< June 7 June 9 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leina Ogihara[edit]

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

This is a non-notable person. There is very little info on this person RockerballAustralia 00:37, 9 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. Mangojuicetalk 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Association of Lithuanian[edit]

Scout Association of Lithuanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

direct, unedited copy from two sections of Lietuvos Skautija; misnamed in English Chris 23:51, 8 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. Will mark for cleanup. The only argument that saves this article is that the article wasn't given a chance to improve. If it doesn't improve, that argument won't work next time. Mangojuicetalk 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)[edit]

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT by being just a plot summary by year. Clarityfiend 23:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - you link to WP:NOT#PAPER quite often in AFDs in which you participate. I think I've asked you this before, but don't recall ever getting an answer. Can you point out to me exactly where in that section of the policy it says that it's OK to violate other parts of the policy because Wikipedia isn't printed on paper? Because I'm not seeing it. Otto4711 22:31, 14 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. I will mark the page for cleanup. The delete arguments are solid, but those arguing for a keep say they can address those issues, and haven't been given time. We'll mark the page for cleanup and give them time: if the cleanup doesn't happen, we can always delete it later. Mangojuicetalk 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Shot Phil?[edit]

Who Shot Phil? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 23:21, 8 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 per G3. Peacent 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junkyardium[edit]

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

Junkyardium is certainly not a real chemical element, nor even an element in an important fictional work. Plinth molecular gathered 23:16, 8 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. --Coredesat 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hagadone[edit]

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

Non-yet-notable baseball player. Technically not eligible for speedy deletion because it claims he's a major-leaguer, but his current status is that of a college player who was only selected in the MLB draft yesterday (June 7), and he's not likely to hit the big leagues for at least a couple of years. --Finngall talk 23:08, 8 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. Sr13 23:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surface computing[edit]

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

Delete article "Surface Computing'

Reasons:

Surface computing was not invented or developed by Microsoft, and has been in development by different asian developers and american colleges since 2002.
The technology behind Microsoft Surface is not fully revealed, but it does not use "3D balls", rather motion sensitive cameras and some multi-touch sensing. Alegoo92 22:50, 8 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, with no prejudice toward recreation, provided it passes the problems cited below. Sr13 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VíaVienté[edit]

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

Spam for pyramid scheme. THF 22:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see relevence to this point. Arnabdas 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are media clips done by the WB network affilliate in Dallas as well as specific date mentions to Dallas Morning News, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News. Some don't have the actual links, but the dates of the articles and segments have been published. I don't understand what more you really want.Arnabdas 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would appreciate any suggestions on how to re-write the article by any of the people here who do call it spam. Please message me if you have specific suggestions on how it should be reworded, or feel free to reword it yourself. Arnabdas 17:00, 11 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. Sr13 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian profanity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a dictionary of obscenities, swear words, or blasphemy. Completely unsourced, unverified, possibly original research, and totally unencyclopedic. Parent article List of profanities is gone. —JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Find the sources, then. 2) No man, that's not the way it works. Wikipedia doesn't work on a take-my-word-for-it basis. 3) Who said anything about the Italian language? THIS article doesn't cite any references, so it is possibly original research. 4) Relevant? How relevant? Again, you don't cite any sources. Please read WP:WINAD; "Wikipedia is not a ... slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia." —JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are books and publications (all in Italian of course) regarding the "Italian profanities" issue. This is not just a idiom guide, the article is full of examples but there is also very encyclopedic content in it, such as linguistical and historical origins of these words, regional distribution (Italian is a heterogeneous language, maybe you don't know this) and a fine paragraph about "Profanity as blasphemy". It needs to be cleaned up and sourced, not to be deleted. --Angelo 22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
L'italiano e' una lingua eterogenea. Lo so e lo capisco. Maybe this article is not _just_ an idiom guide, but it IS an idiom guide, and it blatantly violates WP:WINAD. In addition, blasphemy doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and sure it ain't "fine." —JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. If the only actual reason you'd like to see that article deleted, is because you're offended by the "blasphemy", then remember that Wikipedia is not censored, there's conservapedia for that. PS. You might benefit from studying folklore.--BMF81 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad your argument is biased, witness your blasphemous userpage. This is not myspace; objectionable content may exist only if useful, it cannot exist for the sake of itself. —JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, where are these reliable sources? —JackLumber /tɔk/ 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The published book is a reliable source, and so is the BBC article. Evilclown93 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They only cover a couple sentences, while the article is 11,000+ bytes long. —JackLumber /tɔk/ 23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it proves it's not a hoax, and like other Keep-sayers pointed out, it is notable enough. Also, if every article was judged like that, we'd have 10000-strong backlogs at AfD every day. Evilclown93 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, we have many article on words, as Truthiness, Nigger (offensive yet highly notable) and Thou, which is a featured article.--BMF81 23:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in all truthiness, the words thou hath mentioned are placed in context at some length, whereas this just gives definitions. Clarityfiend 05:03, 9 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. Sr13 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Straight Guys[edit]

