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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa in popular culture[edit]

Kappa in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is just a list of loosely related terms. Fails WP:NOT#DIR by design. Jay32183 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent; if kept is needs to be renamed to Kappa (folklore) in popular culture where the article is; I laughed when I first saw the title thinking of the reference to the Greek letter. Perhaps stating the obvious that if the article about the Japanese monsters isn't the WP article at Kappa, the entry of the monsters in popular culture isn't very notable. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated items. Wikipedia articles should not contain original research, which any article which lists things which are "undoubtedly based on" other things undoubtedly contains. Otto4711 02:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cruft, and WP:OR (as per Otto4711). Bearian

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 23:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. COI, no reliable sources Peacent 15:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glove-Unit[edit]

Glove-Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD, so here we are. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC--local and online only. Sohelpme 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no charting singles, no notable members, all albums are on a very indie label, etc. etc. Clearly fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonnotable and COI, and please, a friendly note to the article creator: just because you're not thrilled with this process, doesn't mean you have a right to remove AFD templates. (Sigh.) Shalom ^Hello 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shalom. Bucketsofg 12:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I'm really tempted to speedily delete it, since I don't see an assertion of notability per the WP:MUSIC standards, much less anything backed up with independent, reliable sources. Does anybody here see a reason why it shouldn't be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7? —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, as it is written by a newbie, it asserts some notoriety, but needs verifiable, independent sources. Anybody want to fix this mess? Bearian 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable, no reliable sources. Note that author keeps blanking the AFD notice. NawlinWiki 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Consensus is still forming, but apparently deleted as an expired prod. I'll contact the deleter, so in the meantime, please do not make a decision on what to do unless the issue is resolved. Thanks. Sr13 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article. Looking at this debate, I don't think there is clear consensus for any changes, so I've defaulted to keep. --Evilclown93_(talk) 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical guitar bibliography[edit]

Classical guitar bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod on 28th June with this reason: "WP:NOT for lists of external links. This list gives no understanding, doesn't help in navigating, doesn't add information on any subject: it(s just a pointer to non-Wikipeda information. We are an encycloepdia, a textbook of knowledge, not a pointer to external knowledge." However, it looks like a bibliography link from the main Classical guitar article. As such it may be inappropriate to delete it. There may be a discussion on if the contents should be merged back into the main article, or left as a stand-alone. But there is also the possibility of it being Listcruft, so some discussion to determine deletion might be in order. My listing is neutral. SilkTork 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting Question about stand-alone subject bibliographies. Thereis agreement about the appropriateness of a list of the works of a creative artist if the contents in the particular case justify it--how extensive it must be to be justified is still under discussions at MOS. Normally I do not think WP is the place for subject bibliographies as separate articles, and this list is not too long to fit in the article. But I'm not sure we have any rules that cover. It is not really a list of external links.--the only links are the ISBNs for the books, asrequired by the MOS for such references.DGG 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that bibliographies are inherently useful and by their nature encyclopedic. The question is whether it is sufficiently large that it has to be spun off. In this case, this is way too large to be merged. Bucketsofg 13:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bucketsofg, or merge with the Classical guitar article, if it's determined not to be too large to do so.--JayJasper 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Qst 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspecificity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This entry consists of a synonym, antonym, and arbitrary link to an article using the term. And to head it off at the pass: 'Conspecificity' is only a concept in the most trivial sense, that is, insofar as any word represents a concept. MilFlyboy 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dicdef, and unreferenced dicdef at that. Tevildo 22:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wiktionary It's a word in fairly common use within Biology: [1]. - Richfife 22:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a lot to cover in this article. For instance, methods for determining conspecificity, famous historical disputes, impact on taxonomy, etc. Conspecificity is an important concept and subject to heated debates because species is a fuzzy concept itself (cf. ring species). Look at palaeoanthropology, for instance (see "Probabilities of conspecificity", Nature 390(6655):30-31, 1997, doi:10.1038/36240). Equality (mathematics) is a much simpler concept and even starts like a dicdef, but of course it's an article. And so is conspecificity. Rl 07:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per R1. Bucketsofg 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep commonly invoked concept from evolutionary and ecological biology. Could certainly benefit from expansion though. Debivort 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep and expand with expert attention. Bearian 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI's Letter to the Catholics in China[edit]

Pope Benedict XVI's Letter to the Catholics in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod so has to go through Afd. Indiscriminate info, not notable and orphaned GDonato (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The webpage it appears on has a copyright notice at the bottom. Might be best to handle via WP:COPYVIO. If it turns out to not be copyvio, transwiki to WikiSource may be an option, or delete. Sohelpme 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have put a Speedy copyvio tag on it. SilkTork 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Per a recent news item, all papal pronouncements are copyright, so that was the right thing to do. --Charlene 23:17, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. Qst 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brahm[edit]

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

Yes, I'm nominating this guy for deletion. Is he notable? Yes. How many things is he notable for? One. As such, it violates WP:NOT#NEWS. I was going to move it, but a massive re-write would have to be done, and it would be reverted quickly. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A nicely written and interesting article with good sources. Fits this description: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The references need updating - but there are plenty of sources out there, as a Google [2] shows that the incident caught the media's interest. SilkTork 22:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though this is a classic case of "15 minutes of fame", the article passes WP:RS and WP:V quite clearly; therefore, he is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as interesting and well-sourced. Needs wikifocation. Bearian 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I kinda agree with nom. This is similar to a one-hit wonder; the notability really depends on how high the "hit" charts. This one's borderline. --Evb-wiki 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like an Angel Passing Through My Room[edit]

Like an Angel Passing Through My Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Album track not meriting its own article. No single release. Most of this information has been appended to The Visitors (album page); the rest can be deleted as not sourced. In response to a prod, article has been padded with some serious WP:OR, starting with The song is considered one of the greatest ABBA songs never released as a single. edgarde 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with some consideration to moving a bit of material to the album page. It does not rate its own article as it was not released as a single. --Stormbay 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As soon as the phrase "is considered one of" shows up, alarm bells go off. - Richfife 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Visitors. SilkTork 23:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bucketsofg 13:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see a "first nomination" anywhere though even though it says 2nd nom. That's no big deal though.Wizardman 23:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Stack[edit]

