP:COI issues. —Psychonaut 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does assert notability, and she appears to be notable, although a fan (relative by affinity?) seems to be editing the article. However, all WP:POV and WP:COI statements must be removed ASAP. See also at WP:COIN for further discussion. Bearian 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Assertions of notability" are not grounds for keeping, merely for not speedy deleting. Corvus cornix 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, you are correct! Bearian 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:BIO. Videmus Omnia 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it asserts notability clearly enough, but as Corvus says, that's just the condition for avoiding speedy, not for keeping the article. Her role at WTEA may possibly have been significant for the award, since she was an anchor at the time. (Amid all the irrelevant stuff abut her ancestors, the article does not mention the actual award--from the Murrow web site [17] , it was the 2004 National award for Continuing Coverage,TV large market: WTAE-TV, Pittsburgh: "Hepatitis Outbreak.")
Weak KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please discuss the merits of this article. Corvus cornix 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even her article on WTEA's site doesn't assert any notability. Clarityfiend 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local talking heads are rarely notable, she's no exception. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this article, and I am not Ms. Perrine. I am not a fan or relative either. This article is simply my first foray into wikipedia authorship. I gathered the information by corresponding with Ms. Perrine, and I also got the picture from her. If I have mischaracterized the ownership of the picture, I am happy to correct that. As for meeting Wikipedia:Notability, I am trying to assemble that additional information at this time. Gmanhoobie 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhan[edit]

There is no indication why this group should pass WP:MUSIC ; in particular, I did not find any albums they released, or tours they had. PROD was contested in June 06 with comment: "prod wasn't mentioned in edit summary + Google results in English/Latin alphabet may not be enough to establish non-notability of a Bengali band". I tried to address this concern by involving WikiProject India, but this did not turn up any relevant data either. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a google search and found no evidence that the band exists in the first sixty hits. This link [18] doesn't really seem like the same band. The article doesn't mention any discography but "Reiki Music for Healing" doesn't seem like the work of these guys--the article would have us believe that they like to rock. I think Uppland's argument in removing the prod (mentioned above, in the nom) only makes sense up to a certain point--articles have to be verifiable and this one doesn't offer any sources. Darkspots 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Darkspots 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the same paucity of relevant results, and it certainly fails WP:MUSIC based on available information. Adrian M. H. 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealist groups[edit]

Not an article, but a list. The external links section is a link farm, and there are concerns about the notability of some of the groups with Wikipedia articles. The article is getting edit warring by rival artists, if you can believe that. (I know, edit warring is not a valid rationale for deletion.) Whatever useful purpose this article/list serves can be accomplished by creating Category:Surrealist groups. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree 100% with --Akhilleus. The article serves no purpose except as a link farm and an opportunity for Eric W.Bragg, who is Wikipedia user TEXTURE SAVANT to promote his friends in surrealist groups that are non-notable and whose articles were already voted for deletion by an overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community. I do not want to engage in an edit war with Eric W.Bragg, (TEXTURE SAVANT), he has his own website, SURREALCOCONUT.COM to promote his friends. Wikipedia is NOT the place for online promotion. These are blogs, not notable groups, just more promotion. Delete.Madsurrealist 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Madsurrealist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Delete If a new article is created Category:Surrealist groups with these important links, then I am okay with deleting the present article. Akhilleus, if you bother to check these links, you will learn that they are to valid websites for current surrealist groups. Not a linkfarm.

Let it be known that this user Madsurrealist is really another sockpuppet of Keith Wigdor, who was also busted recently for having a multitude of sockpuppets a few months ago (Classicjupiter2) Here is the proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2

Madsurrealist/Classicjupiter2/Keith Wigdor has fought all along for the removal of these groups just because he couldn't have his own vanity article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Wigdor

IF KEITH WIGDOR CAN'T HAVE HIS OWN NAME AND WEBSITE MENTIONED IN WIKIPEDIA, THEN NOBODY ELSE CAN EITHER. Such is Wigdor's infantile mindset.

Therefore, Keith Wigdor's motive is entirely self-serving and nothing but a case of sour grapes.--TextureSavant 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the merits of this article, not the motivations of the person nominating it. It will be up to those who participate in this discussion to decide whether the article merits retention. Making personal attacks just damages your cause. Explain why the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Corvus cornix 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about surrealist groups might have at least a fighting chance, but one that's just a list of external links? No way. Covered in WP:NOT a web guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penguinate. (Er, delete.) Already covered by Category:Surrealist groups. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Zetawoof. Saganaki- 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Surrealism#Surrealist groups and anything that should be ext-linked to Surrealism#External links. Then redirect to either the 1st merge-target or the category. Seems obvious. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and m:Mergism. --Quiddity 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The real surrealist groups of 1930s would be interesting, the current linsking is just spam. Pavel Vozenilek 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on some of the links and they don't even work. Some sites have been removed offline.Madsurrealist 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abi Nixon[edit]

Article about minor character in a series who has yet to make her debut. I PRODded the article but the tag was removed without discussion. I believe the information should be merged into The Bill article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been renamed. I have ProDded the renamed article so suggest this AfD is halted. Not sure if I should simply delete this whole section - advice please? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The re-named article has been deleted. Precious Roy 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee heritage groups[edit]

AfDs related to this topic:

Spin-off article (POV Fork?) from debate at Talk:Cherokee, but no evidence that such thing exists. 0 ghits. Non-notable organizations of this type seem to have websites, such as this Cherokee heritage msn group. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second nomination, previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee Heritage Groups.

At the articles talk page, we can read that the article was formed based on the following statement:

"There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation (the one based here in Tahlequah, at the W.W. Keeler Tribal Complex).

"Only three are federally recognized, but the other groups run the gamut of intent. Some are basically heritage groups – people who have family with Cherokee heritage who are interested in the language and culture, and we certainly encourage that," said Miller. "But the problem is when you have groups that call themselves ‘nation,’ or ‘band,’ or ‘tribe,’ because that implies governance."

Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or de-POV. This sure looks like a POV fork, and as such I lean towards deletion. On the other hand, the subject of persons/groups who identify as Cherokee but are not recognized as such by the Cherokee Nation or the U.S. government seems like a valid encyclopedic topic, so if it's possible to make this an NPOV article, spun out from Cherokee in compliance with summary style (and perhaps with a different title like Cherokee identity), then I could be persuaded that it should be kept. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee identity was deleted as a POV Fork of this a couple days ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee identity. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would preclude the creation of a new Cherokee identity that wasn't a POV fork. It looks like the ongoing mediation at Talk:Cherokee is probably the best place to determine whether there should be a sub-article on this topic, and what the contents and titles of those articles should be. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a ways into the process of creating just such a page, and agree that there's no conflict between the pages, or need for POV forking. The old article could hardly even be assailed as original research; it was so devoid of sourcing or verifiability that you'd never be able to tell what was original. But it need not be that way. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is Original Research claiming non-Indians are indians. Nominator refuses to comply with the terms of a previously decided arbitration. This article was created to attempt to provide a place for these types of materials to exist. Since the nominator has stated they will continue to oppose adherence with Wikipedia Policies and Federal Laws in this area, and continues to place unverifiable original research into our project claiming non-Indians are Indians, deletion and removal of all such materials seems the best course. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - You are accusing the person who nominated the article of acting in bad faith despite your own support of the nomination, which is rather baffling. Are you aiming your WP:ABF at the intended target? But if you do think he or she is disregarding an arbitration decision that governs this discussion, can you provide a link to that arbitration case so we can all get a better idea of how we might be constrained in our possible courses of action? Article seems to be relatively well-sourced, so any original research problems are not endemic. It also seems to be pretty careful about not making its own claims that "non-Indians are Indians", but rather describing the claims that the groups themselves are making, along with describing any opposition to those claims. You seem to be objecting to a different article than the one under discussion, if one takes your comments at face value; or perhaps you are simply using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the above argument is an attempt to show that a particular ethnic identity does not have any foundation in fact. But it there are people who claim such identity, and there are sources for people making such claims,, then the subject is notable. The question of the validity of the claims is an editing question. The very quotation used in the nom. shows the notability. "There are more than 200 groups that we’ve been able to recognize that call themselves a Cherokee nation, tribe, or band," said Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation" Miller apparently doesn't think all of them--or perhaps any of them -- genuine, but that doesn't affect the importance of the subject.DGG 04:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above comment demonstrates complete and total ignorance of Native American History and the laws associated with Indians. Cherokee Identity is a political and not racial distinction and always has been. Even even someone claims Cherokee ancestry, they must be able to prove it. If they are not members of a tribe, then there are no rolls from which to trace ancestry. People who have watched too many Hollywood movies have this mistaken perception. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While this may be true, it is an argument for a different article. Cherokee heritage groups themselves aren't notable. People of Cherokee heritage who are not a part of federally recognized tribes may be encyclopedic, as Akhilleus suggests, but they do not take part in groups of this sort in notable numbers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons of DGG above. -SESmith 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Cherokee Nation spokesman uses the term "heritage groups", so the article title seems pretty NPOV to me. Plus, it's a pretty effective way of describing groups who identify themselves with a Cherokee heritage without implying that they have gained federal recognition. Although individual groups might not be notable themselves, it is surely a notable fact that there are so many groups that align themselves with Cherokee heritage despite lacking federal recognition. I think it's very useful for Wikipedia to describe these groups in the aggregate, the nature of their claims to Cherokee heritage, and the legal, political, financial, and cultural ramifications of such claims. The article is not a true POV fork because it treats a more specific subject (the various groups and their claims on Cherokee heritage) rather than simply representing a different view of the same subject (Cherokee). Cherokee heritage groups, for instance, does not discuss general Cherokee history, the language, or famous Cherokees. The only significant overlap is on the question of recognition, but that's what I'd expect from what's essentially a spinoff from the main Cherokee article, as that's the natural point for it to spin off. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the most accurate appraisal I have seen so far. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested deletion based on the premise that these groups are not notable, even in aggregate (where are the reliable sources talking about them, or is Miller the only one?). I have suggested the creation of an article along the lines of DGG's comment or moving this article to a broader title, and I respect that this suggestion has not been widely accepted for legal reasons. Most of the content of this article comes from a subsection of Cherokee that was written with that article (about all people claiming to be Cherokee who aren't recognized) in mind, thus the sources are talking about something different than the article title.

The POV part comes in because of this limited scope. The reason the limited scope is accepted, and not the larger one, is that there is a Cherokee Nation spokesman who has talked about "heritage groups." However, this is the only source that talks about the limited scope, all of the other sources talk about the larger population of Cherokee who are not recognized. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and alanyst.--JayJasper 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per clear consensus and WP:SNOWBALL. Talk page also deleted. -- Karada 22:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pork salcho[edit]

This appears to be a joke. Google searching (web, book) yields nothing to indicate this is a dish with the notability given in this article. It also appears that a previous article by the same title was speedily deleted. Evil1987 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Served in many mexican countries? Correct me if I'm wrong but last I counted there was only one Mexican country. Anyway, as the nom states, there is no evidence of notability for this dish, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total nonsense. StudierMalMarburg 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on Google, WP:NOT a cookbook even if this is true. NawlinWiki 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, assuming the meal exists. Acalamari 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very real dish. I serve them all the time at work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PorkSalcho (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. It's an absolutely hilarious article, but it most definitely is a hoax. Absolutely zero hits on google, and no dictionary reference to salacho. Trusilver 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent hoax by single purpose account whose only edit other than to this article and this AfD was a lame sex-related vandalism of an article on an underaged girl. --Charlene 05:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence any such thing exists. -- Karada 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moorpark airsoft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moorpark airsoft

The entire page is incoherent, unreferenced, spammy, non-notable original research. It's an article - get this - about an Internet messageboard about a airsoft/paintball club, or something similar. Strong delete as failing WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, etc.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, this page is bordering on complete bollocks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; is a vanity page for an internet forum, a non-notable one at that. LiamUK 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable webforum. NawlinWiki 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notablity for it. Acalamari 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; very few ghits. John Vandenberg 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradach Racing, Inc.[edit]

POV article with probable spam/self-promotion intententions. Doesn't really say if this group is noteable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs) 2007/06/27 16:46:11

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written attempt at vanispamcruftisement Bigdaddy1981 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of transparancy I make the following Comment --- this article and its sister article were both created by single use accounts - Thelms and Poolecharlotte - I strongly suspect vanity and/or sockpuppetry. Bigdaddy1981 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Memon[edit]

Non-notable dancer who auditioned for America's Got Talent. Right now, I don't think this man should have an article just yet. I feel the same way about the article about The Duttons. When these two acts are actually finalists or something, then they can have an article. But not now.

Delete - Non-notable performer and no credible points of refrence (spelled wrong) to back up the article. Fanficgurl 5:21 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I agree. Right now it is just some guy that has been on TV. Hasn't done anything notable. Not only that, but it is blatant advertising to vote for the guy.--Kranar drogin 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low notability, no external coverage & plenty of OR. — Scientizzle 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Bradach[edit]

POV article with probable spam/self-promotion intententions. Doesn't really say if this person is notable. Also appears to be cut and pasted from here

Delete both. Self-promotion, not notable (what differentiates this from thousands of other short-track racing outfits?), sounds like a news release. Realkyhick 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both --- poorly written attempt at vanispamcruftisement.Bigdaddy1981 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of transparancy I make the following Comment --- this article and its sister article were both created by single use accounts - Thelms and Poolecharlotte - I strongly suspect vanity and/or sockpuppetry. Bigdaddy1981 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also WP:COI, WP:SPA. Bearian 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 72.204.22.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing this entry from the Articles for deletion page, and has removed the AfD tag from the Kimberly Bradach article itself. Corvus cornix 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar vision[edit]

No reliable sources provided that would help establish notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an in-school television station. It's notable within the walls of the school, nowhere else. If it really uses true (expensive) DTV equipment, it might be notable, but if it's digital over IP, I believe there's a place called YouTube that's done it before. Acroterion _(talk) 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - schoolcruft suitable for Myspace not wikipedia Bigdaddy1981 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of nursing diagnoses[edit]

Unsourced list of "diagnoses" that are vague in the extreme. Seem to have originated from NANDA (but not sourced to any official document). Surplanted by Category:Nursing diagnoses. Delete. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I personally identify with Dr. Wolff's characterization of the nursing diagnoses as "vague in the extreme" (the whole point of NANDA is to make nurses feel like they're doing something unique, something that is outside the strictly objective medical realm), this list is still an important article to have, considering NANDA's impact. The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced properly, but still should stay.--DLand ^TALK 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no useful context here, and to say the list is confusing to the average reader would be an understatement. There's no stated inclusion criteria either. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to say whether or not a list would be warranted at all, so cleanup might be an option, but given the current state of the article the only suggestion I can make is to delete. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nursing diagnosis and clean up. Clarityfiend 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge I'm not sure if the content is encyclopedic, but it is certainly not appropriate for a separate article.DGG 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I firmly believe that what nurses do is unique and vital to good healthcare - but this is just a long, unsourced list of diagnoses, many of which are nebulous and ill-defined - as has been said above. Nmg20 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nursing Diagnosis and clean up. This list is an important resource to nurses who create care plans for specific patient problems. The list is of only those specific diagnoses recognized by NANDA. While the idea of nursing diagnoses may be unpopular and underutilized in the clinical setting, they serve as an important tool in the academic setting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foiltape (talk • contribs)
Delete. This is an extremely confusing list of things that don't seem to mesh in any useful way with medicine as most of us know it. If it is to stay, some way of putting it in context is needed. --Markbenjamin 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would advise against merging given the lack of context. Anyone who can provide context is free to recreate. Further, per the second comment above me, I truly hope that no nurses use Wikipedia to help create patient care plans. Someguy1221 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is, as noted above, not only a vague and unencyclopedic list of nursing 'diagnoses', but it is completely unexplanatory-ie the interested reader can not understand any more about these 'diagnoses' (which look to me more like UK NHS nursing 'risk assessments') after reading the page than from coming to it fresh. In addition it looks very much like it was copied off a nursing educational curriculum or somesuch. Totally useless.FelixFelix ^talk 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin's Daughter[edit]