Amateur Straight Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

self-evident WP:COI article by User:Amateurstraightguys promoting his site. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 8 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 (closing this a tad early). Sr13 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zip Codes in Ohio[edit]

List of Zip Codes in Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inherently unencyclopaedic listcruft. (Article had speedy tags repeatedly removed.) Chrisd87 22:09, 8 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. Sr13 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost metal[edit]

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

Unsourced original research, possibly in attempt to promote a non-notable band. Prod tag removed by creator. tomasz. 22:07, 8 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. --Coredesat 05:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian F.C.[edit]

Brazilian F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Soccer team at 11th level of English system; not notable. NawlinWiki 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, somebody might want to take a look at Middlesex County Football League just to see if it's notable, and see if the rest of the teams might be worth deleting. FrozenPurpleCube 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I can accept that the league itself is reasonable to include (though I would prefer more sources, and I'm not at all committed to keeping it), but I'm concerned about the half a dozen or so individual teams with articles and the rest that are red-linked. FrozenPurpleCube 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW on the teams, the only one I'd keep of the current batch would be Stonewall F.C. who do get the odd bit of press coverage as the only all-gay team at a respectable level in the pyramid — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:27, 9 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. Mangojuicetalk 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the result was actually "no consensus to delete". To be a keep result it would have needed 2/3 of the votes to be keep, which it did not get. I left a message on your talk page about it, and you did take action, so I am making the statement here. If you'd like to update the line later you can remove this message.DreamGuy 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amending. Yes, let's call this no consensus, because there was at least one uncountered deletion argument, namely, Adrian M. H.'s. However, in response to the above comment, AfD is not a vote, and the count doesn't determine things. In particular, although DreamGuy struck out User:67.39.194.114's comment, anons are allowed to participate, and that argument was relevant. Mangojuicetalk 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse Than Failure[edit]

Worse Than Failure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable blog Oscarthecat 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP *and* no edit history, no ability to vote here. DreamGuy 21:05, 11 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 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gassim Abdelkader[edit]

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

Self advertizement of an unknown artist Arielle72 20:55, 8 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. As for including the material at Runescape, take it up on Talk:Runescape. Mangojuicetalk 17:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoparScape[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment by an anonymous user. This is an article on an illegal copyright violation of RuneScape. It completely fails to assert notability (450,000 Ghits, consisting of its own site, download mirrors, fansites and forums) and stinks of advertising. Delete. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "kGhits" as shorthand for "thousand Ghits". CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No merge. Violates WP:SPAM and fails criteria of [[WP:BIO]].--Edtropolis 15:32, 14 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. Sr13 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Algayer[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable teacher. Similar set of contributors to fellow AfD candidate Stewart Thomas‎. --Finngall talk 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you think could be in those books that would save the article? They do not appear to have been written by Algayer, and are on subjects that, if Algayer were a major contributor to, would be much better documented. At best I expect a trivial mention of the form that Algayer suggested some formulation. I think it's fair to judge by sources we can dig up ourselves, not just the ones already in the article, but am much less comfortable speculating about the contents of not-easily-viewed sources. —David Eppstein 04:06, 10 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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ylenia Aurucci[edit]

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

Losing contestant on a reality television show. This completely unreferenced article claims that she's done a bit of work, but noting at all notable compared to notable, professional models. Now just another struggling young model in a very crowded and competitive field who has done nothing to discern herself from others. Mikeblas 16:03, 2 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, Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:26, 8 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. Sr13 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weakened slavery[edit]

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

It is an essay ("In reading the text, many of these key factors were learned." But is it a valid concept/topic for Wikipedia?) 650l2520 20:21, 8 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. Sr13 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sangi[edit]

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

Made-up language, this article is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Someguy1221 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles regarding the Talossan language and other constructed languages of that nature only have a reliable source of information because the information was placed on a website before its creation. The group of individuals who use Sangi have no knowledge on website creation, therefore a suitable online source does not exist. No written work has been on the language either. Wikim3 21:15, 8 June 2007

I have just read the notability requirements page and you do have a point. I've realised that this page would come over as an advertisement or a self-publicity page. This page was created in order to tell people about Sangi, but with no outside research done into it, no person outside the project could write this article. Wikim3 21:29, 8 June 2007

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

The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid. YechielMan 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papathanasiou Marek[edit]

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

Lack of notability Sverre 19:10, 8 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. Moreschi Talk 18:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gesine Confectionary and Gourmet Market[edit]

It's a cake/coffeeshop owned by Sandra Bullock's sister -em.. that's it. NN - might require a line in Sandra's article but that's about it. Fredrick day 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the first article is a dressed up blog post so doesn't count and most of the other coverage is about how Sandra Bullock worked in the shop on it's opening day - so in actual fact, the coverage is trival because the store is secondary to the fact that Sandra Bullock worked there for a shift to promote it. --Fredrick day 22:47, 5 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, W.marsh 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the signatures of User:Adrian M. H. and this Drake M. are the exact same, and that they both have an M. in there. Some newbie probably came along and copied Adrian's sig and name. Just a theory, though.
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 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistants Association of Lucas County, Ohio[edit]