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

I previously nominated Stack along with a number of other individuals, whom I was subsequently convinced were of a varying degree of notability. For this reason, I withdrew my group nomination and agreed to relist the non-notable articles individually. Stack is a functionary in a very small (but notable) political party in the UK. While his party is notable and contains notable persons, this notability does not transafer to Stack. He fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Smith is neither. This guy's never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe. He is also not a noted political philosopher but writes pamphlets for his party and articles in his party's paper. Just about every non-junior member of this small group does this. He is also not a noted union figure nor a noted extra-parliamentary figure. Bigdaddy1981 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article indicates that he has some status, having written an article for Socialist Review for some twenty years. A Google search [3] also indicates some media coverage, though that is mainly by minor political journals or the Socialist Review itself. Anyway, enough for pause for thought and to allow the entry the benefit of the doubt. SilkTork 23:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although his mum probably enjoyed his articles this man doesn't hold elected office and is an entirely non notable small time activist. Nick mallory 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:BIO. For someone with alleged prominence in British politics, a search on Google UK turns up precisely 82 unique hits [4], not a single one of them outside fringe socialist websites. In response to SilkTork, the article alleges that he has some status, but there is no evidence backing that assertion up.  RGTraynor  18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and expand Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greed and fear[edit]

Greed and fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This neologism describes investor behaviour, but has no context outside of the articles Portfolio theory or Risk aversion from which this article forks.--Gavin Collins 10:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What neologism, please ? It is a common phrase that has been used for decades by traders. And that is now an academic research topic in economics and finance. --Pgreenfinch 10:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article name seems to be in common use for the contents GB 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A quick Google search brings up the term numerous times in the proper context. It might be merged somewhere, but I don't see a need for deletion.--Wafulz 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Modern_Portfolio_Theory or Risk aversion or both per Gavin Collins. --Nonstopdrivel 12:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as not a neologism, see my comment above. Btw, those emotional biases are exactly opposite to the Modern Portfolio Theory which was an academic product of the 50's and 60's with its so-called "rational" parameters (risk aversion, risk premium, beta coefficient...), "market efficiency" theory and stochastic calculations. --Pgreenfinch 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or expand. This article has been around for three years, but it only has two sentences. If it can't be expanded, it should be merged with a broader subject or transwikied to WikiDictionary. --GentlemanGhost 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NEO stipulates that the word or phrase has “recently been coined,” and there’s nothing recent about the use of “greed and fear” in a financial context. Pgreenfinch correctly notes its long-standing use among traders, and in behavioral finance. Greed and fear are the two sides of the emotional coin that drive bullish and bearish market trends to the eventual sentiment extremes that the technical analysis school follows – please see the Alan Greenspan remark on psychology in that article. Beyond the general Google search Wafulz mentions, Google scholar and Google book search each get many hundreds of results from “greed and fear”.--Rgfolsom 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 15:44, 19 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, Sean William @ 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I thought this phrase was due to John Maynard Keynes. I'm surprised there's no mention of that gentleman in the article. Bigdaddy1981 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Ganfon 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My comment above stands here.Rgfolsom 01:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need to comment twice. The closer will read all arguments, both above and below the closure notice. Sean William @ 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with behavioral finance and then delete - no need for this lonely stub. Bigdaddy1981 02:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there seems to be a history here that could be documented better (the phrase may go back to Robert Louis Stevenson at least). I think the only acceptable merge candidate, if we must, is behavioral finance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is less and less an "lonely stub", and every important concept of behavioral finance (the various investor cognitive and emotional biases, the main market price and return anomalies, the herd effects...) deserves its own page, as is the case for those listed also as cognitive biases for example. --Pgreenfinch 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Orinda Union School District. Wizardman 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLORIETTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL[edit]

GLORIETTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

poorly written, unsourced, non-notable Chris 20:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Orinda#Schools. There was probably no need to bring this up for deletion - but now it has to go through the system. SilkTork 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the above suggestion or some other relevant article. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to the school district rather then this individual article--JForget 01:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Orinda Union School District and redirect there. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DS and others. Bucketsofg 14:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was about to say speedy then I saw it was in all caps, heh. But it's an actual article, so Redirect. Wizardman 15:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Bearian 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Orinda Union School District and redirect there. TerriersFan 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 09:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Church[edit]

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

Non-notable church, fails WP:ORG. Was previously the subject of a PROD, which ended in deletion, and was then restored following its being contested. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge into Cockett. SilkTork 23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:Notability, and it's written like a brochure. VanTucky 07:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until they raise the dead or something else notable. Carlossuarez46 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Peter 11:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lake Braddock Chorus[edit]

Lake Braddock Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 19:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the High School article related to this article. --JForget 01:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above _SUBWAYguy 03:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge JodyB _talk 15:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Braddock Orchestras[edit]

Lake Braddock Orchestras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 19:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per other afd.--JForget 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing verifiable from independent sources to merge.[5] Pan Dan 15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge JodyB _talk 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Polakoff[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Reel Big Fish, the band of which he's a member. Not enough here to stand alone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect He only played on their self-released first record and is not notable on his own. Precious Roy 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Thanks, JodyB, I missed that. Chick Bowen 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nix[edit]

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

No sources to support claims. I can find no record of a Carnegie Hall concert. This appears to be a talented student bassist; more power to him, but there's no need for an article. Chick Bowen 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I found only one hit on nexis and that was for a concert preintermission encore. Nothing else to establish him yet. I think he fails, for now, WP:MUSIC. His article is also a copyvio from his website. JodyB _talk 20:22, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mcbean[edit]

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

Hoax - zero ghits Kernel Saunters 18:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be some sort of vanity page. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity or hoax? I lean toward hoax after some checking. It doesn't appear to be verifiable. --Stormbay 21:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Obvious hoax - the last tram (note spelling) in Edinburgh ran in 1956. Tevildo 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Few other things that don't read true: There is no Private First Class rank in the British Army and the line "Patrick McBean joined the Black Watch after serving in the British Army" is a bit odd as the Black Watch is part of the British Army. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have put a Speedy nonsense tag on it. There is nothing true in the article. Check [6] for proof that he was never head of the McBean clan. SilkTork 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since unsourced and very dubious. However, this isn't really a speedy candidate as the text is clearly coherent. I wouldn't mind closing this early but let's let the AfD go a bit longer than a few hours. Pascal.Tesson 00:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax, not verifiable. Culnacréann 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this sickening hoax. The two Black Watch VC winners were: Corporal John Ripley, 1st Battalion, The Black Watch (Royal Highlanders) in 1915 and Lance Corporal David Finlay, 2nd Battalion, The Black Watch (Royal Highlanders)also in 1915. Bigdaddy1981 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as per above. Bearian 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet III[edit]

The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Note: the article is titled Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet III (the slash causes the title to appear incorrectly above and I don't know how to fix that.