Article does not assert notability, aside from a single quote from a review. As it is just released by a brand-new author, it doesn't appear that notability can be established, at least not yet. Strongly suspect that it is a promotional piece -- the editor is contributing articles only to this subject. -- Merope 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, Unverifiable, smacks of Recentism. Article creator appears to an SPA that has been spamming new articles related to some not particularly notable publishing company. DarkSaber2k 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish significance. Jay32183 20:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment as above, so below. I also suggest looking into the contributions of the author of this article. Many of them, including Avari Press (which is being considered for deletion) revolve around that very small press. I think this might be rampant advertising and COI.--Ispy1981 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Some weird cross of trivia, original research and a dictionary definition. Maybe wiktionary would take it.-Wafulz 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown envelope[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - this article exists solely to define a term. EyeSerene^TALK 12:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's an envelope and it's brown; there's not much more to say. --kingboyk 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and lack of real notability. Darkspots 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Words fail me on this one... Next week's article: White envelope. Trusilver 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above. Acalamari 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article uses a connotation that is useful: " It is used in and known in government, business and popular culture as a means to deliver concealed material - bribe money, secret papers or any sort of "under the table" transfer." It is more than a definition. I read a statement on another site about an issue being a "brown envelope" issue which I did not undertand until I came to wikipedia. Thanks.— Rotallad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Of course brown envelopes are used to deliver concealed material, generally the only other option is a white envelope which, being white, aren't as concealing as brown envelopes. And you needed a Wikipedia article to tell you that? I've never heard of a "brown envelope issue" either, I think you made that up. Masaruemoto 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; useless. Masaruemoto 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it can be expanded.Galactic Explorer 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, rename to brown kraft envelope and do more work on the article. I have added more information about the correct name, at least in the US, for these. Brown kraft envelopes are a specific class of envelopes. They are made from paper that uses the Kraft process, hence the more correct name of brown kraft envelope. In some ways using brown is redundant, however kraft envelopes are now available in other colors, so maybe that is not entirely correct. I'd get some references but I'm rather busy right now. However, a simple search in any US office supply catalog for kraft envelope will bring up numerous matches. Vegaswikian 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'm sorry, I'm just unsure where you are trying to go with this. Are your intentions to expand this to other office supplies as well? We can have an article for black bic pens, and black papermate pens and then also the blue bic pens. I'm sorry, but is there really anything that could be placed in this article change you are proposing that either isn't already in Kraft process or could be put in that article? If I'm missing something then say it, I would be happy to change this to a 'keep' position if there was anything here to warrant an article. Right now there's not. Trusilver 02:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel pitch tape[edit]

An unreferenced fan piece about a never-aired 6 minute TV clip. (WP:NOT) kingboyk 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N. Alternatively redirect and merge into Angel (TV series). MartinDK 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't whip out the "c" word often, but this, my friends, is cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of references. I would back the merge proposal if this were referenced material. Darkspots 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One gene, one polypeptide hypothesis[edit]

I can't find any references to Dr. Malik being associated with the "one gene, one polypeptide" hypothesis, or extending it to "one gene, one amino acid" -- furthermore, I can't find any references to Dr. Malik as a biologist. Google isnt everything, I could be looking in the wrong places though. ArglebargleIV 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author who created this page was given a notice by removing content from the article he or she created. It doesn't look a good idea to warn the author for fixing his or her own information from the article he or she just started. (Although the warning probably had a reason, he or she removed the tags after all.) About the article, it has even 4 tags of how it lacks the quality of being in Wikipedia, (Noticing that the nominator created the tags.) and the title doesn't really explain a lot about the information in this article. I'd suggest a delete, and if some verifyable information appears, it would be better to use another title anyway. ~Iceshark7 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article itself says, "It was first proposed through the famous work of biochemists, Tatum and Beadle," This article is about Malek's unusual rewordings, which seem to be unnoticed. He's real enough, an animal geneticist with 9 papers in PubMed eg PMID 15109052, none apparently notable. There could be an article on the subject, which is a notable concept, but the first step would be to remove this one. DGG 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. While the hypothesis may deserve an article, this is not an article about the hypothesis. Dan Gluck 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. There's also the slight fact that it's wrong. Someguy1221 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be a language barrier issue, but the parts of this that refer to Malek's work sound like scientific nonsense to me. In my opinion, if the topic is going to be covered, it should be under the title "One gene - one enzyme", with significant reference to Beadle & Tatum, some explanation of the molecular basis later discovered, then something about splicing. I can't find this book "Mutations and Beyond", I can't find a single web page mentioning this, without any references I must suspect this stuff associated here with Malek is a fabrication, hoax or OR. It's suspicious that the creator of the article contains the name "Mina". Even if Malek has said something on this subject, it seems to be an individual's rewording and extremely far from being notable. Madeleine 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one gene one protein hypothesis or one gene one enzyme hypothesis per notability or notability. The validity of the hypothesis is irrelevant considering its historical importance. The text needs serious cleaning up though. Debivort 06:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main issue here is the complete lack of confirmable sourcing for any of this. A hypothesis being invalid is relevant when there's no hard evidence that what is written is an accurate portrayal of the theory's evolution. While the theory may be a notable precursor to modern understanding of genetics, this can only be properly written through the use of reliable sources. Someguy1221 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and so we biologists will--probably the best name is the original: one gene one protein, as it's that formulation which won the Nobel prize. First step, as I think we all agree, is clearing out this one. DGG 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Green[edit]

This player never played at a professional level (external link in the article states "he did not break into the first team for the Canaries") and therefore does not satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. Prod was contested (by an admin, no less) ChrisTheDude 12:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article says that he is a former professional footballer and played for Norwich City F.C. the article for which says that it is a professional team which played in The Football League 2007-08. You listed it on prod saying "This player has never played at a professional level" and there was no mention that you disputed the fact of the article, only that you found it not notable. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the external links in the article states that he never played for Norwich City and that he only ever appeared for their Youth team. Therefore, where "the article says that he is a former professional footballer and played for Norwich City F.C." it is factually incorrect as he has never played at a professional level and he is therefore not notable as he has never played in a fully professional league. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the player never played at a professional level, he does not meet notability requirements. The article appears to have been created by someone who knows him (see his userpage). Seems to me an obvious candidate for deletion.--EH74DK 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pro appearances. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. --Angelo 23:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Norris[edit]

Non-notable artist. User:Tjnorris created this autobiography which was then moved to his user page. Then User:Clarklovins got created to put the page back up. Hmm.

At any rate, all external links are self-published, and the two discs mentioned in the Discography can only be found here, on a single press release copy, and on the artist's home page. No other claim to fame. Coren 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Coren. Links to own websites warrant deletion on grounds that this is self-promotion, i.e.WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strange argument, since most articles on living artists/musicians/actors etc include just such links. Johnbod 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as NN. having links to one's own websites is not reason for deletion, relying on them mainly is certainly an indication. As well as reviews from newspapers in and around Portland Oregon where his gallery Soundvision is located, there's a citation from a major review source The Wire, I take that to show just adequate notability. DGG 01:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Needs work but otherwise its ok with me. Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Callelinea has been copy-pasting the same !vote to dozens of bio-related AfD -- Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Coren if you bother to read any of my Critiques in the past two days, you will see that many of them I have stated what I felt was needed to make it a better article.. Not all are CUT and Paste as you state. So much easier to critize then to create. In this particular article I stated it needed some work but that it was fine with me.. after that I just stated my opinion on what wiki should be about.. Perhaps I shouldn't.. Callelinea 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE.. I looked in google and found lots of things on artist. I included some of them for you guys to see.. The artist is NOTABLE.Callelinea 03:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep seems pretty borderline to me - a busy bee locally, but no real non-local coverage. Johnbod 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This artist/music critic is important in the very small but interesting world of sound art. He recently was on a panel in an international sound art conference in Montreal, so I argue that while he may not be "notable" to the general public, to this more specialized field he is of interest. He is also one of the more important critic/ artists in Portland OR. while not the center of the universe, is at least on most maps. I would like to also say that I think Wiki should be ere on the side of inclusivity.Soapsnydler 18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC) — Soapsnydler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Some of the content appears to be dated (for instance Soundvision no longer exists).Recently Mr.Norris has had critically acclaimed exhibitions at Chambers gallery and also at the 12X16 gallery both in Portland Oregon.His curatorial work and critical writing have elevated his local status considerably in the last two years.He is fundamental to the Portland art scene and is now represented by The New American Art Union (a progressive gallery) here on Oregon. — 67.100.122.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:54, July 2, 2007 (UTC).
STRONG KEEP I am aware of TJ Norris's work and he is most definitely notable - both by Wikipedia's standards and those of the art world at large. I assume that the person who tagged this article for deletion just want to see more content to prove that Mr. Norris is worthy of a Wikipedia page. As such, I have taken the liberty of editing this article in order to provide additional content. Please look at his accomplishments and contributions and let us please put this discussion to rest. Nerdletta 19:03, 03 July 2007

KEEP I have followed TJ's career for a number of years and am not sure how his work is considered to be not notable enough for inclusion here. He was a well established artist in Boston for many years, was a resident artist of the Boston Center for the Arts, and showed in numerous prominant galleries and museums there and around the country. Since moving to Portland, OR a few years ago, he has really made a name for himself in the art world with the establishment of his critically aclaimed gallery, Soundvision, and his curatorial work at other galleries as well contributions of his own work in numerous group and solo shows. He has been highly praised by just about every art critic in every print medium in Portland, including the Oregonian. He also writes for numerous national and international publications and has been a panalist on many presentations on the arts around the country and in Canada. TriMix, the compilation DVD that he curated, is available on Amazon and iTunes--not just on his website as indicated above. I'm new to the editorial process at work on Wikipedia and I apologize if I am missing something here, but I definitely support the inclusion of TJ's listing on the site. Kevredmond 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"STRONG KEEP" -- TJ Norris has had a long and sustained involvement in the arts as a maker, writer, etc. I can't imagine why wikipedia would not want to include him! This seems a little crazy to me... if he were living in NY would we really be having this conversation?-

Comment "[I]f he were living in NY would we really be having this conversation?" Yes. Freshacconci 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The attempts at self-promotion are troubling per WP:COI. However, he's done some things that are notable, and as long as this article is heavily edited, I would say keep. Freshacconci 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamfoiling[edit]

Despite an unreferenced tag since March 2007, this article lacks citations. A google search for "Dreamfoiling" reveals only this article, and mirrors and links to it. The article creator, Iamdalto has explained he seen experimental logs proving the phenomenon, but has not been able to cite any. Kaid100 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per complete lack of sources. --Tikiwont 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this may be based on something actual, the lack of sources and evasive style of writing leads me to believe that the author is taking some liberties. Either way, not noteable, we have no way of knowing this actually exists. Calgary 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Resistance: Fall of Man as there is already a section there on the subject and history is preserved for any further merging or moving to any other wikis. Peter 14:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chimera (Resistance: Fall of Man)[edit]

Moved to gaming Wiki, the article can be found here. Also article is unsourced and is a List of Enemies in the game (similar to the deleted List of enemies in Duke Nukem or List of command & Conquer units). I am also in support of a merge but what happens to the images in the page? Cs california 10:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_a_vote and reconsider your position. It would be nice to be able to reach a properly discussed consensus here. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of reliable sources: "It is not explained in the game where the Chimera come from or what they really are."--Tikiwont 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems fine to me and is more than simply a list. Parent article is too large for this to be merged into. The lack of references can easily be dealt with and should not be used as an excuse to delete an article. —Xezbeth 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deleting it is Wikipedia is not a game guide sadly. Thats why I move most article similar to this to a gaming wiki. This page is similar to pages such as Monster of DukeNukem 3D and those list of Command & Conquer units. But References to this article is useful so I suggest creating a link from the gaming wiki article to the Resistance page --Cs california 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic trivia that is only of interest to players of the game and to nobody else. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Should therefore be moved to another wiki, as has been done and deleted in accordance with these Video game wikiproject guidelines. Also fails notability. The game is notable, the creatures in the game are not and there are no references to indicate that they are. GDallimore (Talk) 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Heavily) Condense and Merge (change vote) Having gone over the main resistance article again, it appears that all discussion of the Chimera has been removed from that article, presumably because it was moved to this one. I therefore agree with Calgary (below) that this article should be [heavily] condensed and merged into that one. However, I still strongly maintain that it doesn't even come close to warranting it's own article. GDallimore (Talk) 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and Merge with Resistance: Fall of Man. Maybe the bulk of theinformation is unneccessary, but I think at least a portion of it is significant enough to inclued in the afforementioned article. Calgary 19:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and merge - Vital information for only a single game, so there really isn't any reason to decentralize the Resistance info at this point in time. Wickethewok 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wesleyan Christian Academy[edit]

School that fails WP:ORG; article does not mention any special achievements, secondary coverage, or the like. Had been tagged with notability concerns sice Oct 06. PROD was contested with comment: "removed prod - high school". I do not find that argument convincing. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think all high schools are notable; this one seems not to be. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Keep - I'm not really convinced that even state athletic championships make a high school notable, but I'm clearly in the minority on that discussion. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE et al - WP should not be an endless directory of schools. Notability is not established by the article EyeSerene^TALK 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Most high schools articles have access to ample material to demonstrate notability. The school has won multiple state sports championships in different sports, and multiple independent reliable and verifiable source have been provided to demonstrate this fact. Notability is proven. Alansohn 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Alansohn, rewrite establishes notability through many reliable sources. [User:TenPoundHammer|Ten Pound Hammer]] • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has clear athletic notability, now shown by RSs. DGG 01:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua bronaugh[edit]

Obvious self-promoting autobiography here, notability seems questionable, though it does assert his notability so perhaps doesn't strictly qualify for WP:CSD#A7. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, unverifiable, maybe even hoax - he doesn't seem to know the country of his own birth. --Huon 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable artist, only 1 year out of college. NawlinWiki 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable and and a conflict of interest. Creator has the same name as the article. Acalamari 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously a WikiUser creating his proper article outside a User page and unsourced as well.JForget 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as either vanity by a simpleton or a hoax (as Huon notes Baveria was never part of East Germany). Bigdaddy1981 02:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the subject of this article and it seems someone is an overzealous fan in making this entry. Although flattering, many of the facts are incorrect. Creator went to the extent of using my name for a profile name. Jbronaugh 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject User:Jbronaugh wishes, and perhaps block Joshua Bronaugh (talk · contribs)? John Vandenberg 02:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Schumacher's Batman universe[edit]

Delete article that is redundant to content of the articles on the two movies covered, does not make a lot of sense given that those two movies are in the same continuity as two previous movies, and constitutes subjective (POV) interpretation to say anything otherwise. It at least borders on OR. Wryspy 09:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be largely OR and a POV fork at that. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; interesting, but OR, and any relevant information should be included in the individual film articles. There's also the Tim Burton's Batman universe article. Masaruemoto 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is largely OR. Jay32183 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two movies already have their own articles and a third article talking about them seems to be completely unneccesary. Stephen Day 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article is basically original research about the in-universe details of the films -- not appropriate for the real-world context sought on Wikipedia. Better suited for a Batman Wiki. A better article (still in rough shape) for film details (production and so forth) would be Batman film series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur as a WP:WAF violation. Alientraveller 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete Dirty, dirty part of Batman history. Must scrub harder.--Perceive 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus mainly because this discussion is almost indecipherable. There are also far too many comments by single purpose accounts and unregistered users. The article was also never tagged for deletion with an AfD template. I have renominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (2nd nomination). Please keep comments there based in policy and guidelines. Please also sign your posts and indent your posts using bullet points ( * ) at the beginning. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Chandra Mission[edit]

HI all

Since some prefer to post at the top, and not sign their messages as per WIKI, then I will ask, at the top of the page, to respect the posts of other editors and sign in at the bottom of the page, not the top.

Please sign your messages as per WIKI (4 tildes) with date.

Jeanne--J.d'arc 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE DELETED. It is full of fabricated views and has been the forum for endless biased edits by a few individuals obviously bent on distorting the truth to serve their purpose of slandering Shri Ram Chandra Mission and Sahaj Marg. The pages for Shri Ram Chandra Mission and Sahaj Marg should be merged to a simple stub - the one proposed by Renee is good and to the point. These pages just need to be locked since history of these edits show that they don't do any justice to the audience of Wikipedia. - SS

PLEASE DELETE: the content of this page is grossly inaccurate at best. I practiced Sahaj Marg for a while and had no adverse reaction to the group or the practice. Because of time constraints i stopped. I have never been forced into any practice or activity and no one is knocking on my door from the group. i am truly appalled at all the false allegations made against this rather open group who are interested in serving spiritual aspirants for free. - kk

Duplication of material on Sahaj Marg page, currently used as a blog to promote a certain POV, no third-source citations, currently used as an attack page Renee 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admins...

This page is not a duplication of Sahaj Marg as mentioned above, and represents the history or the legal entity called Shri Ram Chandra Mission. This SRCM has many factions, two of which (one registered in India in 1946, and one registered in California in 1997) are now in Supreme Court of India regarding the control of this entity. Sahaj Marg is the technique taught by this organization and the teachings and methods differ according to which faction one reads.