Assistants Association of Lucas County, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Search for "Assistants Association of Lucas County, Ohio"=1 hit, Wikipedia. Blueboy96 19:03, 8 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. Sr13 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Epsilon[edit]

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

Non-notable chapter of a college fraternity. This was prod(ed) over a year ago but no one caught on to the fact that someone removed it. As per previous AfD debates regarding fraternity chapters, Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) a webspace provider for student chapters. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 19:01, 8 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 killed. Daniel 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WowZolo[edit]

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

Non notable World of Warcraft bot. No real content other than external links and saying what the bot does. Google search reveals no results for "WoWZolo" outside Wikipedia. Userpietalk to me! 18:59, 8 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. The keep arguments here are thoroughly refuted, and the article has had plenty of time to improve. Mangojuicetalk 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP (3rd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DKP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, while well written, does not assert the notability of the topic, and could not possibly be rewritten to assert any notability. Although World of Warcraft, Everquest and other MMORPGs are notable, fan-made systems used by their players do not automatically become notable by association. Popularity aside, the only sources currently in the article are:

Those don't strike me as reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and no sources other than guild sites and gaming guide sites can be found, resulting in an article that states what DKP is, but not its impact on gaming or the real world. The arguments for keeping in the past consisted of "I like it," "It's useful" and "Lots of people play WoW." The article would work well on a gaming wiki such as WoWWiki, but not here. Phony Saint 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping not to see this one on AfD again for a bit, and considered suggesting it's too early to put this one through the AfD grinder again so soon - but given the changes made to the article I suppose it's appropriate. I was the nominator for the previous 2 AfD's, and both times my beef was that the article was a massive WP:OR piece and a repository for links to guild websites. Since the second AfD, I have made an attempt to rewrite the article and purge the OR elements. While I feel it is a massive improvement in terms of the issues I had with it, there is still the issue of notability and encyclopedic content. Regarding N, my gut reaction is to say "Yes, this is notable. It is a well known concept within the context of MMORPG's." That said, the problem is that the concept is only notable within the context of the games and to date there is a paucity of reliable, secondary, independent sources to satisfy notability guidelines. Secondly, as the closer of the last AfD stated, this article needs to focus on encyclopedic content - history of the subject, measurable impact it has had, etc - and less on descriptive analysis and, essentially, "game guide material." My attempts to remove OR material and apply the given sources appropriately still don't do much at all to alleviate the fact that this is material still better suited to a game guide, such as Wowwiki as suggested by the nom, than a general knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia.
I dislike the conundrum that this article presents. As demonstrated by the previous nominations, there is little community consensus to delete this information, and I don't percieve that as changing. On the other hand there is the undeniable fact that this article suffers from a number of problems with regards to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, also well demonstrated by the previous nominations. It feels like an unecessary stalemate where we are saying "Yeah, this article is a mess and no one knows how to fix it, but we can't delete it either, so it's a no-consensus conclusion." I find the continual lack of consensus dissatisfying. I cannot quite endorse the article as it stands but also cannot deny that deletion would be in contravention to consensus. There must be a solution. To that end I am forced to suggest stripping this down to a barebones definition (sans the detailed analysis) and merging the resultant definition into Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms, while retaining this as a redirect and allowing for future recreation if and when the reliable secondary sources to establish an encyclopedic (not game-guide material) article. If the agreeable, stripped-down definition is still too large to merge, then retain it as a stub. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried my best to "fix" the article. Anyone else who thinks they can do more to make it more encyclopedic is welcome to do so. By now I've reached a point where it's hard for me to get worked up further about this issue, and if consensus is that the most recent revisions are acceptable then I'll support an outright keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For articles like this, it is a challenge to find outside sources that are fully "independent" of the subject, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Shouldn't be merged because it stands well on its own. Capmango 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I know nothing about the subject matter, but comparing the current version to previous versions it seems to me this one is marginally better. If past decisions in AfD were keep, then I don't see why this one should be any different. That said, I think notability is a legit concern. --Kangaru99 06:20, 9 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 per WP:SNOW and because references have been added to the article. Early non-admin closure. YechielMan 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole (song)[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced and w/o any evidence of notability. ((prod))ded, and removed w/o edit summary. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:52, 8 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. Sr13 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucidlan[edit]

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

Non-notable web site / organization. The first versions of the article were pure advertisement, even copyvio from their website (cf. Google Cache, site seems to be down at the moment). PROD and Speedy were contested. Tone rewriting has occurred, but still there's no hint to notability. Google gives hardly any hits. No major changes to content since initial creation. I think this is a hopeless case in view of WP:WEB and WP:ORG, rewriting or not. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:46, 8 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. Sr13 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Clemens[edit]