Article is basically speculation about a future TV show, citing no sources. The article itself says, "The challenge is only a rumor", and "no official announcements have been made." Latish redone (formerly All in) 18:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as crystal ballery. Also, I fixed the title for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People always do this when they hear a challenge is being filmed. They pick their "ideal" cast and post it as the "official" list. The list posted has to be incorrect because on the Real World booking website mm-agency.com it states there will be cast members from The Real World: Sydney on the show. Delete the page until MTV officially announces the cast. EliRykellm 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to Special relativity. Non-admin closure, you have the right to leave nasty comments on my talk page if this was a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity[edit]

Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is redundant with the articles Special Relativity and Introduction to Special Relativity, and is of much poorer quality than the articles that already cover this topic. Since the information is uncited and probably already covered by the appropriate articles, there is probably nothing to salvage from it either. The comments of the author indicate that this article was adapted from a PowerPoint presentation that he developed. Given that and the voice and organization of the article, it seems to be intended as an introductory lesson on Special Relativity rather than an encyclopedia entry, which may make it more suitable for Wikiversity. Nimrand 18:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are proposing it for deletion, why? Because it's included in other articles? Then list the other articles, you know, Special Theory Of Relativity, or whatever. Please clarify why you are posting it for deletion. Cleanup and "no attention since January" are not reasons for deletion, so just clarify why it should be deleted so others can comment. Thanks. KP Botany 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the article is redundant. The article's topic is special relativity, for which there is already a much higher quality article named Special_Relativity. This article is also redundant as being an introduction to special relativity, as there is an article for that as well: Introduction to special relativity. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be much to salvage from the article, as its information is completely uncited and is probably already covered in one or more other articles anyway.Nimrand 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, but you didn't say this or mention the other articles in your nomination, which would have made absolutely clear what you are trying to do here. I hope folks who have already voted will read this post of yours and understand, but my suggestion is that you succinctly reword it to include this information, and, in the future, be straight-forward about nominations, with links to the proper articles. KP Botany 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Special relativity. A cursory glance indicates there isn't anything that isn't there already that's worth bringing along, but I could be wrong. - Richfife 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would simply pasting it to the Special relativity talk page suffice? Note that there is an Introduction to special relativity article, if that was the original intent of this article. KP Botany 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup This is a difficult article for anyone other than a physicist to edit. The math, the theories, etc. are quite confusing. But to delete the article is a poor decision. It fails, however to support its claims with reliable sources. Someone with knowledge of the field could probably bring it along. Cut and paste probably produces some problems with maintaining GFDL licensing and should be avoided if possible. JodyB _talk 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as Richfife had said. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Nimrand's second comment above. There is nothing in the article that needs redirected or added to Special relativity (which needs a bit of work in the introduction). The article is poorly written and difficult to understand so should not be considered an introduction to a topic that can be readily understood if explained clearly. KP Botany 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm okay with making this page a redirect. However, is "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity" an accurate name? I've always heard it as "Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity."
• Redirect it seems like part of the intent of this article is to discuss the history and motivation of Einstein's development of the subject. There is value in such an article, but this one doesn't adequately serve the purpose. JJL 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's difficult to see this, but if this is the case, renaming might be more appropriate than redirecting. We don't have an article on this historical background of the development of Einstein's theories? It's an incredibly fascinating story that covers a solid 50 interesting years in the development of theoretical physics, add the quest for the math and it's a story that certainly must be written somewhere on Wikipedia. Thanks for looking at this, JJL. KP Botany 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Special Relativity. Introduction to Special Relativity is a much better article --Aim Here 00:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Tyrenius 08:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metapainting[edit]

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

This article is biased on the basis of scope. The article describes an unremarkable group of individuals with fake bibliographic references to certify their importance. The individuals calling themselves the metapainters do exist, but the term "metapainting" not only inaccurately describes their practices, but was also coined for the purposes of a single exhibition. Sterfry 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nonverifiable, neologism, made up in one day, and unsourced garbage. Bearian 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 03:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Male Chauvinism in Law Firm Management[edit]

Male Chauvinism in Law Firm Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While I believe the article deals with an important issue that should be on wiki, as the article is written, it is nothing more than an essay. What do others think? Postcard Cathy 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep" It is well-referenced, pointing to other articles that use stats to prove the point, and it is an important issue. Women lawyers still don't get the "better half" of a double-standard that is eroding, but still exists in the profession. Mandsford 18:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for underlying POV and OR but Merge any relevant data to Male-female income disparity in the United States. I respect the research and citation done on this article but the underlying problem, from wikipedia's standpoint, is that it draws firm conclusions and meaning from that research.

- The title itself highlights that this is the problem. Personally I happen to agree that "Male Chauvinism" is the predominant reason for income disparity in America...but I can't prove that across the board, across all men and women, across all law firms in America, across all instances.

- The determination of an all-pervasive cause (particularly a negative one that baldly adds elements of guilt and negative accusation) to an economic trend is nearly the definition of original research.

- The language used throughout the article continues this OR trend: "Many of these departures are the result of the issues mentioned above...", "The “boys club” still exists after work...", "Law firms should look to the example set by the accounting profession for...". Result of? Boy's Club? "Should"??? There is no objective reality or moral element to Wikipedia, there is only data and presentation.

I personally think income disparity is an extremely important problem in the United States, I applaud the author's ethics in wishing to address that problem to a wide audience. But in this form, Wikipedia is not the most appropriate forum to do so. -Markeer 20:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, conclusory OR and POV essay that cherry-picks citations. Does any professional in the social sciences still say "male chauvinism"? I wonder. There certainly are disparities in income, in advancement, in assignments, but they are not all attributable to management (for example, women who take time off to have/raise children account for a good chunk of the measurable income disparities). Surely, then, there are rebuttals and other factors which are not in this article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see any way to write a neutral article under that heading. - Richfife 22:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete — An essay presenting a particular viewpoint is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Even if it is referenced. Cedars 05:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -I've taught this stuff (Law Office Management to paralegals), and I am a male attorney, so my own COI won't allow me to vote. It is certainly a notable issues, but wow, it's POV. Bearian 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per Markeer, gender inequality in the work place is a problem but writing Wikipedia articles like this isn't going to solve it. The article is violating WP:SYNT because it is synthesizing info into an essay form. It is also in breach of WP:OR and NPOV. Again I agree with Markeer that any relevant & neutral info should be merged into Male-female income disparity in the United States or Gender inequality. As it stands the article is a journalistc piece not an encyclopedic entry--Cailil ^talk 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge data as per Markeer above and delete the article. CaveatLector^Talk 10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soloman Shields[edit]

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

Youth team player, Not notable - no notable achievements Kernel Saunters 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article should be written after notability is achieved. The subject is NN at present. --Stormbay 21:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ganfon 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• question. Is he a professional? I know he's only young and in the youth team etc, but if he's professional, he's automatically notable isnt he? 88.107.250.248 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - I think he needs to play in a professional league to be automatically notable which the article does not support Kernel Saunters 14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable -- BanRay 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to have played for Leyton Orient therefore fails notability if he has never played in a fully professional league.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 08:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry G[edit]