The article should not be deleted and should remain with some POV's by recent editors removed for a more NPOV article. Sahaj Marg article should be more NPOV and in accordance with WIKI policy. The Sahaj Marg article has deteriorate in the last few months and now has two "non-neutral" editors (one trying to "elimininate" (POV) the articles and one trying trying to include the "cult" POV) and a few "at arms lenght" editors participating peoriodically.

Jeanne --J.d'arc 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current Shri Ram Chandra Mission page on Wikipedia is a fabrication of ideas and thoughts of disgruntled individuals. This page has been misused and should be removed immediately. I believed Wikipedia to be a source of honest information, but this seems to take me away from this idea. I would urge the core editorial team to meet people who are currently practicing Sahaj Marg, interact with them over a period of time, practice the system themselves, to understand the efficacy of the system.

The citing of court cases, verdicts, etc, sounds like politics we see in India. Such POVs seem to degrade Wikipedia into a Blog site, and should be completely avoided.

Sharat --User:Sharathegde 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE

You seem to have two places for comments on deletion. That is not fair or effective. Is there a conspiracy involving some admin? Please fix and make WIKI!

Do not bow to those who would attempt to hide the truth (NPOV facts referenced according to WIKI policy) and then if not able to, to eliminate it. That is not WIKI. FIX the problem and show the truth, not PR. I'll be watching.

Charles --Roicharlemagne 22:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is useless in every way imaginable. It is so POV'd that nothing short of a complete rewrite is going to save it. All in all, this article is an example of the absolute worst that Wikipedia has to offer...HOWEVER, an article being bad isn't a reason to delete it, it's a reason to improve it. I see no reason to do anything except keep and improve it. Trusilver 06:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Anwar 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the related article Sahaj Marg is the subject of a mediation case. I'd suggest a procedural close to this AfD (without prejudice to immediate relisting) pending the results of the mediation. Caknuck 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current article smells of bias and needs a total rewrite, but the subject is interesting. It deserves the attempt. Rumiton 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DELETE. There is no doubt that this page should be deleted without delay. What started of as a simple page on the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, a spiritual organization has resulted in what can only be described as perversion, by people who in some way feel antagonistic towards this way of life, each because of certain personal reasons. 4d-don, a blogger who believes the page is his own, is clearly on a path of hate, because he attributes his marital separation to his wife's inclination to attend sunday meetings of the Mission rather than church. If Wikipedia encourages such people, it only results in the perversion of another great ideal - Wikipedia itself. It should also be kept in mind that much of the content posted by these folks is defamatory and in many cases violative of copyright laws. Vivekdurai 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! The current page is full of bias and all references has negative connotations with no information at all - completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Every attempt of adding some meaningful info about the true spirituality that Shri Ram Chandra Mission serves and promotes have been continually defeated by couple of individuals with a vendetta.

DELETE THIS PAGE Please delete this page as whatever is written on the page is absolutely false. It looks like it is written by people who are motivated by sheer negativity in their hearts. The teachings of Chariji and SRCM are to create love amongst all the people of the world irrespective of caste , creed ,race or religion .Its been 12 years since I started practice and nowhere I have seen force being used to do anything . Meenakshi890 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePlease delete this page as this has become place for few individuals like Shahwat and Don to propagate their agenda. There are only handful of individuals who keep writing completely baseless articles everywhere. They are utilizing Wikipedia to give credence to their hatred based agenda. They have successfully managed to make Wikipedia a blog and serving their malicious agenda.

I have been practicing Sahaj Marg for more than 10 years. Spirituality is practicied in highest and purest form here. Everybody is free to practice as well as free to not practice. Nobody asks you if you are practicing or not?

I do not know background of these individuals like Shashwat etc. but I know from my experience that what they say is a pure lie and fabrication. I do not know which group they belong and what is their ulteriormotive of spreading such a lie, but they should not be allowed to abuse Wikipedia forum for propagating their agenda.

Please delete this page immediately. --Nirajsri 10:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Page definetely needs to be deleted in interest of humanity. I am a member of this spiritual organisation for the past 10 years and I have never been forced to do something. Chariji has no forced control over any of the member's lives. Its purely voluntary. Marraiges are never forced upon individuals. Their opinions are definetely asked for and if they themselves want to get married by Chariji's wishes, only then he steps in. In any case its the individuals who make the call in all scenarios. Regarding the forceful control of ashram in shajahanpur, members of SRCM stepped into the ashram's premises only after a high court judgement in favour of us. The case trudged on for around 12 years and not even one member of SRCM even ventured close to the premises. Only after the legality of SRCM's claim over the premises was authenticated by the respectable high court, we called it OUR ashram. Chariji's claim for successorship was never clouded by any mystery and was NEVER EVER rejected by any working committee. 99% of the followers at that time accepted Chariji as the new master with the remaining one standing out for reasons only they know. The reference that chariji has asked us not to refer him as Master is purely contextual as the entire genesis of SRCM's teachings is onus upon oneself. We just promote a healthy way of living which is achieved by maintaing a balance between spiritual and materelistic halves of human existence. No one is ever asked to leave his/her religion. We have people from all walks of live belonging to different religions, castes and geographies. As for the marraige in ashram is concerned it is just to ensure that like minded people meet each other so as to have a happy married life. But there are people who have married outside as well, like my own brother. My sis married a christian whereas we are core hindus. We just believe that segregating people on basis of caste, creed and sex is un called for. All humans are equal and have all the right in the world to live a respectable and happy life.

Finally my most humble submission is please dont believe any of the tirades against SRCM. I am not asking you to believe me as well. Come to our ashram and experience for yourself what truth is. visit our website with the same name and knw the truth straight from the horse's mouth. If still you dont believe any and all of u are most welcome to visit our ashrams spread all over the globe to experience urself. We never impose our opinions on anybody. Learn about it for yourself. - Abhishek

THIS PAGE DOES NOT BEFIT YOU - WIKIPEDIA I have been watching the development of this page and the Sahaj Marg page on wikipedia since Feb 07. I have spent hours reading blogs and entries of some of the main contributors, e.g., Br 4d-don and Br Shashwat, with an open mind trying to understand what is it that they are really trying to get across and why. After spending hours of reading, most of the things they are trying to convey does not sound and feel right. Having been an integral part of this mission for 8.5 years now, all I can say is, this is how they may view it as. I did not respond right away because, really wanted to give time to understand and did not want to react. Recently I came across this statement which seems to be the cause here - "We all see the same thing differently because we all stand at different locations (interpretation wise, understanding wise or evolution wise)." Is this difference or uniqueness not what characterizes us as humans? Now to say that my view is the True view, will again be all too human and our history is replete with incidents of such conflicts, why history, we can pick up the newspaper and look at the present. Well, the point here is such view points or POV as you say, should not be there on Wikipedia because is it not against the very essence of Wikipedia to disseminate opinions? And that's why I say - This page does not befit you Wikipedia! -Duty2love 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ALL EDITORS who question the TRUTH of the SRCM article (followers of Chari and SRCM California)[edit]

Now that SRCM (California) adherents have been "encouraged" to read "on-line" information (they were not "encouraged" until recently), I would ask that they participate in editing the article and make it more "NPOV", and then stay and discuss with other editors who want to edit their TRUTH. To delete the article does not serve HUMANITY or WIKI. That is simply "GIVING UP" and HIDING the TRUTH which is "corruption" is it not?

Edit the article and get "references" that WIKI admins will accept and see if everyone is "against SRCM (California)". Statements vilifying others and their beliefs or "religions" (as Chari does when he calls relgions such as Hinduism and Catholicism "corrupt") only show the corruption and "un-charitable" nature of SRCM and its adherents. Show references to show how RELIGIONS ARE CORRUPT! And then one can SHOW it on WIKI as the TRUTH according to Chari and not just a TEACHING (POV) of Chari.

The lineage that was developped with the assistance and input of our Sufi brothers and the disputes that were collaborated on by all factions, is recorded in their individual lineages and referenced as such. SRCM attempts to hide the facts when they do not favour them but these facts are the TRUTH according to OTHERS, and they are referenced according to WIKI. If you don't think so, ASK some ADMIN to MEDIATE.

I agree that some recent edits are POV and should be removed or re-written in a more WIKI format.

If anyone finds data that is inaccurate, or POV, pass it and your references by some ADMINS or mediators, for EDITING in WIKI NPOV.

SPIRITUALITY is not afraid of the TRUTH and stands in harmony of the NPOV TRUTH!

Jeanne--J.d'arc 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheme[edit]

WP:N - Subject is not notable, does not meet WP:SOFT notability requirements.
WP:V - Article is not verifiable, no sources whatsoever, and the only external link is the project homepage.
WP:SOAP - Article reads very much like an advertisement for the software in question.
WP:COI - Article is edited in large part by Nenolod, who developed Atheme.

Delete cacophony ◄► 09:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fully agree that this article is not notable. I just tried to clean it up... by the way, it's all lowercase, cacophony. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 11:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, as per WP:COI, you are not allowed to comment on this AfD. I advise any closing admins to keep this in mind, too. cacophony ◄► 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --81.178.14.141 11:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Jmax- 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G11 Will ^(talk) 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete weak delete. I'm on the borderline of if it passes WP:SOFT or not, disagree with WP:SOAP, but agree with WP:V and WP:COI Q ^{T C} 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mess Patch[edit]

Article shows very little importance in relation to the subject. Kai ^talk 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, probably no reliable sources out there. Even for the legal troubles I was unable to come up with anything but blogs and forum posts. --Huon 13:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have articles on software patches now? What next? DLLs? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Corpx and Alansohn both made valid points, and once the article has been referenced, the default result must be not to act. Non-admin closure (I know non-admins aren't supposed to take these, but I believe it is the correct result.) Shalom ^Hello 06:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International School[edit]

This is an elementary school, which offers courses in Japanese, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese - just this fact does not give any notability. Also, article is written in an advertisement tone - "From the first day, The International School immerses a child fully in Spanish, Chinese or Japanese language and culture." Corpx 08:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Non-notable school with no outside sources asserting notability, and article reads like an advertisement. Latr, Katr 16:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Spanish government designation got my attention. Withholding my !vote pending further reliable sourcing. Latr, Katr 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established. Katr67 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established EyeSerene^TALK 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Designation as one of 28 International Spanish Academies in the United States and the only school in Oregon offering language immersion instruction in three languages are all strong claims of notability. This is not merely a school that offers foreign language instruction as part of an English language curriculum, Additional independent sources should be added. Alansohn 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does having a unique elementary school curriculum give it notability? Corpx 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all the more remarkable at this level. Doing it with three separate languages is even more notable. Alansohn 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the elementary schools in Texas offer instruction in English and Spanish. Does offering 2 languages make them notable? Corpx 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two languages, where one is English, would not be notable. This school offers three, separate non-English languages, the only school in Oregon to do so, which seems to be a strong claim of notability. Alansohn 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick language search, I found another elementary school in Oregon that offers English, Spanish and Chinese. If an elementary school started teaching advanced math/geometry, would it become notable? Corpx 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The school you've found offers a Spanish immersion program. All the other languages are offered on a limited curricular basis at 30 minutes per day. The International School offers full immersive instruction in three languages. Offering advanced math/geometry at the elementary school level might well be a claim of notability. Alansohn 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would rather see it merged with Portland, Oregon, as it may not quite notable enough to have it's own article. It can be valuble info in the Portland article itself, much of the important info can be easily fit there--JForget 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced. The school is distinctive,--I doubt there are any other US schools that actually teach 3 non-english languages at the elementary level to this degree of fluency. We finally have a notable elementary schoolDoes need real sourcing, but should be possible.DGG 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Butseriouslyfolks 08:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now, a references states that it's received some grant, thus noting that the school has gained some national recognition. Notable.--Kylohk 12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since all high schools are inherently notable as I argue here. Noroton 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Psst, Noroton--I appreciate your argument, but look again--this article is about an elementary school. Latr, Katr 23:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Latr, I guess you're right, but, dang if it isn't such a good elementary school that I THOUGHT it was a three-language high school. Now THAT'S a good school.Noroton 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Alansohn. Normally I think elementary schools should be merged into an article on the district, but as a independent school with some arguable notability, I think this should stand alone. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per User:Alansohn. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep.-Wafulz 15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO[edit]

Claims of notability are not backed up by any reliable sources. All references are blogs, press releases, and the company's own website. Closenplay 08:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a 2nd tier ad services vendor, but they mostly operate in the b2b zone and most people have never heard of them. There are 300+ Google News Archive results; founder profiled; 2001 technology profile. Turns up in stories about pop-ups and click fraud (combatting, not committing). --Dhartung | Talk 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much everything your Google link returns is either a press releases (PR Newswire) or only a trivial mention. Closenplay 10:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll grant there are a lot of press releases in there, but there are also plenty of real articles: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] etc. Taken together, I'm sure they constitute "multiple independent sources [which could be] cited to establish notability". JulesH 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep the article would benefit from a ce (didn't add the tag in case it gets deleted), but it looks reasonably NPOV and does have some ok sources EyeSerene^TALK 17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zedo turned up in a Spybot scan I was running and I wanted to know what it was - this article at least gave me some information. seglea 23:41, 2 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, Shalom ^Hello 06:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of many adware companies to be aware of and well with bounds of WP:CORP and WP:N... Ranma9617 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted November 20, 2007 because article continues not to meet encylcopedic criteria
Please add new comments below this notice.69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of notability are not backed up by any reliable sources. All references are blogs, press releases, and the company's own website. Also, article does not provide any relevant information for people wishing to learn more about the company or its "advertsing" services. I was disappointed with the quaility of this article when trying to learn more about ZEDO as were others (ZEDO talk page).69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet WP:CORP. If you are "disappointed with the quality of this article," then improve it. As it stands, I fear your edits divulge a bias against the existence of any mention of this company, for whatever reason. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel my edits are inappropriate and the content that I removed belongs in the wikipedia, please feel free to revert my edits.69.68.125.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was not aware that you can start an AfD as anonymous user. I am also not familar with the option to "relist" an article for deletion, because usually is a new AfD started. Anyhow. The reasons why the article should be kept were provided in previous discussions already. I agree that the article is not clean and very "thin". I added the "company-stub" template to indicate its sub-standard quality and early stage in the article development process. I do not recall my edits for this article stub, but your note on my talk page indicates that I did edit the article once hehe. I probably did some general cleaning of very elementary stuff that were more technical and formal in nature. I also removed a number of unnecessary "references" from the stub for the Board Member, the companies clients and its competitors. The stub should be extended with quality content and not with "garbage" like some of the stuff that was in there until now. However, I don't think that the article should be deleted entirely. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this article is not in the early stages of editing, its been in existence for several months.69.68.125.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations from the New York Times and The Independent. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Wizardman 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hucrest Elementary[edit]

Article is about an elementary school that is not notable for any other reason. From reading the article, there are no criteria that would make this elementary school stand out from others Corpx 08:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roseburg, Oregon. Deor 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roseburg School District ~~(which I will create)~~. Latr, Katr 17:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think merging to the school district would be better than merging to the city. Katr67 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that you've created the school-district article it can be redirected there. But I don't see the need for the same list of schools to appear in both Roseburg, Oregon and Roseburg School District, so I'm going to replace the list in the city article with a link to the district article. Deor 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you double check your edit? I don't think the community college is part of the school district. Katr67 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Deor 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roseburg, Oregon per above. This asserts no notability Eusebeus 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as per above.--JForget 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Roseburg School District. With the creation of the district's page, it makes no sense to redirect to Roseburg, Oregon. I do not think that there is any content in this page worth merging. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the school has been running for 50 years. I have added a reference for the recent headmasters and the IES fact sheet. Details from offline newspaper articles will fill in the gaps over time. John Vandenberg 05:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think just 50 years in existence gives notability to a building. Even cited, the list of principals doesnt give notability either. Every school has a list of principals. Corpx 05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article has been expanded again. A lot happens within the walls of a school over 50 years, and most of it happens at tax payers or the local communities expense. The correlation between education facilities and demographics makes them worthy of note if the material can be sourced. It was never my intent to indicate that a single ref would be evidence of notability. I realise that others consider schools differently when it comes to notability, and this Afd is heading away from a keep to demonstrate that; if the Afd doesnt swing to no concensus due to improvement, I request the closer does not delete the history in order that I can merge my improvements into the district and city articles. John Vandenberg 08:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean that any government entity/building would have notability. How does this article about this elementary school show any impact on demographics? Also, whats the significance of a local credit union CEO teaching at an elementary school? Corpx 10:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've expanded the article again.
No, "any" government entity/building are not immediately notable; local government facilities are usually not worth dedicating an article to; they are just a part of the town/city/whatever and function to support it with very little unusual occuring between their walls. OTOH, schools can be notable, people do look up Wikipedia for schools, and biographies of people usually include the schools a person attended.
Regarding demographics, this article lets the reader know when an elementary school was added to the region, details about the headmasters (prior training/experience), and recent additions about the chess club give the reader a better background on the quality of the education and extracurriculum activities. Those are all useful when researching a person from the area in general. If I was writing a biography about someone who went to this school, this article would be of assistance; I would immediately want to know whether the person was a member of the chess club. In time, this article will expand to give more directly useful data to people researching the area.
When was the last time you read about a CEO teaching chess at an elementary school? The exact details of his teaching are not mentioned in the source; hopefully someone will augment it using sources I cant find online. John Vandenberg 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is the CEO of local credit union. Local businesspeople frequently donate their time to help out with local educational institutions. When you look up biography of a person, I highly doubt it mentions the elementary school they attended. I'm in favor of all high schools having inherent notability, but taking it to elementary schools is way too far. Corpx 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons why the Elem school could be considered an important part of a biography. Biographies of staff members that go on to do more notable things are one example. here is a bio that mentions the Elem. School attended. I've yet to see a good argument why elementary/primary schools are inherently not notable. John Vandenberg 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one person who was influenced by actions done at elementary school. I still think that a very vast majority of notable people dont discuss elementary schools when talking about their influencing factors. The elementray schools are not inherenty notable thing is what I picked up from reading the AFD over the past few weeks. If an elementary school is inherently notable, then why woudlnt any public service building be notable? This school also fails the notability mentioned in Wikipedia:Schools, which tried to set a guideline. Corpx