John C. Clemens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person from history fails WP:BIO. The article does not contain a valid claim of notability: He was a businessman; but that doesn't make him notable. Secondary coverage that could support notability is not given. No major changes since warning tags have been on. I also didn't find independent sources via Google; there's coverage by the firm he founded [7], but that's not independent. Still, many historic sources cannot be found in Google - so, if someone can support that he's notable, please comment. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:26, 8 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, socks blocked. Sr13 01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Thomas[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable teacher. --Finngall talk 18:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And below! Deor 04:55, 12 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. Moreschi Talk 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag-Ops[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Frag-Ops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously deleted due to the obvious consensus that the article lacked any secondary sources (see here. The article was rewritten and moved back into the article space; however, it still only uses primary sources (archived versions of the game's website). Googling for sources only brings up the usual Fileplanet and other directory listings, which are not independent reliable sources. Delete for lack of independent reliable sources. Wickethewok 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, mod was retail released on the UT2004 Editor's Choise Edition. Contest entries in Epic's contest are also clear. Mentionnings from Developers and Publishers can be found across the internet.

I don't see any myself. There isn't a single source from either mainstream media (not expected in any event) or from well-known gaming industry publications which would at least have a modest rep for fact-checking. I'm also not enthusiastic about the presumption that just because we're not swallowing these sources as reliable, we must not have read the article.  RGTraynor  12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Independent news sources were asked for and provided along wiith dates, Beyond Unreal is one of the three big Unreal sites, Boomtown isn't small, and are you saying that UGO isn't notable? Or that Epic's own Unreal Tournament website listing Frag Ops is not? In fact quite a lot of data has been provided. No one asked you to swallow anything Traynor but when you vote to delete something, make sure you at least understand the topic you are sitting in judgement of. Because someone who did would have immediately recognized Beyond Unreal, that is of course why it's the topmost link. Going back quite a ways in the contribution histories of most of the Delete voters, I do not see any gaming articles contributed to or edited, I just see deletions and admin work. The question is if you only posses a superficial understanding of a topic, how can you effectively determine its notability? --Basique 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing a link to the Frag.Ops page was posted on their forums on June 8th at 12:46 PM, and then at 18:04 PM on June 8th Wickethewok added (afdx) to an article that has been up since March 21st, in fact it is the very first action he takes that day. So if he just rediscovered the article on June 8th, where exactly did he rediscover it? --Basique 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, we're judging its verifiability. Reliable sources must be independent. Unreal's own websites don't qualify.  RGTraynor  18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what Basique is accusing me of, but the thing that prompted me to nominate it was that someone edited it on June 8 popping it to the top of my watchlist. I still had this watchlisted still from when it was deleted a few months ago and hadn't realized until then that it was back in the article space. I saw that the reasons it was deleted last time had not been addressed, as the "news articles" aren't reliable or independent (also, at least one is a press release). Wickethewok 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was watchlisted since the last time it would have also popped up on March 21st. Those news articles are from reliable independent sources. In fact all of you have edited articles a lot more dubious than this and have not nominated them for deletion, I know this because I've gone through all your contributions. This is a solid article I built it that way, and I put in the references to back that up. So what I think now is that I need to bring this issue to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. --Basique 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you find other articles that are impossible to source/are junk/etc, feel free to nominate those for deletion, but that doesn't really have to do with this AFD. This AFD is already listed at WP:CVG#Deletion, so I assume that Wikiproject CVG already knows. FYI, since the article was in your userspace until March 30, my watchlist wouldn't have shown any of the edits made before you moved it to the deleted article's location. Wickethewok 20:22, 12 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. Sr13 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carter (music producer)[edit]

Mike Carter (music producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete.Non-notable. Vanity page. No references except those created by subject on myspace. Smerus 18:07, 8 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 but move. Whatever this is, it isn't a bio article on the Judge. I am persuaded by the keepers that there are enough secondary sources for a notable article. However, there is sufficient precedent that such articles should be based on the event not the person. Disappearance of Madeleine McCann moved from Madeleine McCann is a case in point. The new article, obviously, concentrates too much on the Judge but I am now looking to the keepers, and other interested editors, to sort the article out or else I suspect we could be here again. TerriersFan 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee Parrott[edit]