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

Can't find this person on Google, by either their real or stage name. The page creator provided no sources. KJS77 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC, borderline A7 (no assertion of notability). Tevildo 22:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Even his web site declaims notability: "looking for ...." Bearian 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No WP:RS. Precious Roy 07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peter 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ángela Labordeta[edit]

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

Found this while going through DumbBOT's list of pages without AfD discussions. The person in question has no claims to notability other than writing stories. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or possibly send it to Spanish Wiki Found a few Spanish articles that mention her in passing, but one article that is clearly a review of one of her books.--Ispy1981 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article on Spanish Wiki [7] is tagged for questionable notability, if the author isn't notable there then she definitely isn't here. Bfp _(talk) 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She's no less notable here than on the es. wiki - sources there work here just as well so far as demonstrating note goes, but, more importantly, the current article makes no attempt to demonstrate note whatsoever and contains zero sources and in-line citations. Delete if not remedied. MrZaius^talk 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't quite clear there, the es.wiki seems to provide a greater claim to notability than here but is stilled marked as non-notable. Regards Bfp _(talk) 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 08:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scribal anointing[edit]

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

Newly-coined neologisms. The only support is from the person who coined the term. See her book. Evb-wiki 17:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-Notable Neologism with a strong scent of marketing. - Richfife 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. "It is said" means nothing but weasel words. Bearian 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Seamus[edit]

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

Edit war going on over a db-bio tag, decided it may be better to get consensus via AfD. No opinion here. Kesac 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - very notable musical group in separate trade: http://www.google.fi/search?hl=fi&q=Poor+Seamus&meta= --Movedgood 17:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Movedgood, your behavior in relation to this article has been pretty poor. Repeatedly removing db-band tags with a demand that other editors prove the band is not-notable is frankly ridiculous. In the meanwhile, instead of posting a google search link, can you provide one or two actual, live links that were created by completely independent reliable sources that satisfy WP:MUSIC. This is your article, not ours. You have to sell it to us. - Richfife 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without touching on the above, the group should have an article when they attain a recognized level of notability. They appear NN at present. --Stormbay 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 as a Non-notable band. Also possibly block editor for repeated deletion of CSD tag, which are NOT to be romeved unless by an admin. Wildthing61476 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A directed search (minus Wiki mirrors and Myspace pages) turn up only 15 hits for these nonentities. [8]. No entry at Allmusic.com, and only 41 hits for their CD.  RGTraynor  19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatty Poindexter[edit]

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

NN Band, no sources other than their MySpace page Rackabello 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Absolutely no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both of the above entries. Ganfon 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The article refers to him recording a CD, but without a current discography. Sorry kid, not yet notable. Bearian 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, unnecessary and facing copyright issues Pascal.Tesson 05:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Super Chargers[edit]

San Diego Super Chargers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#LYRICS; no need for separate article; can be included in San Diego Chargers. Pats1 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, the Chargers hold the copyright. See this. --Evb-wiki 17:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It does not have notability on its own. It deserves a line in the team article. --Stormbay 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom or just a link in the Chargers article.JForget 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not worth merging because of copyright issues. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's already in the article, and the only thing you can say about it beyond that it's the Chargers' fight song is the lyrics (and per nom on that count). --Jaysweet 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prof.M.V.Kini - (Retd.)Dept. of Chemistry[edit]

Prof.M.V.Kini - (Retd.)Dept. of Chemistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be particularly notable (enough assertions made to stop me putting it in for speedy, tho'), certainly no references to back up assertions and is, at best, a stub. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete one really has to guess and do their own research, this article provides nothing. Chris 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete under this article name; if necessary, recreate as M.V. Kini or similar. JJL 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 08:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost certainly at the Manipal Institute of Technology but even limiting searches to that site or keyword I can't find enough about him to make an article (and he seems to not even be the most notable M. V. Kini at Manipal, as they have an active prof. of Mechanical Engineering by that name though he seems not the same person). The 1982 Silver Union event mentioned in the article is described here but I see no list of awardees, and that's the only potentially-sourcable claim for notability in the article. —David Eppstein 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ISI gives nearly nothing.--Stone 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is not enough, & no reason to think there will be more. Can even his position be demonstrated? --but Stone, what did ISI give? DGG 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above discussion. Bearian 21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone particuarly wants the history they can ask for it later. Peter 12:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jett Carver[edit]

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

Contested ((prod)). This snippet of an article fails to assert notability when describing this minor fictional soap opera character—who made his first appearance in June 2007. The only rationale advanced for keeping this article is that the subject "will feature prominently into an upcoming storyline,"[9] an argument that clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Once this storyline becomes an established part of the series, perhaps this article can be recreated with an assertion of notability. This article is also unsourced and may be original research. A Google search of the string "Jett Carver" returned barely 1,000 hits, the first of which is this article, the rest primarily fan sites, none of which appear to pass WP:RS. Jett Carver seems to have appeared in exactly one episode so far. --Nonstopdrivel 20:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. --Nonstopdrivel 20:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to userspace until it becomes notable. Blast ^{[improve me]} 23.06.07 2016 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:32, 24 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, MaxSem 16:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to user space or add to a list of minor characters article Not notable enough yet. - Richfife 16:10, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Peter 12:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

International Criminal Court in popular culture[edit]

International Criminal Court in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not every known institution can have a list of references made to it in film or book. That would be infinite and completely unmaintainable Bulldog123 15:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Stub was spun off from the main article per here: Talk:International_Criminal_Court#The_ICC_in_popular_culture. I personally think the content doesn't really have correct home anywhere, but I don't feel all that strongly about that. - Richfife 16:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond a reference to the ICC and the fact that they mention the ICC tells us nothing about the ICC, the items from which the reference is drawn or the real world. Otto4711 17:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back with the parent article, International Criminal Court. Bearian 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peter 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

British Museum in popular culture[edit]

British Museum in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not every known institution can have a list of references made to it in film or book. That would be infinite and completely unmaintainable Bulldog123 15:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond a reference to the museum and the fact that they mention the museum tells us nothing about the museum, the items from which the reference is drawn, or the real world. Otto4711 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Keep/Upmerge to British Museum "Not every institution..." - nor should it, but the BM is significant enough - and nor will it, as this one is hardly going to cause a spate of them. "tells us nothing" - tells us how the Museum is seen in the outside world, ie its public image, as a 'great museum', surely?Neddyseagoon - talk 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure that a one-line refernce from a song about foggy London saying the place has lost its charm tells us that this is seen as a "great museum," and the same can be said for any of the other fairly trivial references on the list, most of which don't even bother to explain the museum's presence in the source material. The BM does not gain in notability by having been mentioned or seen in a collection of random pieces of fiction and the individual items on the list do not gain in notability for mentioning the BM. Otto4711 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. It also misses my favorite cross reference: the "date" scene from Maurice (film). Carlossuarez46 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it to add that date scene... no, only kidding, delete. Bearian 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non admin closure. Qst 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redmoon Online[edit]