Keep - notability comes from multiple reliable sources, per WP:N, and this article has enough ogf them together with notable and unusual chess achievements. TerriersFan 18:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would categorize all the articles as trivial mentions Corpx 18:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:ORG: "Any school article which references a news account the headline of which states Principal agrees to shave head is automatically a keeper so keep yer paws off of it." Or WP:ORG will say that as soon as I put it in. Additionally, the article seems to have some useful and interesting information in it. Seems encyclopedic enough for me. Noroton 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources to demonstarte notability, particularly regarding its achievements in chess at the state level. Notability has been demonstrated per WP:N. Alansohn 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Peter 14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

John J. Sullivan (military)[edit]

Unsourced bio does not seem to meet WP:N or WP:V. Gilliam 07:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability from independent sources. Slight possibility of some domain notability but we should have sources to tell us. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He had a military career and is an advocate of Christianity. No indication he satisfies WP:BIO. And if he is a Christian teacher, why is he tagged as "military?" The article focuses on his religion rather than saying he is notable for having a military career (without any sources). The tone is POV and inappropriate, but that could be fixed by editing. Sounds like a fine fellow, but Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia with articles about every fine fellow. Edison 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In terms of WP:PROF, he's non-notable. But the article lists a lot of other somewhat-notable accomplishments, and the sheer quantity of them pushes them pushes this over the threshold for me. It has no sources, but what little I searched for did check out (e.g. Appalachian Athletic Conference really does list him, with "Col.", as its commissioner). —David Eppstein 16:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep The article is definitely problematic for POV. I'm going to agree with David, the sheer volume of semi-notable accomplishments would qualify him as notable. I'm primarily looking at his military career in this regard. It needs to have source issue fixed asap to avoid future Afd though.Horrorshowj 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are numerous issues with this article. The bio was cut and pasted from Sullivan's bio page on the Servantleader Ministries page [24]by an anonymous user with IP Address 66.169.86.92. The same user added notes and links to Sullivan's book and entry under servant leadership. There was already a John J Sullivan entry which pertained to a Massachusetts Democrat. 66.169.86.92 replaced that article with the text of this on and also changed the John Sullivan (disambiguation) to add John J. Sullivan, "author, teacher, leadership consultant, fighter pilot, commissioner". I'd say the c&p qualified as a potential copyright issue, but unsurprisingly whois reveals 66.169.86.92 to originate in Asheville, NC the same city as Servantleader Ministries.

He is currently the AAC chairman as previously pointed out. The "Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC, the base was selected in worldwide competition as the best installation in the Marine Corps and received the prestigious Commander-in-Chief’s Award for Installation Excellence. " appears legit based on these[25][26] although the latter is bordering on hagiography so I'm a little leery of considering it a reputable source for much else.

Unfortunately, several other points aren't so good. Comparing his military and civilian bio's makes it obvious his position for the F/A-18 Hornet acquisition is overstated. The only one of his "numerous papers" etc I'm able to find any record of was published in the Marine Gazette. His book is self published, and I'm not finding anything that makes the book notable online.

Recommend deletion. Not only does he not meet verifiable notability guidelines, but this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to pump up book sales.

Disclosure: I'm a liberal Dem, but I really did try to save the article from deletion. I was going to change my vote to neutral until I found out about the IP address and overwrite. Horrorshowj 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Science Conference Rankings[edit]

Tagged incorrectly as speedy delete for original research, tag removed and now seeking consensus on this being deleted as pure WP:OR. The Rambling Man 07:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, usually original research is just part of an article, whereas here, there is no article, just original research. It also appears to be self-referential. 71.190.2.99 07:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost speedy delete. I'm the one that tagged it for speedy, but alas, WP:OR isn't a speedy criterion. Maybe it should be when is as blatant and pervasive as it is in this case. The whole blinkin' thing is nothing but original research. Well-meaning, but confusing as heck. Realkyhick 08:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not only is it original research, it conceals the methodology (despite appearances to the contrary) by citing nothing. Wikipedia is not a rankings service, although who knows, it might be a revenue stream to explore. --Dhartung | Talk 09:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given above Q ^{T C} 00:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork of List of computer science conferences. John Vandenberg 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stouffer College House[edit]

Dorm on a college campus. Nothing special about the building itself and only assertion of notability of the dorm as a dorm is winning some intramural sports. Contested prod (for lack of notability). DMacks 06:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say merge, but there doesn't seem to be anything here worth merging. Dorms are generally non-notable, so delete unless someone provides evidence to the contrary. The only mentions I find of it in reliable sources are trivial (simply to point out that some or another person is a member) and dependent. Someguy1221 06:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) May as well bundle another UPenn dorm here (only attempt at claimed notabilty is some in-house seminars and a charitable donation to support it) to avert a similar deprod:

DMacks 06:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no content here worth merging. Fails to show multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of the building. There is a "residences" section in the article University of Pennsylvania. Basic (documented) facts could be added to the bare listing there, such as age, number of residents, special programs. Individual buildings at a university usually are not notable enough to have separate articles. Edison 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No good sources demonstrating the notability of the neologism — one is about something different, and another is a Wikipedia mirror — and arguments about its importance to the comic are not substantiated and seem to contradict each other.-Wafulz 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strummer's Law[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Strummer's Law

Contested PROD. Apparent neologism. This term has a mighty ~100 ghits, and most of those are Wikipedia, its mirrors, and people citing Wikipedia. The rest seem to be forums and blogs. Someguy1221 06:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it were notable, it's not really worthy of a Wikipedia article, is it? It's basically the restatement of someone else's opinion, eh? Calgary 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. maybe merge it with Dorothy Gambrell's article. Trusilver 07:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, punchline of one comic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Dorothy Gambrell Will ^(talk) 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dorothy Gambrell, or into Cat and Girl if the term was coined within the comic. Krychek 13:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer per WP:NEO. Not worth merging because it's not an important aspect of Cat and Girl; like Dhartung says, it's just the punchline to one comic. -- rynne 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Neologism argument is somewhat specious. WP:NEO cautions about verifiability and original research -- neither of which applies here since this is a humorous phrase, and the original source is undeniably known. From WP:NEO itself: Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. None of these reasons applies in this case. Krychek 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But from the first line: Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary. From my perspective, WP:NOR certainly applies: "Strummer's Law" is presented as a sociological theory which is not acknowledged by any reliable sources except for the comic where it was coined. -- rynne 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Hence the numerous votes to merge. No one is arguing that it should be kept as its own article. Changing the context via a merge would answer your neologism concerns while retaining an important indicator of the comic's tone and content matter. Krychek 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dorothy Gambrell. Even though it's only one comic it's an interesting idea which is worth thinking about. I know I had a "why didn't I think of that?" moment when I read it. Does it have a parallel in real sociology? I'd bet it does. --Misaf-Keru 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If there's an equivalent theory in sociology, it should be discussed under its real name, not attributed (by a webcomic character) to a guy who died years before the term was coined. And if there's not an equivalent theory in sociology, well, WP:NOR doesn't differentiate for how interesting the original research is.. -- rynne 01:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply It isn't original research, it's a quote. And if there is an equivalent theory, it should be linked to from whichever article we merge it into. And do you know that Joe Strummer didn't coin it himself? I don't, but it's possible that the webcomic writer did know. And, finally, I don't like your tone. I was only sharing on a talk page that I thought it was interesting. It wasn't meant as a reason to merge the articles. I'm sorry if I haven't learned the rules yet, but it's no reason for veiled insults. --Misaf-Keru 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. I assumed that the statement following your vote was a justification of your vote. I meant no veiled or unveiled personal insult, so I apologize. -- rynne 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cat and Girl. It's one of the central ideas of the comic, and it's not like the article couldn't stand some expansion. --Gwern (contribs) 02:32 29 June 2007 (GMT)
Merge into Cat and Girl or Dorothy Gambrell, but ideally simply pick one and make the rest portals to that article. Could also be linked from the punk rock entry, esp. near the beginning of paragraph 3 of section 5.4 ... this may also give it a chance for greater visibility and thus more informed debate may be had by more folks. It is an interesting and original enough thought to avoid deletion without better research or reason, at any rate, but doesn't deserve its own entry as much as to be included in (an)other(s). Jonaspi 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Jonaspi[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cat and Girl. Relatively central idea of the comic, and that article could do with some expansion itself. OkamiItto 07:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Just because an expression is new doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. How old does something have to be before it gets in wikipedia? 5 minutes, 5 months, 5 years, 50? --Nyxxxx 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It gets it's own article when it's notable and verifiable, and doesn't simply belong in another article. Someguy1221 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable in that it was published by an outside source. It is notable in that I believe you'll find it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/archives/DEC05/FILM/wildeast.html and http://www.answers.com/topic/strummer-s-law Sorry I don't know how to wikify things. --Nyxxxx 00:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first of the above links states "Strummer's Law" as "No input, no output"---certainly a completely different meaning than Cat and Girl's definition? -- rynne 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dorothy Gambrell or Cat and Girl. Though it may not stand on its own as a Wikipedia article, as an idea it does have merit and could be of interest to people unfamiliar with the comic. I would vote to keep the article as-is except that it's in clear violation of policy. A shame, really. 24.19.42.84 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cat and Girl - Demonstrates an important aspect of the style and philosophy of the comic, though not substantial enough for its own entry. DevOhm ^Talk 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Compare to Gary Larsen's "Thagomizer". This may not have come into broad common use yet, but has 112 google hits so far, and seems to have some legs. It should stand and be rechecked in six months to see if it is still in use.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extinctioners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The page asserts no notability, as do none of the related pages. Kwsn^(Ni!) 05:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search of "Extinctioners" returns a good deal of material relating to the subject of the article, it doesn't seem terribly obscure (like some other afd candidates), even if it seems to have a rather narrow audience, I don't see it as being any sort of marketing ploy...I'm not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policy on notability specifically surrounding comic books, but it seems alright to me (I probably sound so naive right now). Calgary 06:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Keeping the above in mind, I'd have to say that the other articles related to this article don't seem all too neccessary, constituting what I believe is referred to as "fancruft" Calgary 06:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on AfD'ing them if this one came back as keep, otherwise they would probably fall under an G6 speedy, I think. Kwsn^(Ni!) 07:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might not be the most famous comic of all time, but the article seems to be reasonably researched, and is actually fairly well-written, and seems to be in keeping with Wikipedia standards. --Milton 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge character articles into a big list. The comic is notable enough for a main article and a character article, but an article for every single character seems a bit much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Badly needs cleanup. Most characters (if not all) should probably be merged to a single page, but the comic itself is notable. Despite targetting a niche market, it has been consistently sold through mainstream distributors and has been reviewed by a number of credible sources (CBG had an Extinctioners cover at one point). I'll see if I can't scrape up some references. Serpent's Choice 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extinctioners was featured on the cover and reviewed in Comics Buyer's Guide 1379. CBG isn't searchable online, so I'm seeing if I can't find a hard-copy to reference from. It was also reviewed ("missing a little bit but ... a well thought out universe") in CBEM 370, but obviously ezines (even well-established ones) aren't preferred sources. The comic, at least after the Shanda acquisition, has also been distributed by Diamond Comic Distributors, which is at least a cut above most furry comics (I'm pretty sure it was never a Previews cover, but that's almost always DC anyway, so isn't a good barometer). Preorder numbers (via CBG) seem to indicate sales of about ~1000 per issue, which is low but not abysmal for an indie. There's some mention of the comic in Erie-area newspapers, although that's likely to be local bias (the author is an Erie resident). Trying to dig up more in between other research and non-Wikipedia life; I've been putting off referencing the actual article because its such a daunting cleanup task due to other problems, but I still think its over the WP:N bar... Serpent's Choice 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless the sources appear in the article, the article fails WP:N. It is the responsibility of those wanting to add or retain material to add sources. People wanting to remove material are under no obligation to prove that none exist. Jay32183 19:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge character articles into a single article or delete them. Would suggest a link to Wikifur, which allows more in-depth coverage of the topic. -- Kesh 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reverted my close, as no reliable sources to show notability have been given. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources in the article to give real world context. Notability is based on sources. That is, no sources = not notable. Jay32183 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would including portions of an article written about the comic that appeared in the Comicbook Buyer's Guide be sufficient as a "reliable source"? I felt that last time we met all the standards for the article being include, though I note that it has been changed by an outside source recently. The artilce was significantly shorter and direct prior to these last alterations by an outside source. Shawntae Howard

The result was delete. If someone wants to merge the information, they can contact me to get the deleted revisions.-Wafulz 15:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary of Tenjho Tenge[edit]

Article is just a plot summary. By design, it violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 05:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Confusing Manifestation 05:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is a tricky one, since although it does seem to violate the above policy, the policy does state that "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Since the Plot Summary is summarized (wheels in wheels) in the main article, I think it should be shortened and incorporated into the main article. --Milton 06:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an argument for merge, not keep. Otto4711 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tenjho Tenge. 70.55.86.129 04:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policy, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 12:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#PAPER does not override anything else that appears within WP:NOT. Jay32183 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the surface, the article does violate WP:NOT#PLOT for being a mere plot summery. However, there is currently no duplication with any other articles in the article series and the problems with WP:NOT#PLOT this could be addressed by writing the article from an out-of-universe perspective and adding secondary references in accordances with WP:WAF. --Farix (Talk) 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article has a section that discusses the plot. Rewriting this article will end up duplicating the main page, except it will then have too much plot. Jay32183 19:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Tenjho Tenge. This is a derivative re-telling of the story and Wikipedia is not the copyright holder of it. --maclean 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Peter 14:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dwayne Buckle[edit]

Nonnotable filmmaker (has made one film, no indep. sources showing its notability). He was in the news for getting beat up in Greenwich Village ~~this past week~~ -- that's not enough, either. See WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as director and as a sound engineer and as a media figure. Nawlins facts are not correct. Buckle was assulted and stabbed in Aug 2006 not last week. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (article author)[reply]
- Response Fair enough, but the date change doesn't make him any more notable. NawlinWiki 05:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, no reliable sources to show notability. Perhaps once his documentary comes out, he'll be notable enough for an article. -- Kesh 05:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself says that his only claim to notability is his assault, and I'm pretty sure that being assaulted and appearingon the O'Reilly Factor isn't grounds for a wikipedia article. Calgary 05:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO otherwise. If his documentary proves notable article may be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per media coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep saying this. However, Wikipedia is not for the most trivial matters. If you want to change that, suggest policy changes at the Village pump. You can't change policy by making a point on every biographical AfD. -- Kesh 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per media coverage, even though the NY Post's style of writing would never cut it here. :o) --EarthPerson 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found discussion in forums about how his attack changed in the media from being an "assault by a group of women" to one by "a roving gang of lesbians". These are not direct quotes on either, but the general idea. Unfortunately these are forums and not an editorial from a good source. Finding one would help greatly. --EarthPerson 17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article must be somwhat notable as someone has has vandalized it about six times--The Emperor of Wikipedia 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia gets vandalized, notable or not. -- Kesh 01:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a self promotion article. The court case in itself should have a page not one person involved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.109.222 (talk • contribs) 23:15, July 4, 2007— 24.199.109.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I wrote this article and I am not Dwayne Buckle nor do I have any affliation with him. This is not a self promotion article.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.-Wafulz 15:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Pro Wrestling (Florida)[edit]