Article about a judge that made a controversial decision. The judge himself is non-notable and both provided sources concern the controversial case rather then judge. One could argue for an article about the case (although I would not) but an article about the judge cannot be justified. In addition, this article has been listed at the BLP noticeboard here. CIreland 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If you call posting information published in many dozens of reliable sources "devolving," then you're probably right. BLP, however, does not mean "we can't say anything negative about a living person." We are absolutely free to quote reliable sources to that end. As it happens, the article's been massively rewritten to sound quite sympathetic towards Parrott; calling it a "hit piece" is grossly inaccurate, unless you mean that it now slams the lesbian mother hard, an assessment with which I'd agree.  RGTraynor  19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has changed since I last read it, and no longer has the biased point of view of the original poster, however I am still against it because it is not an encyclopedia article about John Lee Parrott, it is a news story about the incident with Emily Rose and Ms. Hadaway. What was John Lee Parrot's law school? What was his undergraduate degree? What year was he born? What is his judicial philosophy? What, other than this ONE case, has Judge Parrott presided over? How old is he? What was the margin of victory of his last election? When was his last election? These are questions that one would find an answer to in an encyclopedia article about John Lee Parrot.Dougdeal 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dougdeal. A well cited article on the incident could be OK, but this one is ostensibly an article on the judge, and isn't close to that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:49, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Passantino (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dom Passantino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity, vandalism, nonsense Yaoichan 17:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Note" The only contribs. of the nominator have been this nomination & the vandalism to the article concerned. DGG 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, he's written exactly six pieces for the Guardian, none more recent than last September, most of which are very short, in fact only one of which is longer than a one-paragraph review (and that barely). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment C'mon. He's in 9th spot on Stylus magazine's stafflist. None of the eight above him have WP entries. Why should he? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:20, 11 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. Sr13 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bathtime in Clerkenwell[edit]

Bathtime in Clerkenwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As much as I love the animation, it's not notable under the criteria for Notability. Ixistant 17:11, 8 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. Sr13 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of counterculture films[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of counterculture films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Renominating List of counterculture films for deletion as original research with apparently little hope for correction. In the original afd, which ended as No Consensus, the feeling was apparently that the article might be salvagable if the definition of what a "counterculture film" is could be tightened up with appropriate references. However that has not occured, and in fact the list appears to simply be a hodge podge of films that individual editors feel in their opinion are "counterculture". No verification is given to justify the classification of anything on the list, or even to justify that the term counterculture itself can be objectively defined. Since there seems to be no hope of bringing this list out of what is clearly original editor opinion status, delete. Dugwiki 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, the proof has to be in the pudding. You might believe that these films can be reliably verified as having "counterculture status", but the fact is that despite multiple requests for that verification over a period of months and a previous afd no such sources have been provided. Secondly, we are not saying here that the general subject of counterculture films isn't a valid one for an article. Just that a comprehensive objective list of counterculture films probably isn't valid. It's one thing to provide Easy Rider as an example of a counterculture film in the article Counterculture, but it's another thing to try and construct from scratch a list of all films that might be considered counterculture films by various people. Dugwiki 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to reply, we're not saying the list isn't "interesting". The complaint is that it's apparently not verifiable or objective and almost exclusively consists of original research. Just because an article is interesting reading doesn't mean it should be kept. Dugwiki 16:18, 11 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. Though there are a lot of keep votes, many are by single purpose accounts. Delete votes were more persuasive. — OcatecirT 00:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFOL[edit]

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

Only mentions I found came from BrickWiki and WP mirror sites. Seems to be an neologism only in use with die hard Lego fans and current/former Lego Co. employees. mcr616 Speak! 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't think a bibliography would apply here. Also, it's hard to reference something that only comes up on fan sites and WP mirrors. mcr616 Speak! 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a file of some kind for adults who are extremely interested in, for want of a better term, "LEGO art." I recently saw a Yahoo piece on the subject of one, actually. If this specific page has to be deleted, make sure to save all the information in a more appropriate article, such as on LEGOs themselves, or on the artistic use of the blocks; when referencing the group in the LEGO page, give the references that speak of it...even if it is just "fan sites," as it is basically impossible that they're lying about such a group existing. --Chr.K. 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that the group exists, it's a question of whether or not we can back the information up with neutral, reputable sources. A fan site, by definition, wouldn't be neutral, and would probably not be very reputable either. mcr616 Speak! 15:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to know that this is not a case of sockpuppeteering, although I'm not going to comment on canvassing (none by me though). Sockpuppet is an interesting analogy with this case. In this use it is a word that has a fairly limited user group and I have never come across it outside of (internet) conversations.Talltim 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. To my mind an article on MCRmy would be an interesting and useful article to include on wiki. However I can see reasons to transfer to Wikitionary Talltim 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a policy or just 'etiquette'? It seems to me that relying on people to stumble upon an article is just going to bias it to people who spend a lot of time meta-wikiing. Timgould 21:35, 15 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. Sr13 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providence College Special Guest[edit]

Providence College Special Guest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). No claim to notability, much less a sourced claim. All external links are to content created by the group itself. Article is primarily a vanity listing of current members and self-released albums. Savidan 16:07, 8 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 delete. — OcatecirT 00:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arch sing[edit]

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

No sources given to establish that this is a notable form of performance. Term is unlikely to recieve anything but a trivial mention in published sources, and thus the article will always be based off heresay and original research. Savidan 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide us with some of the evidence you mention, that would be helpful in judging the merits of this article. JavaTenor 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here. I'm not saying these would make great sources for the article, but lots of pages that talk about past or upcoming Arch Sing events that do not seem to find it necessary to explain what an arch sing is, evidence that it is already well understood (mind you, I'm from Arizona so this was all new to me): Capmango 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last reference would be enough for a Wiktionary entry, but all of the links provided—taken together do not back up any of the statements in the current article, except to define Arch Sing as singing under an arch. If "merging" this article into another entails anything more than that definition, then all we are doing is moving unsourced original research from one article to another. Savidan 02:30, 9 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teargas Ginn[edit]