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

Long term unsourced, with two weeks of being tagged for notability. --Eyrian 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, might be tricky to source with vast majority of players in Korea where it is a cult hit of some kind. US and UK introductions did not make much impact. google shows limited results, not many on Google News Archive either. --Dhartung | Talk 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I remember playing this back on the English lang server; still somewhat popular in Korea. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of these points address the total lack of independent sources. This article has been tagged for a long time and has not been improved. --Eyrian 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Racer V3[edit]

Drag Racer V3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references of any sort (WP:V), tagged as such since March. Prod removed with the reasoning that it has been played more than a million times, and that there might be some hard-to-find references out there. Somewhere. Well, if some turn up as a result of this AfD, great. Otherwise it should be deleted (and recreated later if references do turn up.) Marasmusine 15:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Andre (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced, Unverifiable and No assertion of notability. DarkSaber2k 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite my comments on the talk page of the article, I agree with the reasons above. ~Iceshark7 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul in popular culture[edit]

Istanbul in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This isn't an article about Istanbul in popular culture. It's just a random list of mentions of the word "Istanbul" and the setting of Istanbul in books, movies, anime, and TV. Completely arbitrary. Bulldog123 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond a reference to Istanbul and the fact that they mention the city tells us nothing about the city, the items from which the reference is drawn or the real world. Otto4711 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Otto & per ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, random list. Punkmorten 23:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films made in Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

List of films made in Omaha, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely arbitrary list. Films can be made anywhere, there's really nothing special about Omaha. Bulldog123 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom Bulldog123 14:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:TRIVIA Rackabello 14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of Category:Lists of films by location. Not seeing any reason for singling out Omaha's list. Otto4711 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and consider some of the other "List of films made in _____" articles as well. I agree that there could be significance to where a film was set (which is what many of the articles in the category to which Otto4711 document) but grouping films by where they were made is mere trivia. GassyGuy 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an excuse, Category:Films by location indicates that grouping films by shooting location is fairly commonplace. Otto4711 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You misread. Category:Films by location is film settings not "filmed in." No, it's not part of the group. Bulldog123 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Look again. Category:Films by location contains subcategories for films shot in Oregon, Texas, Florida, Kentucky, Las Vegas, Maryland, Mauritania, Montana, Montreal, Morocco, New Orleans, Oklahoma, Toronto, Utah and Wisconsin. And Category:Films by shooting location contains subcategories for Brighton, Bulgaria, Chicago, Idaho, Malta, Melbourne, Mexico and Poland. Otto4711 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and because films are made a little here and a little there, so how much of the film needs be made in Omaha to be listed? There's no context to tell us. I do believe "set in" is a valid basis for film listings, but "shot in", "made in", "filmed in" lists don't make sense to me. Carlossuarez46 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory. There is nothing to indicate any significance about these films having been filmed in Omaha, Nebraska. Was the town prominent in the film's story or the film's production, if at all? Who knows? The information is indiscriminate in definition. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Evilclown93_(talk) 00:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona Balfe[edit]

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

Non-notable fashion model. Mikeblas 14:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not for posting resumes. - Richfife 17:41, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchal Joseph[edit]

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

Losing television reality show contestant. Text of article taken almost completely from her website (though not quite copyvio) with no sources cited. No claim to fame after losing on reality show; just another struggling young model in a very crowded field. Mikeblas 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Chris 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Bearian 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as not notable --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Research and Security Organization[edit]

Genetic Research and Security Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sourcing or evidence of notability, only 7 ghits for "Genetic Research and Security Organization" -wikipedia, representing about 3 unique websites, indicates a lack of notability or likely reliable sources. Prod removed without relevant edit summary. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is considered to be a conspiracy theory. As most likely about the New World Order. per nom.--Edtropolis 13:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem to be a conspiracy theory, it seems to be a very minor element of a fictional universe. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Edtropolis has been blocked indefinitely as an SPA for AFD votes with nonsensical or inappropriate rationales. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable.--cj | talk 06:50, 30 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, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary sources with real world context. Jay32183 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails verification and npov. VanTucky 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peter 12:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Mexican bus lines[edit]

List of Mexican bus lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This can probably fall under WP:NOT as Wikipedia is not a map tool. Bulldog123 14:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not Travelocity™ Rackabello 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Serves as a central page for the Mexican bus transport system, as well as a way to illustrate transportation infrastructure. This information is certainly as notable as articles on individual railway stations. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What information? This is a list of redlinks or no links at all, and unsourced to boot. Only a single bus line has a valid link, and all the rest of the blue links are merely the names of municipalities. Then toss in the article's assertion that only "notable" bus lines (based upon what criteria?) have links, and you have a complete mishmash. It might be, as DS1952 asserts, a "useful tool for organizing articles on the bus systems in Mexico," if such articles exist, which they apparently do not. This might be forgivable in an article a week old, but in fact the article is ten months old now, and its creator hasn't been seen in half a year. Odds that this article is improvable is debatable, but odds that it will be improved are slim.  RGTraynor  20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory Useight 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the list as a useful tool for organizing articles on the bus systems in Mexico. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I agree with Rackabello , no use to wikipedia at all! Thenthornthing 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. The Rambling Man 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJ's Human Teleportation[edit]

MJ's Human Teleportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An essay, pure original research. The Rambling Man 13:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Salt I don't think we need to waste our time on this Rackabello 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently this article has been speeded previously, and the contributor has been warned several times. Rackabello 14:23, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as a copyvio. The Rambling Man 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand identity guru[edit]

Brand identity guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's an essay so is pure WP:OR. The Rambling Man 13:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - was subsequently tagged as copyvio for speedy deletion. The Rambling Man 14:18, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frenay[edit]