Non notable independent wrestling promotion. The only source is the promotion’s official MySpace, and a google search for “Omega Pro Wrestling” and “Omega Pro Wrestling Florida” turn up this article, an Wikipedia article on Kenneth Jenkins (which was deleted in April, recreated a month later, and then deleted again today), and a three videos on YouTube and AOL. The rest of the results are for the Hardy’s old promotion Organization of Modern Extreme Grappling Arts. Nenog 04:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article stub about a non-notable wrestling promotion that not only does not cite sources, but is written in a style that is both speculative, and biased in favor of the promotion in question. This just keeps getting easier and easier... Calgary 04:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Also, Tkdblckbelt's (the user who created the page) only edits are on this article. So it might be a vanity/self-promotion thing as well. Even if it isn't, it still fails WP:CORP and WP:V. Nikki311 06:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shape of Sola Scriptura[edit]

This is a fork from sola scriptura. Does not obviously meet WP:BK. I requested reliable sources to establish its notability (via a prod), but none came. Flex (talk/contribs) 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an interesting book, but I don't see any reason to say that it's notable. Nyttend 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to rectangle, the standard shape for most books. Or seriously, Delete, as I don't see any reviews from reliable sources (zero GNews archive hits). Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL cab 02:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xpeeps[edit]

Not a notable site Sycarr 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 12:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Uppal[edit]

The result was no consensus, defaults to keep. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Losing candidates for election typically (I believe?) aren't considered sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, and there is little else on the page that is otherwise encyclopedic. Contested prod moved to AfD. Cmprince 04:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ ~~There are lot of articles that covered his campaigns, which I think makes him barely notable Corpx 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Based on the following arguement Corpx 05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a lot of articles about candidates because elections are notable. Insert any random name in Uppal's place, and the level of coverage does not change. Failed political candidates are not inherently notable, and no other claim to notability exists. Resolute 04:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hear me out. I created the article because anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics will understand that he will win in his seat (barring some sort of major political re-alignment). He is running in a safe seat, and I created this article because he will be an MP in the future. If it is deleted, it will just get re-created. This is not an article about a failed candidate, but preperation for a future MP. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not a future MP. You may speculate that he will be elected, but that does not automatically elevate him to the House of Commons at some point in the future. Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The chances of him not getting elected (provided he survives until the election) are up there with the chances of Mars leaving orbit, but it's still a bit WP:CRYSTAL for me because there is that one in a thousand chance he won't survive. --Charlene 06:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are less notable candidates who run for office entered in Wikipedia. The article just needs to be sourced and possibly expanded. He appears to have enough notability to be accepted. Jjmillerhistorian 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commentThe article now has sources. Jjmillerhistorian 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a multiple candidate who is almost certain to be elected at the next election, however if for some unlikely reason he is not elected then delete would probably be apporpriate at that time. Davewild 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep weak because no sources are provided. I'm sure all the good things about him are true, but this is a bio article.DGG 03:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commentThe article now has sources. Jjmillerhistorian 19:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Article needs sources. Callelinea 04:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When he wins office, not just a nomination, then he clears the notability bar for elected officials and this article can be recreated. Canuckle 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, elected politicians in significant offices yes, candidates no. Deiz talk 13:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because someone is not elected to an office does not make them non-notable. Jjmillerhistorian 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. But on the same basis, a failed candidate is not automatically notable either. Failed candidates that have articles should be notable for other reasons. If their failed elections runs are their only claim to fame, then the article should be deleted. Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes no sense to delete now and re-create after the next elections. --Qyd 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason to keep. You can WP:USERFY it or just copy the content elsewhere. Corpx 01:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you figure a more complicated way? vote stays. --Qyd 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep this biography just on the premise that he lost 2 elections as a Federal Conservative / Canadian Alliance candidate in Alberta, regardless there is a 99% possibility he will win this seat, I will personally eat every sock in my sock drawer and post the video to You Tube if he looses, I'm that sure he will win this time. --Cloveious 04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed candidates are not inherently notable, and do not meet WP:BIO. His stint as a radio host has the potential to make him noteworthy, but there is nothing in the article that suggests that is the case. As for the assertions on this page that "anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics will understand that he will win in his seat" and so forth, since when do the speculation, hunches, predictions, guesses and offers-to-eat-socks of a small group of Wikipedia editors trump WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL? Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, unreleased software. NawlinWiki 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spigit[edit]

It hasn't even been launched, and there's no evidence that reliable third-party sources have covered it. The prod was disputed with the edit summary "Clarified the launch status of spigit.", though the edit just consisted of moving the mention of the beta launch date. ShadowHalo 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement - "Creators can gain visibility from all types of participants" - Borderline speedy deletion material here. Corpx 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This might have been eligible for CSD A7 regardless. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 00:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3G Studios[edit]

Blatant spam/conflict of interest, as noted in a recent WP:COIN report. See the article history: author and article title are the same. Article has no sources. Shalom ^Hello 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the fact that they've made 2 PSP games - SWAT and stacked. Most gaming sites have pages for these games and hence I think the creator is notable Corpx 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam - Jet123 (Talk) 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom by Shalom, and Jet123. Bearian 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam and conflict of interest. Acalamari 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Collegary[edit]

I contested a PROD tagging of this article. The PRODder called it "100% hoax", but based on the author's contribution log, I think that's unlikey. He might not be notable anyway. Shalom ^Hello 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete band for which this person is a "drummer" doesn't seem to exist. The article for the band, Aero, is being prodded. No evidence that any of this exists.--Ispy1981 03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the articles - Absolutely nothing on these guys on a google search, except wiki mirrors. What a ruse ! Corpx 04:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's not notable, and neither is the band. Acalamari 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Aero page is a complete hoax; they have never charted. Chubbles 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QWHIP[edit]

Non-notable internet forum per WP:WEB; not in Alexa top 100,000, no external coverage per WP:RS. Crystallina 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article history reveals a conflict of interest. User:Qwhipster has no edits except to this article. Shalom ^Hello 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO in that it is very non-notable & has no independent media mentions anywhere Corpx 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g7, per request of author of this version of the article. NawlinWiki 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.C. Sheffield[edit]

Originally created by Ccsheffield (who is the subject of the article) it was deleted per author request. Ccsheffield then created the sockpuppets Koganuts, JuniorMetro, Infowingman, and Acespacecase to create numerous word-for-word copies of the deleted article. The duplicates have since been turned into redirects. The subject herself doesn't appear notable having (according to IMDB) appeared in one episode of According to Jim and two small roles in two small films. None of the other credits listed in the article have any sources to verify them. IrishGuy ^talk 03:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete pear author request, assuming that User:Ccsheffield is indeed the master of those sockpuppets. Resolute 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, regular delete for lack of notability. Resolute 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, I reverted sheffield's edits because sock puppetry is not proven. Delete as a non-notable singer/extra Corpx 04:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, no checkuser has been run...but the fact that these new accounts were all created to only make edits to this article and recreate it word-for-word from the deleted article surely points towards socks. I left COI warnings on various talk pages and none of them stepped forward to claim that they weren't socks...they simply continued removing the COI tag. IrishGuy ^talk 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. I did revert the apparent author's removal of the AfD notice. --健次(derumi)^talk 08:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's now an author request for deletion of the article. Speedy delete? --健次(derumi)^talk 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCORE Stove[edit]

No context for article on nn product, with no sources. Article was recreated after a blatant advertising CSD, with the exact same text, including the old CSD notice. MSJapan 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable product - As per above, no notable mentions anywhere Corpx 04:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Not encyclopedic. kingboyk 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of FHM 100 Sexiest Women[edit]

Basically a mirror of information from FHM. Wikipedia is not a mirror or indiscriminate collection of information. Wafulz 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A copyvio to boot. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12, per discussion. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about including the URL it was copied from in the tag? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Doublechecked the site, and you're right, the G12 doesn't apply. I still stand by a delete though, per WP:LIST. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site?! FHM is a magazine. You know, paper. I'm not sure this is a copyvio (it might be, it might not) but I'm deleting it anyway as unencyclopedic. --kingboyk 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not good for Wikipedia. Jet123 (Talk) 05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete all a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka (soap opera)[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:NOTFILM. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The saints and the sinners. Kevin 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. Shalom ^Hello 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, speedy if possible. This is utter WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above.--Ispy1981 03:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like somebody just started this up, as there are no independent corroboration anywhere. Corpx 04:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. StudierMalMarburg 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 07:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Buble[edit]

Serious WP:BLP concerns. Article is about a single highly embarassing incident in a living person's life - unlikely to ever have more material let alone become a valid biographical article. The details are really just titillation and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper... WjBscribe 02:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - major BLP nightmare. Totally NN individual. Non-encyclopedic - Alison ☺ 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for mostly the same reasons as Alison. If his issue turns into a Supreme Court case, we'll talk, but for now there's no reason that it should even have hung around this long. Trusilver 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didnt think this could be real, but it is!. However, sleeping with one's dog does not make one notable Corpx 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability only in a constituency's minds. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Come on?! This is 2 things: 1) A major BLP vio as Alison stated, and 2) Major nonsense. —« ANIMUM » 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Away (Movie)[edit]

I have been researching this article extensively and I have determined that it is one of two things: either it is a hoax or it is a movie that is being made by the article creator. Internet research shows up no evidence that this movie exists except for the external link cited. The same for Joshua Stallings Film Co. and Jayess Ent. Productions. Neither of the companies the author cited exist. I have backed up this by checking internet sources exhaustively and by calling the state of California to confirm that there is no business registered under either of these names.

The author himself had an article that was CSD'd a few days back for similar reasons and he himself twice attempted to remove delete tags from this article. Note that the author's name is also the same name as the movie's star,director, producer, et al.

Considering the circumstances, I am nominating this article for deletion under WP:NOTFILM, WP:NOR and WP:COI. Trusilver 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also... although he is currently blocked, the author would like to express his objection to the deletion of his own page and presumably this one...at least that's the impression I got when he vandalized my user page. Trusilver 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of sufficient notability to pass WP:NOTFILM. Nice research work by the nom. Kevin 02:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmm, an uncited article for an entirely non-notable flim of which the writer, director and starring actor all happen to have the same name as the user who created the article...this doesn't take a genius. Calgary 03:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a phone call to the state of California. Good research by the nom, but unnecessary effort for something as obviously non-notable as this. 172.209.244.244 03:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was overkill, I know. But I don't like to get caught with my pants down, so to speak. I'd rather do too much research than not enough. I wanted this to be a slam dunk rather than a real debate. Trusilver 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is clearly COI, has no notability. It's as if the author is trying to promote this film via Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slam dunk it is.DGG 04:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennisthe2. --Milton 06:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Peter 13:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen[edit]

Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Alaska's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Arizona's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Arkansas' Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss California's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Connecticut's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Delaware's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Florida's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Kansas Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nebraska's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nevada's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Oklahoma's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Pennsylvania's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Tennessee's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Texas' Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Misguided attempt at creating articles for non-notable state-level teen beauty contests. Each article consists solely of "The Miss X's Outstanding Teen pageant is the competition that selects the representative for the state of X in the Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant," followed by the exact same two paragraphs describing the national pageant. Merely being associated with the state competitions of the Miss America pageant does not make these pageants notable and none of the articles have a single citation. I tried to look for sources but found only the most trivial crap imaginable. I do have to admit, though, that I had only gotten through searching for about half of these pageants, realized I had put far more work into this than the articles' creator and decided "fuck it." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, does not meet WP:BIO Tatonka79 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created the day before this comment. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom Bigdaddy1981 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and salt thoroughly~~ per nom. This is listcruft of the worst kind and is deletable under both WP:BIO and WP:NOT#INFO. Trusilver 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - remarks to salt seem inappropriate here. There is no history of recreation or vandalism associated with this ceries of articles or by the creator. Salting these would seem to be a contradiction to WP:SALT. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I withdrawal my request to salt. My reason for suggesting it in the first place is how articles of this nature have an above average tendency to come back long after they have been originally deleted. Trusilver 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact because they are not sourced and aren't well written is no reason to delete them. It simply means that I've had other priorities I've been working on. You're clearly ignoring the sources at Miss California's Outstanding Teen and haven't done much google searching [27], [28]. I know that not much comes up for some but I'm picking up much more on Factiva (which I can only access through university so you can't search it). I would like to add that the nominator's comments are inflammatory. PageantUpdater 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'd only checked a few of the links to pull those diffs up... didn't have time to check the rest. Perhaps if the nominator was so keen to get these deleted, he should have bothered putting some effort in to checking whether he was being sensible. PageantUpdater 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you had put some effort into researching before deciding to create multiple articles by copypasting the exact same text into them, you would have seen that the articles do not have nontrivial mentions in reliable sources. Do you have a basis for your statement that I was "so keen to get these deleted"? I don't understand the vitriol coming from you. Unless you copypaste differently than I do, these articles did not take you that long to create; so it's not like that much work is being lost. If these pageants have received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (which neither I nor, apparently, anyone else have been able to find) there's nothing to stop you from using those sources to write articles about these pageants. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time spent was in inputting names, ages, titles and other information. It might not seem time consuming, but it is. PageantUpdater 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the state articles. All those articles mention is basically just that "This pageant was held @ ___ and ___ won". Corpx 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lack of content isn't in itself a reason for deletion. PageantUpdater 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the newspaper articles! Corpx 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Otto4711 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Will ^(talk) 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all per WP:BIO, and WP:NOT. They aren't even real articles, much of the content is the same for each of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT JFW | T@lk 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Weak Delete with no salt~~. This should not be salted because see potential notability, especially if one or more of the state winners becomes famous. The current articles should be merged back into the main article (which would produce little changes to the main article), and the most notable states could have their own section. The articles do not currently meet WP:BIO or WP:NOT standards. PageantUpdater should source a single state article to show how good a state article could become if he/she wants any chance to see this AfD fail. The tone in the nomination for this AfD is very unpleasant and has uncivil portions. Do you realize that we are all volunteers, and that the articles were created in good faith? Royalbroil 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I hadn't noticed that this organization is sister company to the Miss America Organization. It likely is or may soon be considered a major stepping stone to the very notable Miss America competition. I am satisfied with the sourcing on the Miss California article that articles with reliable sources can be made if given time. We need to give the contributors time to flesh out the articles. Many solid articles have started as a stub. Royalbroil 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The citations in the Miss California's Outstanding Teen article do not support the text of that article. They are merely citations to local newspapers saying, essentially, "Local Girl Goes to Pageant." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fifth (last) citation no longer works, but it had been linked to an article about the twin girls. It proved that they had won the pagent, which is good to source. None of the other text in the article appears to be very controversial, so sourcing it would not be necessary IMHO. Royalbroil 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That last statement doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Sourcing of articles -- period/full-stop -- is a requirement, not sourcing of controversial bits. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." I have suggested that the material is not likely to be challenged. Royalbroil 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, the material does not necessarily need to be cited, but all information in the article should be verifiable from reliable sources. Only the information in the charts is sourced. No one can find any sources to support the information in the actual article. That the only sources that mention the pageant concern the winner, her high school, hometown, hobbies, etc., this means that the text cannot be expanded beyond the copypasted material (which is primarily about the national pageant anyway). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable competitions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[C]learly notable"? If they were, you'd think reliable sources would be rather thick on the ground, but they're not. Wikipedia doesn't really do faith-based notability. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. There are lots of "contests" be they beauty, talent, sports, "outstanding teen", "congeniality" whatever -- basically, other than a few, as in the top ones, they are all not notable. These included. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wouldn't the official teen pageant for Miss America be either #1 or #2 in the list of "top ones"? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These pageants are the "Teen" pageants of the Miss America series and are therefore clearly notable. They are in slow development which is why content is still weak and why many of the state's articles are not yet created. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Let's suppose that this is in some way notable. Does that notability mean it has to have fifty articles, one for each state? That is absolutely absurd. At the absolute most, it should have a single article. Trusilver 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the national competition is notable, but not the states. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a relatively new pageant system started by the Miss America Organization for contestants ages 13 to 17. Keep in mind that the national Miss Ameirca's Outstanding Teen Pageant is in only its third year with the national pageant to be held in August 2007. If this is to be a true encyclopedia than this information about the state preliminaries and the very accomplished young women who take part in this program should be includedin Wikipedia.
WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason for inclusion when there aren't sufficient sources to do a good article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment already we've had another crossover between MAOTeen and MTUSA (Wisconsin actually) which bolsters the aritcles' claim to notability. There is a need for individual articles so that each titleholder and results can be listed. PageantUpdater 21:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "crossover" would not be a reason to have a WP article on this topic. If the real reason to have the article is to create a list of each state pageant winner, that would probably not be sufficient to justifying keeping either. A list on Wikipedia should contain members that either have articles about them or should be things/people about which Wikipedia should have articles. It is doubtful that each teen state pageant winner should have her own article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canden_Jackson, regarding state winners for the more notable Miss Teen USA pageant. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I would support certain aspects of this being folded into the Outstanding Teen article, but the fact that these teens won a mildly notable competition doesn't mean that they themselves become notable. This is no different than school articles where we are continuously deleting the names of the so-called 'star' football players that list themselves in the article in connection with winning some obscure title. And besides, as for the girls - one event does not necessarily confer notability. Trusilver 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be folded into the main article? I couldn't find anything that was not already there. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ObiterDicta, I honestly don't know :), this is me trying to reach a consensus through middle ground that I'm not sure is really there. I suppose it wouldn't be beyond reason to list current titleholders with the main article. I am absolutely one hundred percent against an article for every state, because while being a titleholder confers some vague notability on these girls, I see no reason to list past titleholders per WP:BLP1E. Trusilver 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What cannot be folded into any article are the lists of titleholders and results for the national pageant. These are highly important, especially as there are now crossovers. PageantUpdater 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are highly important How? And to whom? --Calton | Talk 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is factual if somewhat trival information, but if people are intersted in this kind of information or topic they have a place to find it. I think this is the type of topic that wikipedia is best made for. Who knows 20 30 years from now a future US President may have got her start as Miss Delaware's Outstanding Teen Smith03 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I obviously agree with the first half of your statement, but the second part is clearly crystal ballism. However what you said is right, Wikipedia is an ideal place for collecting and presenting information of this nature, and whilst I suspect the topic is of little interest to many of those here, those interested in pageants would, I think, find this information highly useful. Isn't that what an encyclopedia (particularly one that is not paper) about? PageantUpdater 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to keep things in perspective for those claiming the state pageants are not notable, a Google news searched aimed at picking up all Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageant-related articles picked up about 126 hits [29]. Extending this into the archive shows about 800 hits [30]. I would write more state articles using these references (because information for some states is thinner on the ground than others) but I'm loathe to until this is closed. I hope that the closing admin considers that some of the existing articles, particularly Californias, are well sourced. PageantUpdater 11:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment considering wikipedia has articles on fictional people and things that treat them like they are real. I see no reason not to have articles about real events.Smith03 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that, then you best have a read of this. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling miss "outstanding teen' will generate a certain number of Ghits, no question there. The issue is whether any of those will be an article about the pageant or simply an item in a local paper about a local girl who went to a pageant and isn't that great and this is where she goes to school, etc. None of the text in the Miss California article is sourced; the only citations appear in the chart of the winners. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just supposing there is a credible source (which in the event of Miss whatever Arizona, there isn't. I checked and all I got was a lot of local coverage and her self-congratulatory homepage), these pages still don't belong here. I think we have already verified that the primary purpose of these pages is the tables to document the current and past winners of said titles. However, to quote WP:BLP: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Trusilver 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More minor state-level beauty pageant trivia clogging up the InnerTubes of Wikipedia. A lot of handwaving passing for arguments to keep. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about creating a page for each year's national contest 2006 Miss America's Outstanding Teen and than list the 50 state winners on that page .If a person wanted to see who the past Miss Ohio was they can just go thru the various yearsSmith03 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's WP:LISTCRUFT. Or, more specifically, from Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists):

Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.

So, because the state winners don't have articles on them (and don't look likely to have such articles in this lifetime) it is inappropriate to have a list of state winners. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is simply because the girls aren't likely to have individual articles that the lists are useful and important. One of hte arguments made when all the individual articles on the Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates were deleted was that the state lists were there to record their names. And discounting sources because they are in the winners table and not the text is ludicrous. PageantUpdater 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wiki policy WP:SAL: "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Is there any reasonable expectation that all of these girls (or even a few of them) are on the cusp of becoming notable thus warranting inclusion?
Not that it particularly matters, but FWIW, WP:SAL is a guideline, not a policy. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion based on them not being notable enough for their own articles is in direct violation of WP:SAL. Wikipedia policy is just that, policy.Trusilver 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in those discussions and it is unlikely I would have made that argument. Despite what Calton has so aptly termed "handwaving" it has not been demonstrated that these contestants should be covered at all on Wikipedia. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And discounting sources because they are in the winners table and not the text is ludicrous. See proof by assertion. The reason sources are required is because they are used to write the article. So if they aren't being used to write the article (and do not have material in them that could contribute to the article), they're not demonstrating the notability of the subject of the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
What I was thinking was that if each National contest had an article like Miss America 2007 so for example Miss America's Outstanding Teen 2007. You would be able to give information about the event and also list the names of each state rep. You would not need 50 or 51 separate articles just one for each year. As for as it not be noteworthy there are a lot of articles and pages in wikipedia that probably are equally trivial that are left alone and what is silly to some is a big deal to others. I am simply trying to suggest away to keep the information but perhaps do on less pages. Do Bo Duke or James T. Kirk need their own articles? Smith03 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that wouldn't record each state's history which is what is so important. Anyway, I have an idea... PageantUpdater 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voila, problem solved. I hope this is a compromise decision we can all be happy with. Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants. If everyone is happy I will endorse deleting the individual articles. PageantUpdater 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not I was coming back to suggest something like that as well put all the states on one page. I think that is a reasonable compromiseSmith03 01:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still have issues with the notability of the individual winners, I think that this is an acceptable compromise if it can result in a consensus. Trusilver 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this reasonable compromise too. Royalbroil 05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fifteen minutes of fame aren't. >Radiant< 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Question" Is there an expection that each winner is supposed to have her own article? Because I don't think winners should have their own article, unless they go on to do something "important" but I support a list of all the past state winners. Smith03 15:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echelon (warez)[edit]

Non-notable, most of content is nonsense about something other than what the page is supposedly about. Jeff 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious claims at best, and the only thing remotely close to a reliable source is a single mention in a list of similar groups in a DOJ press release. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Somewhat notable for their "warez skills" Corpx 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep back when Dreamcast was new, Echelon was very popular. Almost every game was cracked by them. Second of all, I'm pretty damned sure there is a "list of warez groups" article around here somewhere, I saw it a few days ago. These guys are one of the most well known, if not THE most well known, Sega Dreamcast crackers. At least merge their info into the warez groups list. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This group gained a lot of press attention during the DoJ raids in 2004, and were rather notorious before that time. Ante lan ^talk 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be worth considering whether precedent was set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEViANCE (2nd nomination), where we deleted a much better-known group. Heather 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These may not be satisfactory, but there are sources which discuss this (although they do not focus on Echelon, hence my comment that these may not be satisfactory): USA Today, the DoJ, and MSNBC via the AP Wire. Ante lan ^talk 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend reading the first nomination for Deviance. the 2nd one had barely any input, most likely from people who don't know anything about them. They were throwing around guidelines for deletion anyways. Read the first nomination, where there is alot more discussion, and mostly keep votes. To say that these guys are not notable is silly. Search Deviance + warez in google. many many hits. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but seems very much POV. Clean it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable sources mention the article subject in passing. I don't think the number of search engine hits is relevant in this case. Kevin 01:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Echelon was the target of a major DOJ investigation due to their prominence in the warez industry. The group is infamous and notable, especially in the global circle of piracy. The sources provided above go to show this. --74.73.16.230 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sumnjim and 74.73.16.230. Also noteworthy is that Echelon was one of the main reasons the Dreamcast failed commercially. --Darkstar 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of warez groups - a paragraph is all that is required here. Not sure about the link to cracked torrent d/loads either... does this violate WP:COPY? EyeSerene^TALK 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus bordering on keep. The usefullness of the list as a navigation aid isn't really refuted, and "it's crufty" is vague. Whether it's discriminate or not hasn't resolved to a consensus. Cheers, Wily D 18:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the United States[edit]

Fails WP:NOT#INFO, This page is an indiscriminate collection of information ChrisLamb 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one I call for a Keep. This list is not as indiscriminate as one would let on (it's wall to wall malls), though its criteria for inclusion aren't well established. It's also incomplete (I can think of a few malls that can be added). It is my opinion that this does not fall in the constraints of being listcruft; or rather, it seems to fall into the constraints of WP:LIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs)

As stated below, inclusion would be hard to pigeonhole. Is a lifestyle center a "mall"? (Personally, I would call that concept "crap" and not a mall, but that's just me.) What about outlet malls? Should we split it into List of lifestyle centers in the United States, List of power centers in the United States, List of outlet malls in the United States, etc.? ...But wait! Would an outlet-hybrid mall (think Mills Corporation) be an outlet mall or just a shopping mall? Or both? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if, at that point, we'd be splitting hairs, but that depends on what a lifestyle center or power center would be defined as. Outlet malls are fairly foregone for that, but...well, perhaps it's another one to put out in projectland. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power centers we could probably leave out entirely, they're a dime a dozen (think super-sized strip malls). When I compiled a list of malls in the USA (which, per the struck-out comment below, took a long time), I found myself often questioning whether or not such-and-such was a mall by definition. Splitting this by state might not be a bad idea -- I've already made List of shopping malls in Michigan, which I can guarantee is complete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- splitting into malls by state is a good idea it would be much easier on the reader then this <hyperbole>endless list</hyperbole> ChrisLamb 01:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, even as a mall-geek myself. Yikes. Not only is this list far from complete (believe me -- I actually composed a list of every shopping mall, lifestyle center, and outlet mall in the U.S.; it took months), the list is also horribly unmanageable. I mean, is a lifestyle center a "mall"? Do strip malls count? Outlet malls? What about partially enclosed strip malls? Et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete for now - too many messages discussing what is the definition of a "mall" instead of, are most malls notable enough for inclusion? Tatonka79 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all malls are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, but I'm confident that the definition of a "mall" can be straightened out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral for now, pending further discussion. I would be willing to help define this list, maybe even split it by region, and define criteria. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Eddie 01:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ The traditional - if this is the right term - definition of a mall is an enclosed indoor environment lined by open storefronts, usually with at least two anchor stores. If that is enforced, then it might be worth keeping. No power centers, no strip malls (those are "shopping centers"), no lifestyle centers (unless enclosed per above). Acroterion _(talk) 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle centers, by definition, are unenclosed. Also, there're plenty of outdoor malls (see Bal Harbour Shops as an example -- it's basically an ordinary mall, minus a roof). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent, at least for climates that can support it, one can have an open mall. I recall from living in Atlanta that Lenox Square Mall became noteworthy as one of the first malls when the originally open-courtyard shopping center gained a roof in the '60's, the enclosed air-conditioned environment being the critical factor. I'm not convinced that a lifestyle center must necessarily lack a roof: a visit to Buffalo might turn up one that's covered. We're straying from the discussion here. ~~Weak Keep~~, provided criteria are stated and enforced. Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking like The Block at Orange, or something like that? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lenox Square gained a roof (essential in Georgia), The Block at Orange lost its roof (optional in California). So I now lean to delete on the grounds that such a list will lead to long discussions like this, only angry. Or maybe TPH can just upload his list, so it can finally have a home. Acroterion _(talk) 02:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's yet another in a long list of...erm...long lists that serve no purpose whatsoever. While not quite listcruft, it still falls very firmly into the headlights of WP:NOT#INFO. Trusilver 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps to direct people to the articles we already have on, say, shopping malls in the United States? Just because its contents do not interest you does not mean that it has no purpose. Rebecca 06:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have written a few proposed inclusion criteria at User:TenPoundHammer/List of shopping malls sandbox. Please check out this page and offer any suggestions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can support TPH's definitions and criteria. Acroterion _(talk) 03:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor tweaks just as you posted that comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. It addresses the "indiscriminate" objection in the nom. Acroterion _(talk) 03:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm all for this. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dennisthe2. This list is different. Don't ask me to explain why. JJL 03:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would fall under WP:INTERESTING, which is not a good "keep" criterion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it should be a "list of lists of malls" - given that there is a lot of states in the US and there are >40000 malls in the country.Ga rr ie 03:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to me it's a useful list and not listcruft. --Caldorwards4 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I made fun of the author and the concept earlier this month (in a debate over an article I had drawn up) I've always liked the lists of malls, both existing and defunct. The impact of the shopping mall on the retail industry and on American society has been tremendous. Malls are, in effect, new cities located miles from the downtown business district of an existing town. TenPound has documented the phenomenon quite well. Mandsford 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Delete These lists are making wikipedia into the next yellow pages, however official policy is pretty vague in this area as inclusion in this list isnt very loose. I would think a policy clarification is in order to address the growing number of lists Corpx 04:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malls by themselves are not notable - they're just buildings. Just because a building is used by the public to conduct business doesnt give it notability. This is a slippery slope that could lead to List of Chevy dealers in the US or List of Gas Stations in the US since an ordinary gas station has about as much notability as an ordinary mall. The number of malls from that list that dont have a page further illustrates that this is a list of not-notable things Corpx 07:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~(edit: Since some less notable malls have been removed from the list, I looked at the history and note that until Mar 3, 2007 [31] the introduction said only notable malls were on the list. I restored that qualifier, and now call for keeping it a a better defined list. ~~as an indiscriminate list of information, since there are 46,000 of them, most of them non-notable, and all it would be is a directory, which Wikipedia is not.~~ I would have no objection to a list of regional or superregional malls, as defined in Shopping mall per the International Council of Shopping Centers [32], since they are more notable, and there are under 1200 of them, rather than the thousands that would be in this list. ~~There is nothing in this article to prevent adding the smallest neighborhood shopping center.~~ Edison 05:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, if you don't disagree with the existence of this list (rather with its present content) then why are you voting delete instead of cleanup? Listing malls we will never have articles on is kind of pointless, as I noted below, but it's pretty stupid to shoot subject-specific index pages all the same. Rebecca 06:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Comment (I like www.Televisionwithoutpity.com, where people are banned for starting comments with "Um.") The list ~~still says~~ formerly said in the introduction "This is a list of shopping malls in the United States of America. There are 46,990 shopping malls and centers in the U.S." with the clear implication that there is was no reason not to add even the least notable neighborhood strip mall. The discussion page talks about restricting it to notable malls. I would suggets restricting it to regional (over 400,000 sq ft of GLA with certain other features) or superregional (over 800,000 sq ft) as well as historic malls and any malls which clearly meet WP:N and WP:A. ~~As is , it is~~ It was clearly an "indiscriminate" list purely because it ~~has~~ had no stated basis for leaving off insignificant malls. ~~Fix it, and I could vote to keep. Then it would be~~ Now it is a different article. It is not just a matter of me having to edit it. We do not have to go in and fight a continuing battle with creators of an article to change it into something which is congruent with Wikipedia guidelines. And people keep creating stubs with no references and no basis (such as GLA for judging the significance of a mall. Edison 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is (or should be) an index of our articles on shopping malls in the United States. Many of these articles are either indisputedly notable, or have been the subject of an AfD and come out the other end intact. It should thus help the reader navigate between them. Listcruft? We're an encyclopedia - it's pretty silly to go and shoot the indexes. Rebecca 06:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the items on the list have pages just because they're a mall, that's it. There is nothing more notable about them other than being a mall. Mall of America is notable because of its history/size/attractions. Eastwood Mall (Birmingham), the first item on that list, does not stand out in any way and I dont see any kind of notability attached to it. The Woodlands Mall is one closer to me geographically thats another example of an article about a mall that's not notable than any other mall. Corpx 07:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it would seem that other people do not agree with you. Many, if not most all of the existing articles on this list have already been nominated for deletion, due to the efforts of a small clique of users, and have subsequently been kept. Thus, if the articles exist, and are going to continue to exist, what is the sense in deleting an index to them? Rebecca 07:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the number of people in agreement/disagreement should matter, but rather which side is accurately citing policy. Corpx 08:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? "We must delete index pages because I think the articles on the list should have been deleted when others disagreed" is not policy. Rebecca 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT dictates against lists of "loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons. Even though it doesnt state explicitly, I derive that it is also against loosely assosiated topics such as buildings. Malls are all just buildings, except they share a common purpose, which is a loose criteria criteria for inclusion. Corpx 09:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing wrong with this list article. AfD is not cleanup, and "indiscriminate collection of information" is possibly the most annoying phrase ever used here. —Xezbeth 07:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase is also part of Official Wikipedia Policy Corpx 09:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is not useful, and not encyclopedic. And for the record, I'm originally from Iowa, and by checking the malls listed in Iowa, it's missing quite a few, most notably the Merle Haye Mall, which was named after the first Iowan who died in WW2, the Coral Ridge Mall, and the Cross Roads mall, just to name a few off the top of my head. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? It is a list of notable shopping malls. Thus it isn't missing the malls you mention, it is useful, and it is encyclopedia, seeing as it's acting as an index to the articles we already have. Rebecca 14:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again. 1) The article says List of shopping malls in the United States. It does not say List of notable shopping malls in the United States. 2) Please tell me why The Omni Centre (dead mall) is listed under Iowa, is a dead mall (ie: no longer exists), and why the biggest mall in Iowa (Merle Haye Mall), which, as I said, is named after the first Iowan killed in WW2, is not on the list. Please please please tell me how a crappy podunk mall in Council Bluffs which doesn't even exist is notable and why the Merle Haye Mall is not? Where the heck is the inclusion criteria for these malls? This is a bunch of original crap, and it's indiscriminate. Delete this garbage. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, then the appropriate step is to cleanup the article. Remove the non-notable malls, make it explicitly clear that this is for notable malls. Killing the index for the sake of killing the index makes no sense whatsoever. Rebecca 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You created the article, you want it kept....YOU fix it. Since I feel it should be deleted, I am not going to waste my time spending hours upon hours of fixing your mess, because you just through a bunch of random malls into the lists. (ie: indiscriminate). --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: You never answered my question why a podunk, closed down mall is on the list (ie: notable in your opinion), but not the biggest, most notable mall in Iowa? Secondly, if these malls are so notable, how come I see so many red links? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article. I didn't throw a bunch of random malls in the list. I didn't add the red links, and I'm not saying that every mall on this list is necessarily notable. I'm saying that this list should act as every other list of its nature does; act as an index to our articles on notable malls in the United States. All these notability issues are irrelevant; if the mall is not notable, it shouldn't be on this list. Rebecca 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you did create the article. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you should do...remove all the red linked malls, change the opening sentence to somehow introduce what the inclusion criteria is. ie: What made this mall get on the list. If you have specific, definied criteria for inclusion, then it wouldn't be indiscriminate. I would also change the name of it to List of notable malls in the United States (or better yet, use TenPoundHammer's proposed idea). FYI the National Mall isn't even on the list. True, it's in D.C, and there isn't a list for malls in DC, however the master list is for the whole United States. How could this mall not be on the list either? I don't even know if this list can be manageable...it's almost in disrepair. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should do this, yes. We're discussing here, however, the question of whether the article should remain on Wikipedia. You've outlaid a fairly simple process by which the issues with this article could be cleaned up. There is no great urgency that this be done right now. Rebecca 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category for inclusion has been just whether a building is or was a mall. Due to how common malls are these days, I would argue that this inclusion criteria is very loose. We could see a List of Police Stations next or List of Flea Markets next. Corpx 16:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply nonsense - we have no (or very few) articles on police stations or flea markets. We do, however, have quite a sizable number of articles on shopping malls in the United States. There is absolutely no reason why we should hot have an index pointing to those articles. Rebecca 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way the mall articles are written (they just describe the mall/stores in it), one could easily create articles about police stations and then make a list of them. Malls are not inherently notable, and this is a list about them. With this precedent, any inherently non-notable building could have an article and a list which groups them. Corpx 16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have many articles on shopping malls. This will not change. This article simply provides a useful index to the articles we do have. It says nothing about whether we should or should not have any more than the ones we already do. Rebecca 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone even looking at my proposed criteria? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the red links on that page are there because the article was deleted. I'm going to put some more up for AFD which are there solely on the notion that malls are inherently notable. Corpx 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Will ^(talk) 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Sufficiently notable malls get articles, and can easily be listed in their respective mall categories. No need for a massive list. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed criteria for inclusion of malls, please read. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are you attempting to create a specific set of criteria for all malls, to be adopted as policy/guideline? Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually trying to establish criteria for whether a mall should be on this very list. (Note: This is NOT a proposed guideline for individual mall articles!) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We went through the battle a few months ago of trying to create a guideline for notability of malls, WP:MALL, but too many people on Wikipedia feel it is instruction creep to add new guidelines and it is presently labelled "rejected" (or sometimes "essay"). Anyone who wants to create a new one is welcome to start afresh or to incorporate any good parts from the old one. Not everything called a mall is notable enough to have an article or even to be in a list. We do not need a list which includes grubby little neighborhood strip mall, power centers, or decrepit malls which only serve a small town, any more than Wikipedia should have a List of mailboxes or a List of gas stations. Edison 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okie. Well, it looks fairly good as a start. Perhaps a little more work in terms of rigorous definitions for each category of mall, but if something like this is applied to the list I may be persuaded to alter my recommendation. Better still, perhaps the list should be broken up into sub-lists .. as stated previously .. this list has the potential to become enormous. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep categorization and inclusion has been clearly specified and notability has been established. By definition, all of the articles with links are notable shopping malls. Alansohn 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because I couldn't stand it any longer, I went through every state on the list and removed ANY AND ALL red links, along with malls that did not have any links. It would take too much time to fact check every link to see what should be kept/removed myself, so to keep it short I just removed all the extra stuff. If there is a mall that isn't on the list and is notable/has an article, feel free to add it. That at least makes it somewhat more managable. It still needs a rewrite that determines inclusion in the list. I don't know if it will survive AfD but it's at least in better shape than what it was. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, wouldnt a category be better suited since only the ones with article are listed? Have a [[:Category:Malls in <State>]] category and a Category:Malls in the United States that encompasses all the states? Corpx 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shopping_malls_in_the_United_States --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article itself says, "There are 46,990 shopping malls and centers in the U.S." That's too long for a list. As noted above, there's already a category; let's not be redundant. There are a few advantages to selecting a category as the way to move forward with this information:
Avoids redlinked entries.