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

non-notable group, no assertion of notability, no sources. Recreation of previously speedied content. tomasz. 15:39, 8 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Openshaw Internet statements[edit]

Openshaw Internet statements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A British judge in a not-so-bright moment made a remark that implied he didn't understand the internet. The press laughed at him for a few days. Notable? Well, yes it deserves a line in his biography, which it has, but what the blazing hell is the point in an article which simply records the press laughing and what they said. Trivial, unimportant, and serves only to humiliate a man for a silly remark. No, I'm not advocating we censor it, we've recorded it in a sentence in his bio and that's enough. -Docg 15:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Delete: Too bulky for the main article?? The main article is five sentences long, including a precis of this incident. There's nowhere remotely enough content to warrant a separate article for this fellow's bon mot.  RGTraynor  18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. A long dialogue on one passing remark would unbalance that article. It is already briefly mentioned there.--Docg 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to modify the extent of the merge if you feel it's appropriate. Or add more content actually about this person. I think a short line is actually more misleading than giving things in a broader context, but then, I'm not even sure he should have an article. If he does though, then the contents of it are an editing question not best answered on AFD. In fact, that seems to be the problem here, rather than this article being a problem, it's a content issue. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I nominated it as I wish this article deleted. The 'line' in the bio currently is fine.--Docg 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be slightly more convinced of that if it weren't for the fact that this article was apparently created as a result of discussion that lead to splitting. Now the splitting is being opposed. But you still accept coverage of the incident as valid. Sorry, but you're in the wrong place. This is a editing dispute. The question here is not whether or not this subject should be covered, but how and where. That's not a deletion question. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call me a liar please. I've explained my motives - they are as I have said. If you're not willing to assume good faith thatis not my problem. I've taken no part in any content dispute on another article - so please do your homework before assuming bad faith and patronising me.--Docg 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said you were a liar? You can be wrong without being intentionally deceitful. I think you're mistaken in your actions, and choosing the wrong method to resolve this concern. If this offends you, I am sorry if it was because I wrote things in a manner which was unclear, but adopting an increasingly hostile attitude on your part isn't going to be persuasive either. Rather the opposite. I think you've chosen the wrong method to resolve this dispute. Nothing more. FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overreacted. Bad day - no excuse. But I explained my motives and you appeared to imply you were 'unconvinced' - and that I was in an 'editing dispute,' which I am not. I am here because I wish this article deleted, as simple as that. I'm not (and never have been) in an editing dispute, because I am content with the content of the other article. I really can't understand your point, this is a deletion debate - I nominated the article for deletion.--Docg 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You accept that this information can be covered on the judge's individual page. Thus the question is not whether or not this subject is notable, but the extent of the coverage. Since this article doesn't have any false information, there is no reason to delete. Settle this with a discussion as to the content of the judge's article. You may be satisfied with the content of it as now. But many comments in this discussion indicate others do not feel the same. I certainly don't. It's not fine, and if anything, it's lacking in needed substance and context. If you don't agree, well, that's fine, but AFD is not the place to do it. Try WP:DR instead. FrozenPurpleCube 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Afd IS precisely the place for me to ask for this ridiculous article to be deleted. You are of course entitled to disagree with the desire to delete it. So, we have a deletion debate, which is what we are doing.--Docg 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing ridiculous about this article. It's sourced, it's reasonably well-written, and it's not about something of minor importance. There are many ridiculous articles on Wikipedia which should be deleted, but when you even accept that basis for the content is reasonable to include on the person's page, well, I don't see a good case for it being ridiculous. Again, I think it would be better if perhaps you might consider a different method to get the level of coverage to be appropriate than AFD. Otherwise people will just add the content to the original page and you're back where you started. Not what I'd call effective at resolving the dispute. FrozenPurpleCube 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about this article. But I can't think of a better way for me to ask for it to be deleted than afd. Let's wait and see if others agree. I'm happy to make my case and abide by consensus here.--Docg 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of several ways to deal with this issue, such as engaging in a discussion on the talk page, and working on developing consensus for the level of coverage on the main article that everybody agrees with. It does seem that most folks agree that covering this on the person's article is appropriate, but the only concern is balance. Well, my suggested solution is to find more things to write about the judge. Surely there's something more to be said about him? If not, maybe his entire article ought to be deleted. I'm not at all convinced every judge who makes the news once or twice should have an article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is highly unlikely there will be more information about some random judge. If you want to nominate that for deletion, you'll have my support.--Docg 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no immediate desire to do so, given that a discussion was just recently closed and this related discussion is ongoing. Perhaps at some later date if no sources for other information can be found as to his notability. FrozenPurpleCube 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Cornea 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the worst possible outcome - the incident is covered already in the bio and one comment a man made once in his life does not deserve any more mention that that. The rest is media silliness.--Docg 19:10, 8 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 without prejudice of recreation (avoid salting). Article as it stood offered nothing I could apply WP:MUSIC to. — OcatecirT 01:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick DeMeyer[edit]