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

With respect to the "under construction" tag, this article hasn't been edited in nearly three weeks, doesn't assert the notability of the subject, and almost entirely consists of an absurdly long quote that is most likely a copyright violation. PC78 13:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like a copyvio. OysterGuitarst 22:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but if this AfD is closed as a "keep", I am going to cut the article to about 2 sentences. His 2006 book was published by a major publisher and had some reasonable reviews. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I began this article after attempting to do research on some of the issues mentioned in Frenay's book, blogs and articles and discovered that he didn't even have an entry on wikipedia. As a lecturer in current circulation and author of very ambitious nonfiction book about technology and the environment, I believe Frenay is notable enough to be worthy of an article here. I hope you will review the article before deleting it: I have added his birth year, removed the long quotes, added reference to the short quotes I kept, added additional notable information, etc. I also removed the under construction tag.--Markisgreen 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article will need to be cleanup up significantly to meet standards of sourcing and neutrality. It really needs to avoid peacock terms- right off the bat he's described as profound, influential, and a noted lecturer. It's got an incredibly promotional tone through and through.-Wafulz 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete there does not seem to be enough for notability. One possibly notable book, if DS1953 will add what he found, there might be more of a basis for judging. DGG 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:COI, WP:NOT, and as as noted above, non-notable. Bearian 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is the standard that makes glamour model Mel Lisboa a woman who makes her living posing for photographs notable enough to have a wikipedia article, but Robert Frenay the author of a published book challenging people to think about the environment and sustainability not notable enough? I'm just curious. There is no conflict of interest in my creation of this article. I am not Robert Frenay nor am I related to him nor have I ever met him, though I have read his book. I do not stand to profit in any financial way from sales of his book, his lectures or spreading his message. I just find his writing thoughtful and important and his career interesting and he seems quite notable to me. He seems like an important author and thinker that researchers should be able to look up on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markisgreen (talk • contribs)

• The standard is generally Wikipedia:Notability (people), as well as having enough reliable sources. There's no sense in making the comparison between an author and a model/actress- if there is information present about the model, then she gets an article regardless of how she compares to a more "noble" profession.Wafulz 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike Mel Lisboa, Robert Frenay did not pose for Playboy Brazil, a significant publication. She also has name recognition, a major criteria for notability. Tdmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, there are enough google news archive results to verify the basic details of this bio, and the book appears to be notable,[10][11] and is held by a lot of libraries OCLC 61229712. John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Article as it stands contains zero third party, independent sources aside from the very week "Midwest Review" source that seems to be more book summary ala Amazon than real commentary or review. That said, the Google News hits in the search above imply that a decent case for NOTE could be made, if someone were to try. Neutral for now, but if it's not fixed shortly, downgrading to delete. MrZaius^talk 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO, a simple web-based book review and a personal website are not enough to demonstrate notability. Tdmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The content of this article has changed considerably since the AfD began, so credit to Markisgreen for putting in the effort. It looks a lot better now, and I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt regarding notability, but a decent chunck of the article is still lacking any citations. PC78 02:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hooper[edit]

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

Non-notable front office official of arena football team. Reads like a resume. Leeannedy 13:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This individual is non-notable and the article lacks references making it unreliable. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable and no references. OysterGuitarst 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian football transfers 2007-08[edit]

List of Italian football transfers 2007-08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unmanageable, indiscriminate collection of facts of doubtful notability. See relevant discussion at WikiProject football. MaxSem 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dave101→talk  12:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of Articles Deleted in 2007-2008 Rackabello 14:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Angelo 23:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP Should not be deleted. Does not fall under indiscriminate as explained on that article. English transfer articles have gotten free passes for the years they have them. The Italian transfer page from last season was never put up for deletion. Ridiculous nomination. Bigdottawa 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be coherent, in my opinion we can also delete the English ones. As I've noted in the WPF discussion, that list would be pretty unmanageable (which transfer moves to include? all the ones, including youth players or only the major ones, and who decides which one is major?). By the way the page is already 33 Kb long and there are still two months of summer transfer market... --Angelo 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also nominated

List of English football transfers 2006-07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Turkish football transfers 2006-07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of transfers of La Liga - 2005/2006 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of transfers of La Liga - 2006/2007 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of transfers of La Liga - 2007/2008 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They should tread the same. Matthew_hk tc 10:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The team that one plays for is notable; and changing teams is just as notable. Having them all listed in coherent and non-indiscriminate fashion like this (separated by league, year, etc) is beneficial to wikipedia's goals. Neier 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Neier. Also I think is encyclopediadic and many people around the world will be interested of transfers made in such leagues of great level. --KRBN 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThey are defintley not of "doubtful notability". Transfers between major clubs are notable. Englishrose 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important list for roster changes in Italy's biggest soccer tournament.-RomeW

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - Copyvio and Spam Non Admin Closure Rackabello 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict neutral[edit]

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

At least half of the article is taken from the Kimberley Process website and therefore a possible copyvio, the style is unencyclopedical and it lacks indepent sources establishing the notability of the term. Article has been tagged for cleanup since March. Don Cuan 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CSD G12 for Copyvio possibly G11 for Spam Rackabello 14:35, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. To this effect. The page will become a redirect, but the history will be preserved. —Kurykh 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QWERTY effect[edit]

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

Reason for nomination: Non-notable. 230 ghits for "qwerty effect" -wikipedia Antonrojo 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Switching barriers which has a paragraph on the QWERTY effect in a more informative context --Aim Here 00:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Aim Here. Bigdaddy1981 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as noted. Bearian 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Aim Here. Bfp _(talk) 11:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect I had previously added the merge tag but there wasn't much discussion (Talk:Switching barriers). Tocharianne 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Discovery Science[edit]

National Institute for Discovery Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation outside of crank ufo circles. Propose for deletion under WP:Corp Jefffire 10:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've just spent some time adding a few references found via Google including 1 from a local television station, 1 from a local newspaper and one from space.com. I think these should establish notability via WP:RS standards. FWIW, I'm not into the whole UFO thing but saw this listed and thought I'd check it out. JodyB _talk 13:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, only the space.com seems notable, and that's not really about the organisation. Personally I think it takes more than a single article like that to establish the actual organisation's notability, but it is on the right track to establish notability. Jefffire 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The space.com article is almost entirely about the orgnization's research, which conclusions are outside the usual "crank-UFO" reports. Deseret News is a major newspaper located in Salt Lake City and Channel 8 is a local broadcast news organization. Each of these are secondary sources with editorial oversight and each reported within contexts with which they have expertise, thus bring these three into full compliance with WP:V. Perhaps take another look. Anyway, I'll not belabor the point further. Thanks. JodyB _talk 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, plenty of Google Scholar and Books results.