Easier to manage--if you're looking at a mall article, you can tell right away if it's in the category.

If we ever support automatic intersecting categories, it would be easy to find all malls in a specific state or founded in a particular year.

Matchups 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source has the potential to be an encyclopediac list--Sefringle^Talk 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and enyclopedic list. --musicpvm 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above, but probably it should only include the 2 or 3 most important malls (and maybe 1 or 2 historical) per state and keep therest only in the appropriate category.--JForget 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be too narrow in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at the actual list, and not the title. This is not an indiscriminate list, and it contain information which would be very hard or impossible to do in a category, matching the malls with the towns--this is more important than in some other instances, because the two names are rarely the same & almost all of them are in suburbs. If it looks to long, the sections can be made collapsable. NOT PAPER, and we should take full advantage of that. DGG 03:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it is not an indiscriminate list is why it should be deleted. If these malls are notable then they are in Category:Shopping malls in the United States. In fact the introduction for this list implies that only the articles included in this list are notable and the the other articles in Category:Shopping malls in the United States are not notable. That is totally wrong. If there is an article then it is notable. Inclusion in this list does not make the mall notable. Delete this article and keep the category. Vegaswikian 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. I agree that guidelines are needed, but with guidelines this could be cleaned up to become a good list. If one was forced to use categories, it would be very hard to find any information, and many of the categories, like this list, are incomplete. Metallic95 User Page | Talk 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is keeps. this shows historically shopping malls in the us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 414ronald (talk • contribs)

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Oregon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Oregon

Should be deleted because does not meet Wikipedia:Schools or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. Many of these schools may be notable, but this seems to be an attempt at listing every single school in Oregon, and 95% of high schools do not meet the preceding criteria for notability. Tatonka79 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Tatonka79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NOT#INFO ChrisLamb 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Its only failing compared to other list of schools articles is the number of redlinks, and that's not a failing for this type of article. Wikipedia:Schools is defunct and not valid as a rationale for deletion. I'm also noting this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for those with more familiarity with the subject to chime in. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hoping for an unbiased vote - not now if we get mostly school contributors...Tatonka79 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Tatonka79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It's not a vote or a straight headcount, its a debate that attempts to reach a community consensus. The closing admin will weigh all the arguments, not just the "votes". Latr, Katr 04:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Katr. How could you expect to have a credible decision process, without inviting those most experienced with/devoted to school-related articles to express their opinions? This comment makes me wonder about the legitimacy of the nomination. Tatonka, why would you want to exclude (or avoid informing) those WikiProjects? -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't imagine how the entire Oregon educational system could be non-notable, so a list of its high schools seems quite appropriate. Someguy1221 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stable, well-maintained, complete, and properly disambiguated list of articles belonging to a legitimate encyclopedic topic with broad interest, and not a collection of indiscriminate information. Notability of each high school should be addressed in individual Afds. Latr, Katr 04:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and notability such as mentioned above cannot apply to lists. Nobody in reliable source land writes in depth articles on "List of XXXXX" as at least I've never seen an article in USA Today titled List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries (which is FL class). This is a problem with all lists, and if that is a concern it should be addressed at WP:LIST not by deleting every list. I also find it odd/strange that the nominator would 1) assume unbiased opinions will come from WP:SCHOOL folk, and 2) that the nominator would not expect those people to participate when referencing a page from within that project. Aboutmovies 04:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability argument made by the nominator is misguided. The notability of the schools is not a reason to delete this article (unless they are all not notable, which is not the case); it is, obviously, a potential reason to AfD the articles on the schools the nominator feels are not notable. I completely disagree with the argument that the list is a collection of indiscriminate information. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that the spirit of WP:N can still be applied to lists. As in, is this grouping notable? Are there sources on "Oregon high schools" in general? Probably. Someguy1221 04:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The notability criterion can definitely be applied to lists. However, I don't think the nominator is arguing that Oregon high schools collectively are non-notable (such an argument would be absurd). The nominator is arguing that this list should be deleted because several items on the list are non-notable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can apply the WP:N guideline to this list if you want, but even if you do, failing WP:N is not a reason for deletion under the deletion criteria. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm one who is thoroughly against lists, but I feel like this is a place where its needed as some of the schools in that list dont have articles. Since High Schools are considered notable, I think the list addresses the schools who currently dont have an article. Once all the schools get articles, replace this list with a category Corpx 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Redundant with Category:High schools in Oregon. -- Kesh 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned that the nominator is violating WP:POINT. User:Tatonka79 has fewer than 50 edits, the vast majority of which are on this AfD, discussing whether or not to AfD this article, and to place notability tags on individual high school articles. The account, at this time, clearly fits the definition of a single purpose account. The reasons given for the nomination make me suspect that it is possible the nominator is trying to make the point that those individual high school articles should be deleted (and thus violating WP:POINT. Because User:Tatonka79 is new and because it pisses me off when people toss around unfounded accusations of WP:POINT in AfD discussions, I am not accusing User:Tatonka79 of violating WP:POINT (yet). I want User:Tatonka79 to show me that he/she is not violating WP:POINT by responding to this comment. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not redundant with the category because it contains many schools for which there is not a Wikipedia article. See WP:LIST#Purpose_of_lists and Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes#Advantages_of_lists for why this argument is not valid. Cacophony 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be easily remedied by creating stub articles for the redlinked schools. What advantage do we have of keeping a list purely for naming schools we don't even have articles for? -- Kesh 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually very useful for standardization. Do you know how many Lincoln High Schools there are? On several ocasions I have had to merge duplicate school articles due to multiple people creating an article for the same school. If they exist in the List then that should reduce those instances by a person searching for their school, and then finding the proper name per naming guidelines instead of making up what they want. And why make a stub that will just be deleted for notability? Aboutmovies 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Aboutmovies is a highly active and productive member. If he's found the list useful and informative, that means a lot to me. -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't imagine any reason to delete, and haven't heard a good reason advanced here. Individual schools don't have to be notable to be worthy of inclusion on a list - notability concerns devoting an entire article to them. The WP:NOT arguments (info and directory) do not apply directly to this kind of list. And Cacophony's argument refutes the "category" argument. -Pete 08:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Keep per too many reasons to list that are already listed by others above. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... sigh. — RJH (talk) 19:14, 28
It's interesting. Some of you are implying these comments above list several reasons for high schools in general to all be notable. I don't see a reason listed that supports the idea that all "high schools are considered notable". One can make this assumption and state the point till they're blue in the face, but where is your reasoning? Per WP:Schools:

The school has been the focus of multiple non-trivial ³ published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books,⁶ magazine articles, television documentaries, and reports by consumer watchdog organizations.²
The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics. For example, the school has been recognized with a notable national award, has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record. Or, the school has gained recognition at the regional level on more than one occasion or in multiple such areas.⁷
The school has gained national recognition by virtue of its architecture or history. For example, the buildings used by some English schools have been classified by English Heritage as listed buildings and are included on the Images of England website, while some American schools are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Many schools have published histories. Details will be found in one of the online catalogues such as Worldcat or, for UK schools, COPAC.

I wonder how many of these commentors bothered to read these. Like I said before, many of the above commentors appear to spend 90-95% of their time creating and editing school-related articles, so of course they're going to defend the idea that all high schools are notable. I don't see much reasoning from any of the above comments, mainly exasperated, emotional comments (watch out with your comments Pablo, you are coming across as very hostile, many users have been banned before for that). Tatonka79 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the notablity guidlines numerous times and are well aware of the critera, I would suggest you do the same. Especially the main notability guideline where in the lead section it states:

These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.

So, for notability, I think you are confussed. Individual schools may not be notable. That's when you AFD that school. For lists, again, you are not going to get sources for notability. If you think this should change for list notability, please go to WP:LIST and discuss it there. This is not the place. Aboutmovies 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatonka, I have also read the general notability guidelines many times, and read the Schools notability guideline prior to commenting here. AboutMovies' analysis is completely correct: the notability of Oregon schools collectively is the only notability concern for this list, not the notability of individual schools.

You say that "many of the above commentors appear to spend 90-95% of their time creating and editing school-related articles." Assuming for the moment that this assertion is even relevant, is it true? Absolutely not. I very rarely edit school-related articles, and I know from extensive experience collaborating with them that AboutMovies, T-75, Katr, and Cacophony work on a very wide range of topics as well. A quick glance at Pablo's edit history reveals a wide range there as well. So can you name a single editor here who has even 30% of their edits in school-related articles? I think not. Again, it wouldn't matter even if you could - an editor's opinion is no less important simply because he has an interest in a certain area.