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

This was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick De Meyer but has been subject to numerous speedy deletions and recreations. Two of the references are broken but, in any case, I still don't see significant secondary sources so Delete view. Bridgeplayer 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Patrick de Mayer was a member of of Technotronic, one of the biggest techno bands of the late 80's early 90's and a pioneer of techno music. He has also been a member of several other notable bands and is a notable composer and has scored the soundtrack to at least one film. Just because the article has been deleted before for not being up to standard does not automatically classify it for deletion as Patrick de Mayer does pass notability. (Note it was restored by the deleting admin). I really don't see your point Bridgeplayer? I think you are just being facitious.128.40.76.3 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - None of the references support these claims. For example note 3, that claims to support the Technotronic membership is broken. Bridgeplayer 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not that experienced around here but my understanding is that we can't keep an article by assuming good faith but that it is a question that we need reliable sources to substantiate the claims in the article. Bridgeplayer 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your understanding is dead on accurate. We take no article on just plain good faith. Reliable sources and verification, yes.  RGTraynor  19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply sigh. I'll try to clarify what I thought was clear from the context of my remarks: I was not saying we take it on faith that the man is notable. The problem is that the links in this aritcle that would establish notability are broken. I was saying we should assume good faith that those links are not bogus, but rather outdated or mistyped, and we should allow the author a chance to correct the links, rather than just assuming the links must be bogus and deleting the article. Capmango 22:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have fixed the 2 bad links.[13] The only problem was that they contained the pipe that should only be in internal wikilinks. PrimeHunter 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just a bit of history... it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick De Meyer, then went through DRV where JzG (talk · contribs) pointed out that the article was missing citations. It was recreated at Patrick DeMeyer with citations. I speedy deleted this as a recreation after it was tagged as such. After a conversation with the creator, it appeared that there was an assertion per WP:MUSIC of meeting the first criteria for composers, sourced to Allmusic.com. Thus I restored the article because speedy deletion was not a valid option in this case. I have no opinion on retention or deletion, but deleting again simply because this is a recreation probably is not a valid rationale. Deletion or retention should be based solely on the determination whether this meets WP:MUSIC and whether or not the assertions of meeting the criteria are adequately sourced.--Isotope23 13:29, 11 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 per WP:SNOW if nothing else. The sources are (barely) enough, and poor quality of writing does not justify deletion. Non-admin closure, permitted because of an uncontroversial result. YechielMan 07:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Ride[edit]

Equality Ride - History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced, can't see anything that makes it notable in the first few lines (which an article should), poorly written Will (talk) 13:11, 8 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. There may be some merit in the suggestion that underneath the flim-flam lies the nub of a notable subject, but this article will not be of any obvious help in compiling that. Opinion here is pretty clear: the article as written is advancing an agenda and fails to credibly establish the encyclopaedic merit of this term as described. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic seduction[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic topic (edit), meaning that it fails WP:Verifiability and WP:NOT#OR (end edit); no verifiable references, attracts spamming. Seems to be a made-up concept. Joie de Vivre 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This term doesn't refer to traditional love potions etc and is utterly separate from Asian concepts such as talisman or wider spread fertility beliefs. - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly research in this field does exist, but it doesn't use this term. The term is pure pop culture. - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And how... is this topic scientific? Joie de Vivre
Psychology is a science, isn't it? - perfectblue 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, psychology is a science. This is not science. Joie de Vivre 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but you can clear it up with antipsychotics. Joie de Vivre 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but it's very hard to clear up some, like herpes cortex. So don't forget to wear a proper condom. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 06:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Unencyclopedic topic", it is a verifiable term that has a history and a presence in popular culture/subculture. By definition this makes it viable topic for an encyclopedia entry. "no verifiable references". Not so. For example Sexual Psychic Seduction;; ISBN 0976386224. "attracts spamming", So does George W. Bush and various pages on sexual techniques, but those pages is still here. "Seems to be a made-up concept" It was made up by a third party, which is what counts. - perfectblue 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does a few people mentioning this term in their self-published books constitute encyclopedic notability? It may well be a real term used by a couple of people. I just don't think it's notable on an encyclopedic level. Wiktionary may want it as a (dubious) dicdef, but I don't think we do. Moreschi Talk 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, "no verifiable references" does not mean that none exist, it means that none were provided in the article. Normally I would try to improve it myself before nominating, but I wasn't about to wade through more websites that try to launch malicious software (see Talk:Psychic seduction) in order to find references. Joie de Vivre 11:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few people mentioning something in a few books is sufficient to WP:V a term as being real, the number of people talking about it on message boards and at self help seminars is enough to make it notable. I should mention that "Unencyclopedic" and WP:Notability are different concepts. Unencyclopedic means that the basic topic is unsuitable for inclusion because it has no encyclopedic merit, while notability means that something is not important enough for inclusion. For example, a page discussing a magazine that has yet to be published but is donating all of its profits to a worthy cause would be notable but unencyclopedic (Wikipedia does not base entries on forecasts of the future), whereas a published magazine with only 100 subscribers would be encyclopedic but not notable - perfectblue 13:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Notability is not determind by jabber on messsage boards. Notability is determined by this: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Moreschi Talk 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. yes. You can take your quote over to any article about science, society or history and it will stand up to scrutiny, but it doesn't wash with popular culture. Like it or not, popular culture exists independently of the mainstream media, of logic, and of science. A pop culture phenomona can sweep through a generation and hardly even be recorded in mainstream sources. In order to judge it's popularity or notability you need to look at its base and its roots.
For example, you can have a music genre that is taking every top club in the country by storm, yet isn't even mentioned in the mainstream music press. perfectblue 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, definitely no. At least, that's not what the rules for notability say. If you wish to change them, good luck. Moreschi Talk 14:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, this article fails to assert the subject's notability, so it may be deleted. Joie de Vivre 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall disagreeing with that. What it do disagree with is that the topic is unencyclopedic and that it can't be verified. - perfectblue 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the reason I gave may have been unclear to some readers. See slight clarification in nomination. Joie de Vivre 14:39, 9 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. — OcatecirT 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Light (song)[edit]