• Keep I have to agree with JodyB. Lorangriel 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete so article is kept JodyB _talk 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Оccupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany[edit]

I have created this article to separate the Nazi occupation from the Soviet one, both of which presently covered in Occupation of Baltic states, as the topics have little in common and can confuse a reader. Since some people want to speedy delete this article, I hereby place it in AFD in hope it will be kept.--Dojarca 10:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as stated above. This topic has nothing in common with "soviet occupation" and no need to represent them both in one article.--Dojarca 10:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Community consensus is against splitting the page, see Talk:Occupation of Baltic states#Nazi occupation. While the article might be needed in the future (and then named Occupation of the Baltic states by Germany, 1941-1944 (or Nazi Germany)), at the moment that is unneeded fork. I nominated the article for speedy deletion, but Dojarca kept removing the tag (for an article he created himself), instead of placing ((hangon)) tag like the rules require. DLX 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there is already enough content for a separate article.--Dojarca 14:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unreferenced: surely this can be covered elsewhere without what looks like a POV fork? Moreschi ^Talk 10:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The article now is a copy of section from Occupation of Baltic states, I did not change it. If it to be deleted from here, it should also be deleted from that article.--Dojarca 10:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see: there it's referenced, here it isn't. So why do we have this fork at all? Moreschi ^Talk 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  References added. The reason is that the topics have nothing in common and confuse a reader. Such different topics worth separate articles.--Dojarca 10:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DLX. this is an unwanted fork.--Alexia Death 10:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be appropriate...--Alexia Death 12:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Did anyone notice that the "O" in Occupation is actually a zero? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not even that - it's unicode code point 041E "CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER O". Odd. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per DLX. Pavel Vozenilek 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Coment I would like to point out that there already exit articles about this period for two out of three Baltic states separately.--Alexia Death 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why it is needed to keep this information in Occupation of Baltic States? There are also already exist articles on Soviet history of the Baltics, so this article seems also unnecessary.--Dojarca 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Occupation of Baltic states; if the current section in the future will be over expanded this additional info could go under this name. BTW >> Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany. M.K. 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy keep - Subject is verifiable and is certainly notable. In fact, we have tens or possibly hundreds of articles on different aspects of the Nazi occupation of the Baltic republics. The subject is also clearly demarcated from related topics; it is defined by the time frame and the presence of German troops. (The last point is something that cannot be said about most other "occupation" related articles.) The motivation for this AfD seems to be an extreme form of nationalistic POV-pushing. Those attacking this article want to present the Nazi occupation and the associated Holocaust in the Baltics as an subchapter in the larger crime of "Soviet occupation". I am sorry to have to use the word again, but I see this POV bordering on Holocaust denial. (Yes, the Holocast happened, but it did not happen here and we did not take part in it. Besides, Stalin killed far more people...) I am not saying that this AfD, or support for it, was done in bad faith. It seems that they genuinely believe in their nationalist POV. It is however clear, that until Baltic editors fully accept Wikipedia's principle of neutral point of view, our coverage of Baltic history will not meet our standards. -- Petri Krohn 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personal attacks and accusations. We've had quite enough of these from you already, we do not need or want more. DLX 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What, is the subject not notable? Who disputes the fact of the occupation? Certainly keep in hopes of speedy improvement. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and turn Occupation of Baltic States into a disambiguation page where the occupation is specified by time and event. --Yury Petrachenko 12:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but first Merge any information that does not appear in Occupation of Baltic Republics. The subject is no doubt notable. This is not part of a coverup or a "POV-pushing". There is no need for the information to be displayed in a dozen different places. There are already articles that deal with the occupation of Estonia and Latvia separately and both this article and Occupation of Baltic Republics link to them. The reason for this article to be deleted is because it is superfluous and unnecessary. Lorangriel 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Totally different matter. Clear distinction. Most other encyclopedia differentiate Nazi occupation of Baltic states.Vlad fedorov 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most other encyclopedias use other measures of avoiding systematic unreliability -- measures that are not available to Wikipedia. For example, an encyclopedia built by a small team of respect-earned experts will not need something like the WP:POVFORK policy. Digwuren 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As pointed out by Vecrumba, forking is rather problematic -- especially in light of Wikipedia policies such as WP:POVFORK. Digwuren 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a POV fork, it is simply splittiong of the article to avoid messing up Soviet and German occupation in one article.--Dojarca 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I find it strange that the article hasn't been expanded during this AfD, I am sure that most Delete votes would become Keep then - I know that I then definitely would like to keep the article when it has meaningful and properly sourced content. At the moment there is still no reason for this split (or POVfork). Also, not Baltic republics, Baltic states should be correct, as has been discussed previously - see Talk:Occupation of Baltic states#Requested move or just Baltic states. Sander Säde 10:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact the article expanded greatly during the AFD [12].--Dojarca 09:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sleuth[edit]

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

Non notable game emulator Sploooshman 09:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, it doesn't seem to be notable, 1k ghits and no apparent WP:RS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't seem notable. OysterGuitarst 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Moreschi ^Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Donald Dye[edit]

James Donald Dye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page appears to be pure vandelism. Salavat 09:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as vandalism, hoax, not verifiable, nonsense, etcetera.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Nonsense, A7, so tagged. The Sunshine Man 10:19, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwadendamme[edit]

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

Non notable town, very small population, no historical significance, no past or present achievements Sploooshman 09:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Real town. Period. Nominator has been asked to stop this ridiculous AFD spree. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. Just because you disagree with an article's nomination does not make it ridiculous Sploooshman 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The current consensus is that villages and towns are notable regardless of size.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It's a real place, so it's notable. Wikipedia consensus holds all towns and villages notable and this one won't be any different. It's incredibly arrogant to think that a town where people live can be held unworthy of an entry here. Nick mallory 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:23, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blundellsands & Crosby railway station[edit]

Blundellsands & Crosby railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable railway station Sploooshman 09:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This is one in a spree of nominations, many of them ridiculous in nature. Railway stations are important nodes in the transportation network as has been established countless times in the past. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While larger stations and nodes are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller stations such as this with no historical, cultural, social or other significance with respect to transportation are not. As this station has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. And please refrain from making personal attacks, I have raised this on your talk page. Sploooshman 09:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This article is about a notable railway station in England, I am struggling to see what other policies or guidelines the nominator believes this fails and why, the article needs some reliable references added however. The Sunshine Man 10:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that railway stations are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaspa-Młyniec[edit]

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

Non notable town Sploooshman 09:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Another in a spree of strange AFD nominations by Splooshman. Real towns and major sections of cities is something I would expect a comprehensive encylopedia to cover. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion and the discussion of its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably if this debate goes against you then you'll accept the consensus about the notability of towns and villages in future? 124.183.234.246 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. That's much larger than the village of 603 inhabitants you nominated for deletion, and even that I said should be kept because villages and towns are notable regardless of size.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It's a real place, it's notable, these are silly nominations. Nick mallory 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, nom has made several bad faith AfD's per above and below; also, nobody voted delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Punk Rock[edit]