Finally, regarding Pablo: I don't detect the hostility you allege, but even if he were being hostile, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt - dealing with poorly-thought-out attempts to delete valid content can be stressful, and we're not always at our best in this sort of debate. A blocking threat, however, does seem hostile, in this context. -Pete 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tatonka keeps citing Wikipedia:Schools, but as noted above, that guideline is deprecated, and thus moot. Is there a current guideline you can link to and base your notability criteria on? Latr, Katr 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not only is the WP:Schools guideline no longer active, even if it was, it is only a guideline and NOT a policy. All of WP:N are guidelines and should never be used to establish whether or not an article should be deleted. In fact, WP:N is NOT a reason for an Afd per the deletion policy. - T-75|talk|contribs 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list organizes schools by county and has generated strong consensus of notability. Alansohn 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good list and serves as useful purpose and per Theophilus75. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - It's useful is not a valid reason to keep the article. -- Kesh 06:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:USEFUL isn't even a guideline, let alone a policy. - T-75|talk|contribs 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EagleFan 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a Teenage Supergirl[edit]

Non notable internet film. I found no reliable secondary sources that would confer notability, and the film has no IMDB listing. It does not seem to pass any of the notability guidelines for films. Kevin 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-not notable ChrisLamb 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources in sight, no IMDb listing, therefore not a notable film by any stretch of the imagination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guessed this would've been a popular internet "thing", however the only mentions are from blogs/forums/(streaming/download) media sites. Corpx 04:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. If we're going to start articles for "fan films" we might as well start cataloguing people's home movies too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable film. NawlinWiki 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as initial "prodder" no reliable sources, non-notable. SkierRMH 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, selfpublished book, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben and The Robotic Plot[edit]

Book doesn't come close to meeting WP:BK. Published by vanity press Publish America. Pascal.Tesson 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self publication by a vanity press makes it hard to assert notability per WP:BK. No evidence of coverage in secondary sources. Kevin 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayagriba Tripathy[edit]

Article reads like an hagiography of a subject who (with all due respect) does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article does not cite any sources and the only non-wikipedia-mirror result that a Google search throws up is this List of Pension/Family Pension cases authorised during the month of July,2006, which at least seems to indicate that the person exists. Abecedare 00:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page on the same subject, on the same notability grounds as above:

Abecedare 00:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom - hagiography is about right (!). Bigdaddy1981 01:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - He serves on a board that isnt notable. There's no mention of any references and nothing notable in the article Corpx 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Once one deletes the worthless fluff (the entire "Social service", "Spiritual leanings", and "Personal traits" sections) there is very little left that seems notable or sourcable. —David Eppstein 16:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. Interesting that both a 1980 Zimbabwean Olympic field hockey player and Johnny Rotten are supposedly in the cast. ;) NawlinWiki 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The saints and the sinners[edit]

Got only 2 google hits for article name and "soap opera". Clearly not notable though it tries to assert notability so decided to AfD not speedy. Jimmi Hugh 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. This article is utter WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All these are based on a non-notable soap opera, which is also up for deletion Corpx 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. DS 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anquette[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing variations of other people's "notable tunes" does not imbue notability to her. Shalom ^Hello 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable [33], [34], [35], though I'm disturbed by the lack of news hits. JJL 03:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, notability seems to be there per Google News Archive, but most articles behind paywalls mean sourcing could be tricky. This is typically the case with pre-internet artists, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She gets no press hits because she's an 80's one-hit wonder, no surprise there. However, see Charting album in 1988. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anquette had some reasonable R&B success, enough for the article to stay. GassyGuy 10:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish First Football League 2000-01[edit]

Not sure what this is. Looks like an indiscrimate list so violates WP:ISNOT. It is also not in English. Nv8200p talk 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 per nom. Shalom ^Hello 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would think that a seasonal article for a higher ranking league would be notable, but this completely lacks context. Resolute 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Added tags Corpx 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it look like Turkish First Football League 2002-03. Deleting this article is a very lazy solution to a very simple problem: 5 minutes of editing will make it a perfectly decent stub article. Note that I've removed the speedy deletion tag: just looking at "what links here" is enough to get you all the context you need. Pascal.Tesson 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. Its state should not be a reason to delete it. It should be cleaned up, not just put out of the way. Mattythewhite 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be improved to a similar standard of other Turkish league articles. --Dave101→talk 08:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with the above, it should be changed to be similar to the other consecutive seasons for this league. Deleting it would make a complete mess of Turkish league articles, when all it takes is a clean up. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have redone it in the style of the other article (although I haven't added European qualification as I'm not sure who did what) and it is now a passable stub that can be built upon. Unless somebody is proposing deleting every individual season then I suggest this debate should now be closed. Keresaspa 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" and all the others in a similar style should be deleted as they are not articles but a table of some kind of data that makes no sense to someone not familar with the topic as the letters across the top of the chart have no context. -Nv8200p talk 14:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case nominate the rest of them and the discussion can be redirected towards your above argument. In itself it is not enough of a reason to delete this one on its own. Keresaspa 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also although the letters make no sense to those not familiar with football that could easliy be rectified by including a key. Whether or not that is necessary is debatable as I don't see why a non-football fan would even be checking the page in the first place. If I go to a random page like say 9-j symbol my ears would probably bleed trying to figure it out but I accept that there are people who deal in this sort of thing and can make perfect sense of all the palaver going on there. A lot of Wikipedia can be said to make no sense to someone not familar with the topic - if we started deleting on that basis there would be very little left. Keresaspa 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleaned up version. Expansion can easily be done by those with knowledge of the Turkish league. Resolute 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still fails WP:ISNOT. This is not an article or a stub of an article. It is nothing but a list of statistics. -Nv8200p talk 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A need for expansion does not equate a need to delete. Resolute 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless somebody adds recaps to go along with the article, these should all be deleted or maybe merged into one. Corpx 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passable stub with plenty of information available in order to expand the article. Davewild 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should have used ((prod)) instead. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Neptune (Soviet Attack 1943)[edit]

No references. Fails WP:ATT. Google search only refers to the amphibious landing at Normandy. Nv8200p talk 02:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this can be attributed, I'd have no problem with notability, but as it stands, I'm just not sure what to say about a minor battle where not much happened and we don't have any references. Shalom ^Hello 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Stalingrad and add some info. on this there; verifiable (search Google for Battle of Stalingrad Neptune), e.g. [36], [37]. JJL 03:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
January 1943: Stalingrad was safely sealed, the 6th Army crumbling down and the front far away. The attack, if named so was in quite distant region. Pavel Vozenilek 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is a mess. As far as I can determine, the Italian 8th Army was attacked as part of Operation Little Saturn in December, while the mid-January attack (called the Ostrogozhsk-Rossosh operation) was directed against the Hungarian 2nd Army. Offhand, the only scholarly reference to an "Operation Neptune" I could find was Glantz speculating that this was a possible codename for a follow-on to Operation Mars. Kirill 05:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing relevant found in Google Books search. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JJL. --Milton 06:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another source indicates that NEPTUN was a counterattack by German ground forces against Soviet units near the Black Sea at Myschanko-Berg on 6 April 1943. Given the apparent disagreement on date/place, at best it's a minor action associated with Stalingrad Campaign. If more sourcing can be found, it would help. Otherwise, delete, since there are too many variables. Acroterion _(talk) 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kirill. Bucketsofg 12:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete as copyright violation Pascal.Tesson 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballycloughan primary school[edit]

It's a primary school which makes no claims to notability and has no sources. I prodded it, it was de-prodded with what I see as the dubious claim that all schools are notable. If there are no reliable secondary sources about a subject, it's not encyclopedic and should not be included in Wikipedia, per WP:V WP:REF etc. Mak (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable, reads like promotional material. Calgary 02:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete as a copyvio of http://www.bdca.freeola.net/organs/Schools/Bclough/index.htm. Tagged as such. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Ahmed Chattha[edit]

Non-notable, no sources, Google search turns up Wikipedia and mirrors only. Probably unverifiable, probably conflict of interest. Huon 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person, could not find anything anywhere on this person (except wiki/answers.com link). Cannot establish WP:N or WP:V. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert his individual notability. Likely vanity. JFW | T@lk 13:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on someone's point of view, being a General in the Army could in itself be notable. If so, then they tried to assert notability, however it still needs sources/verifiability to be notable. As I said above, I couldn't find any, however. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this comment added to the article by 202.125.143.65: The ancestors of the Chattha Tribe were duly decorated by the british, fought many battles against the sikhs and by the virtue of their deeds the tribe is still the most respected one of the Pakistan but he is not known even in one kilometre radius of his village neither is he a public figure. Infact I have heard of him for the first time. An article on a real, verifiable general I would certainly be in favour of keeping, but I can't find anything to substantiate the claim and see no reason to doubt 202.125.143.65. Heather 18:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though this guy is NN, and should be deleted, I don't agree with your delete argument solely based on the fact that some random IP put in some POV on the article --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I said, it was my inability to locate any information on my own combined with the IP's comments that led to my !vote. Heather 20:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understood the article to claim that Rizwan Ahmed Chatta's ancestors, Khuda Buksh Chattha and Nawab Khan Chattha, were generals in Ranjit Singh's army. Rizwan Ahmed Chatta himself is not claimed to be a general. --Huon 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawks' Club[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet the notability standards of WP:ORG only source is a self-published book. FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this organisation does not have much publicity, this is a result of its nature as a private members club, its influence on the niversity and probably on the country would be very easy to underestimate.

Deleting the article would only serve to cut of the general public from a failry closed and privilidged world that it would be better for more people to understand and have access to.

Please try and understan what an atricle as about before it is selected for injudicious deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.249.88 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you might want to look at Skull and Bones a comparable institution to what you claim about this club. That article has numerous third-party sources. This doesn't. And there is nothing whatsoever injudicious about this AFD. It's a standard process, with 5 days to comment on the club and offer an explanation as to how it meets the relevant criteria for inclusion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, but I wrote to say that I thought that the deletion of this article would be a mistake. I have spent some time at Cambridge, and the more information the better, even for smaller clubs and so on.Twuster 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, why is it a mistake to delete this article? Are you suggesting that every club at Cambridge should have an article? You're not really being convincing here, since you're not really saying anything about this club. Why does it matter? Because to be honest, with this kind of comment, I'm more inclined to believe your association with Cambridge is warping your perspective on this situation. Perhaps you think everybody "just knows" this club is important, but try to imagine this was some random university in the world. Would you think it was a good article then? FrozenPurpleCube 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please explain how this article does not meet notability criteria of WP:ORG. I notice this editor has put up a raft of AfDs which seem to relate exclusively to Oxford and Cambridge university societies. Some may be justified; others are certainly not - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental Theatre Club. Johnbod 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty simple. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." . And as I said in the nomination, the only sources in this article were its own self-published books. So, where are the third-party sources that cover this club? They're not in the article. And again, you attack me for these nominations. I don't know why. I came across these categories which have a fair number of unreferenced articles on clubs at these universities. Is there something wrong with saying "Hmm, this may be a problem?" and after looking for sources, not finding any significant ones, deciding to try the AFD route? Do you believe I have some sort of grudge against these universities? Seriously, what do you expect me to do, nominate individual articles from every college that has inappropriate ones added to Wikipedia? I suppose I could, but it'd take a long time. But no, I think I'll deal with problems as I see them. And in this case, you may note, I didn't bundle or mass nominate every club. Just those which most clearly didn't have third-party sources. If you have a problem with that, I can only say, WP:AGF. FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the article needs to be improved by having excess detail removed. As i'ts considered a good thing to improve an article while at AfD, I removed some as a start. In practice, I consider that notable members are a partial guide to notability. But I'd be much happier with a good source or two--surely some of these gentlemen--or their political opponents, perhaps-- must have written about it? DGG 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many of these notable members are known as being members of the club? That's simply not a good argument to notability on its own. Do you think it matters to anyone that Prince Charles was a member of this club? Hugh Laurie? Karan Bilimoria? I'm sorry, but the notability doesn't transfer over very well in this case. Besides, I've never seen any argument whatsoever that indicates that having notable members equals notable organization is an accepted consensus anyway. It would be much better to find coverage of this club rather than rely on these arguments of transference. FrozenPurpleCube 06:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The rationale for deletion is simple: In order to pass the WP:ORG guideline, there must be independent reliable sources about the subject. No such sources have been given, however. --B. Wolterding 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent reliable sources, which seem unlikely to be found. --Huon 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A Cambridge Blue is notable. The people who earn them often go on to notable careers and I am surprised that many of those people have not written about the Club that they joined as a Blue at Cambridge. Coming from "the other place" (Oxford) I really do not know where to look for this information. A Google search gives information about many people who mention their membership and many other important Clubs that see fit to have reciprocal membership with the Hawks' Club. I would move to strong keep if more references were added, as I am sure that this Club is notable. --Bduke 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found two references documenting the club's charity work with The Prostate Cancer Charity: Press release from Cambridge & the Charity's coverage of a fundraiser hosted by the club. Both of those should satisfy WP:RS. Caknuck 16:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable, yes; but not independent, being from the University and the charity they sponsored, respectively. Also does not contain much substantial information on the club (basically a one-paragraph boilerplate blurb). --B. Wolterding 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.-Wafulz 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psyco Gundam (line of mobile suits)[edit]

This is quite possibly the worst of a largely low-quality group of articles. If you're not already familiar with Gundam, this is an incomplete list article for obscure models of "mobile suit," or mecha, from the long-running Mobile Suit Gundam series. This list, abandoned since April, is a dumping ground for unencyclopedic statistics about these fictional mecha, with no reference to the real world after the first sentence of the article.

This article is unreferenced, makes no reference to the real world, and its subject has no potential to be the subject of commentary in reliable sources. It is not useful as a merge target, nor would it be useful to merge into another article. It was prodded, but unprodded by Jtrainor (talk · contribs) without explanation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will note this was a contested prod, but I'm changing my mind-- this really does need a complete re-write, though the subject itself is definitely noteable. Jtrainor 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll rewrite it when I have time. MalikCarr 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for real world context means it doesn't get an article. Jay32183 00:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to use a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I should point out there are hundreds of articles on fictional weapons that can not and will not have any real-world context. See, for example, lightsaber. Snarfies 14:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many of those articles should similarly be merged or deleted. Now, as for your example, Lightsaber#Lightsaber effects in the films begs to differ. Lightsaber isn't a very good article, but it certainly has room for improvement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I counter with http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN926800, http://www.amazon.com/Gundam-HGUC-MRX-009-Psycho-Scale/dp/B00030EUXA, if props and models count as "real-world context." Snarfies 13:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not having props and models, it's having commentary on props and models. All those sources show is that the models exist. Jay32183 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, if somebody added a few lines on the model kits, will that settle the issue, then? Snarfies 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Have you actually read WP:WAF or WP:FICT? Jay32183 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation in intelligible form. Haukur 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have to say that an article on Psyco Gundam is as "useless" as another droid on Star Wars. That being said, I will not disagree that the article can really be polished.

Merge In general, we don't need an article on every single mobile suit in the Gundam franchise. However, it would be much better to merge this and other mobile suits like it into a list with brief descriptions of the suit and its rule in the franchise. --Farix (Talk) 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of Molecular Biology on human health[edit]

This page is weird... It looks like OR but at the same time is sourced, so I don't know what to do with it. Will ^(talk) 13:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete OR. Evidence does not support claims. JFW | T@lk 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, irrelevant sources and poor formatting. Kariteh 16:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete Good idea, could help, needs wiki page, but needs some initial editing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash Vaidya (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember that WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL are not relevant in deletion debates. Kariteh 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for completely missing its subject. Has lots of Nature articles about molecular biology, but virtually nothing about the effect on human health. And Wikipedia sure is not an index of Nature articles. --Huon 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete about as unencyclopedic as an article can get. Incomplete OR, based on a very superficial understanding.DGG 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As the article is designed currently, it appears to solicit OR and opinions from editors! At best, this will end up just a content fork of molecular biology. At worst, we wind up with POV pushing. I don't see the need to let this article continue. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not an encyclopedia article, and is also almost content free. The subject itself could have been in principle a section in another article, but as this article stands, it says almost nothing about anything.Dan Gluck 14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This will be an encyclopaedic article, using the power of wiki to create it! The Effect of People paragraphs are neither OR, nor POV. They will be the results of clinical trials that have proven the benefit of the molecular biology paper to humanity with proper referencing. Any one sided POV will be challenged and edited (as usual) on the wiki!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.53.45 (talk • contribs)
Delete as an original essay. Someguy1221 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a good faith effort, but this is not an encyclopedia article. It should be built on a different wiki system. Debivort 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medhananda[edit]

too much fluff; not enough sources Will ^(talk) 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by sources? and by fluff?

Delete This sounds like just a show-off of the books by a certain author, the page is not wikified, and even the talk page of this article shows that the article is a copy-paste from the site of the author. Even the introducion is very confusing in this article. ~Iceshark7 15:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of reliable secondary sources (which seem difficult, if not impossible, to find). Plus, it's either a copyright violation, being a copy&paste job, or it's a conflict of interest. --Huon 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Anas ^talk? 17:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela V. Shelton[edit]

Non-notable actress. Extremely limited filmography; only 16 entries in IMDb over a 12-year period. No reliable secondary sources provided, and it looks as if few exist (only 158 hits on Google). Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major cast member in the popular 3 Non-Blondes series and appeared on several other notable films and TV shows. A notable performer can have only 1 IMDB entry in a 100-year period. Quality not quantity. --Oakshade 00:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One problem with the IMDB entry is that it gives her one-line listings for series in which she had multi-episode roles. I've never seen "3 Non Blondes" so I don't know how big her role is, but she's listed as a series regular and only gets one line out of it. She was also apparently going to be a co-star of a pilot American version by VH1,[38][39] but I guess that was a project that got axed. She's also got a voice part in "Hey Monie!" as... Monie. Again, she only gets one line for that. It only lasted one season and doesn't have a bunch of fansites, but it did run on a moderately important cable channel, BET. (The article also makes claims that she co-created the series, which IMDB doesn't directly confirm, but they have the two top roles.) I think it's enough notability to pass. Oh, and as for the original Google search, she apparently appeared in most roles without her middle initial, so that search will undercount. On the other hand, without it there will be many false positives. I tried some alternate searches and still only got results in the hundreds, but it's not quite as bad as just 158 hits. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Should be possible to make a verifiable, sourced case for note. That said, having never heard of 3 Non-Blondes and seeing her credited as a camera operator rather than costar and the 3 Non-Blondes article's ext link to the BBC is broken, I'm a little confused - which is it, and how do we confirm her role? MrZaius^talk 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 Non Blondes credit is listed in her imdb profile. Also, the official website says they created the show Hey Monie!. kc12286 03:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is somewhat error prone. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhero! & [40], where the Wiki used IMDB as its source or vice versa and the producer later stated that every single cast credit was incorrect. The contradiction between 3 Non-Blondes and the nom'd article should be remedied with some haste - Does an official site for the show still exist? I was only able to find one, and it had been pulled. MrZaius^talk 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]