Brisbane Punk Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Most of article is anti-government propaganda, would need a complete rewrite, music scene could be non notable given most bands not recognised Sploooshman 09:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and review of the spree of nominations by the user Sploooshman Recurring dreams 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please judge each article on its own merits, I suspect you have not even considered why it was nominated Sploooshman 09:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article actually uses other Wikipedia articles as references. Ugh. Need to remove those.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's just not valid to say that there is problems with an article and that because of these problems we must delete the article. Notability concerns are valid, but here the problem is not with the bands themselves, as this article is about Brisbane Punk Rock. It's entirely appropriate to have minor bands in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now -- The article needs a serious NPOV rewrite and references, but it appears that there is enough there where an article can be written, and it seems notable enough. BTW, a music scene can be notable even though few if any bands from that scene are notable -- in the same way, a high school or college can be notable without any notable graduates. -- ArglebargleIV 16:16, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rognac[edit]

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

Non notable town/commune Sploooshman 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, towns are notable. 96T 11:43, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasuga, Gifu[edit]

Kasuga, Gifu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town that no longer exists Sploooshman 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Real historic village and therefore of historic interest. Notability does not expire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. The town had not historic interest before it was merged Sploooshman 09:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasuga, Hyōgo[edit]

Kasuga, Hyōgo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Town that no longer exists, wasn't notable before it got merged Sploooshman 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Real historic village and therefore of historic interest. Notability does not expire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified. The town had no historic interest before it was merged Sploooshman 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haruhi, Aichi[edit]

Haruhi, Aichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town Sploooshman 09:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real places are notable, this is a complete waste of time.Nick mallory 10:53, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Although some of the !votes appear questionable, there is unanimity and sufficient input from established editors to safely close this out. — Caknuck 17:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarf (band)[edit]

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

Non notable band, only releases have been with non notable independent labels Sploooshman 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep This article subject does appear to be notable, the link to MySpace should be removed at it is not a reliable source and violates the external links policy. The Sunshine Man 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep due to the John Foxx connection. Corvus cornix 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep have completed national tour with John Foxx - article is in dire need of sources; however. Bigdaddy1981 04:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep They've released a significant number of physical releases, which is more than many bands in the "download age" manage to do. They've also toured internationally, and with names like John Foxx and All About Eve / Julianne Regan. The fanbase is vocal and strong, albeit within its small community. As to "non notable independent labels", then this isn't an article about their label, it's an article about the band. Besides which, Wasp Factory are very notable within the genre.

I'd also keep the Myspace link. It's the band's own space and although MS is a dire abomination in general and not credible as a 3rd party reference, they're more relevant when they belong to a musicians using them for hosting / streaming of their own output. To quote the external links policy, "Such [linked] pages could contain [..] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as [...]" I would argue that MySpace's support for streaming hosting of the band's own material, a feature not available through Wikipedia itself, justifies this.

The article could certainly be better, but that's a case for improvement, not deletion. Andy Dingley 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but ... wikify, verify, source! 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign this before. Bearian 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Merely because they are not a Top 40 band and are on a small independent label is not grounds imho for deleting this entry. They are a band with a solid and loyal fanbase within the Gothic and Electronic/Dance genres, and small independent labels have traditionally been a source of tremendous music within the UK - Oasis, arguably the largest band in the UK over the past ten or fifteen years, started out on the (then) tiny Creation label: A band's (and a Label's) value is not measured simply in the number of sales or downloads. Quality counts just as much as quantity.

Additionally, the link to the MySpace page should stay. Although MySpace is a hideous site with an abyssmal interface, the material there has been put up by Liz and Andrew themselves and is as accurate as that on the band's own website. Captain Lucy 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC) — Captain Lucy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Keep I agree with Captain Lucy to the letter.86.135.85.238 (Julianne Regan)

• Keep Swarf have been the subject of non-trivial published works featured in The Scotsman, Metal Hammer and The BBC, which is the first criterion for Notability (music).The_Axel 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia for knowledge, therefore i can't see why every time a band appears in here that is not on a major label it gets flagged for deletion. why does it matter whether they have appeared on television or not? their musicians, they are supposed to be out there playing and recording music.

Keep this article, and allow other hard working musicians to be able to have their lives documented in here. Nevla

• Strong Keep I agree with Captain Lucy and the others completely. I've simply no idea what grounds there are for deleting an article on a real band, who've been active on the live and recording fronts for some time now. They are a fact, like them or not; as much so as any more mainstream act and certainly more real than many in the charts! Is Wiki a depository for only "convenient facts"? BleepyF 11:54, 3 July 2007 (GMT)

• Strong Keep Put me down as another one agreeing with Captain Lucy RichardHMorris 11:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Forest High School (Delaware)[edit]

Lake Forest High School (Delaware) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable school Sploooshman 08:58, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge, Minnesota[edit]

Cambridge, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town with only 5520 people, no notable history Sploooshman 08:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Real town. Towns and villages are precisely the kind of things which encyclopedias cover. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Consensus is that all communities are notable, no exception. --Charlene 10:41, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despard, West Virginia[edit]

Despard, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town, article only lists geographics and demographics Sploooshman 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Real community, geography is important for an encyclopedia to cover comprehensively. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While cities and large towns are notable and deserving to be recognised in a comprehensive encyclopedia, smaller townships and villages with no historical, cultural, social or other significance are not. As this town has no past or present achievements or any form of notoriety it does not pass notability guidelines and until it reaches these its deletion is justified Sploooshman 09:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:29, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Kurykh 04:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achduart[edit]

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

Non notable cluster of houses, not even enough to be a village Sploooshman 08:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a city, town our village -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even a village? JJL 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough to be a village. OysterGuitarst 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real place. Five houses could make this in the nature of 15 to 30 people or so, we have articles about places with smaller populations. Lots of them. Corvus cornix 03:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, not notable for a village. Bearian 00:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one google news result for "Achduart". Achiltibuie indicates that is the "end of the line". It appears to also be known as Torridonian, which turns up many more news results. John Vandenberg 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --MacRusgail 16:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not large enough to be a village. A keep should not be predicated on the fact that some articles have fewer people, they might be notable for other reasons (or maybe should also be considered for AfD). No sources asserting notability Tdmg 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant third party information sources. -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is an actual place where people live. Google Maps recognizes it. Just because it's not technically called a "village" doesn't mean it's not inherently notable. --Oakshade 14:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I consider all settlements to be notable, no matter how small. Cheers, DWaterson 23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briggs, Virginia[edit]

Briggs, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable town Sploooshman 08:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Although not a guideline or policy, consensus has been in the past that cities, villages, and towns are all sufficiently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 10:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a real place, it's notable, how many hundred of these are there going to be? Nick mallory 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, towns are notable. 96T 11:38, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 601[edit]

U.S. Route 601 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable road Sploooshman 08:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Highways make up the backbone of an areas tranpsortation infrastructure, and are as important as railway lines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. No need to waste time on this. —Xezbeth 11:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pottsville Escarpment[edit]

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