Green Light (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These Beyonce articles are like weeds. This one's back again, and the only reference that it will be a single is a rumor at a forum. Disputed prod. ShadowHalo 14:28, 8 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. — OcatecirT 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Steinbrueck[edit]

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

NN bio. Prod was removed by anon with the comment "you can verify biographic details and check license status very easily. Agree he is unimportant though" so I'm not even sure the annon disagrees with the idea that the subject fails WP:BIO. Also, there has been an ongoing WP:BLP issue with the article and a WP:OTRS complaint. A deletion would happily wrap up all the loose ends. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm no longer supporting deletion. I'm not withdrawing since there are still supporters for deletion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd feel a lot better about those links if they weren't almost all blogs or websites, as opposed to reprints from reliable sources.  RGTraynor  19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a scanner or a collection of backissues, but represented therein (and a few now on the article page) are The Stranger, the Seattle Times, KUOW, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, not merely blogs, but websites showing articles from major Seattle publications. I would really find it arduous to have to establish for you the notability of those publications to the Seattle area. The argument so far against this article, aside from the unexplained OTRS issue which history suggests has already been resolved, and the BLP issue which is likewise not explained, sounds a lot like WP:IDONTKNOWIT. It'd be ideal for the purposes of well-informed AFD if those two unmentioned issues were mentioned instead of vaguely alluded to. - Keith D. Tyler 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't explain any more about the WP:OTRS/WP:BLP issues other then to say that problems have happened previously and there is concern that they will reappear. If that doesn't matter to you then don't take it into consideration. I just threw it out there because it's one of the reasons why this popped up on my radar.
In light if your sources and improvements to the article I'm no longer supporting deletion. However, I would like to say that only about half of the sources you listed are valid in establishing notability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 11 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: lack of reliable sources. Moreschi Talk 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diggory Press[edit]

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

Marketing promotional piece. Doesn't seem to have much if any independent coverage and hence doesn't seem notable. Also, the creator of the page (Rosalindfranklin (talk · contribs)) appears to be an employee of the organization. Flex (talk/contribs) 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that we produce effectively mass-market editions of (usually) very expensive important and often very hard to find theological books does establish a degree of notability for us as a publishers. That along with the other factors that make us up as a press should be considered. eg - Our imprint Exposure Publishing is the fastest growing UK publisher, with sales around four times more in one single year than other print on demand publishers in their whole lives. That is notable in itself as well as the fact we offer the best royalties in the self publishing industry at the lowest cost. Our sales outstip lulu.com whom you list. We also have several important authors on our books including MPS, charities and a Procol Harem band member and was the first British publisher to publish a book in Punjabi.
The Diggory Press side do publish rare works that you cannot get anywhere else for love nor money, whether in book form, CD or e-format. Furthermore a lot of the Jonathan Edawrds or John Bunyan books have not been available as single editions for many years - and not all Christians wish to purchase their whole collections of their extensive works from Banner of Truth et al who we acknowledge nonetheless, do a great job. We do not just publish dead theologians, but also world war one titles, nursing history books etc that are also important. I cannot obviously disclose exact sales figures but we are a key figure and sell a lot of books each month worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalindfranklin (talk • contribs)
If these things make your company notable, they should appear in the article. But also note that the article should be verifiable, and claims like "fastest growing", "best royalties", "four times more than", etc. should be footnoted with a reliable source. As for rarity, let's take a test case: Which specific books do you publish by Edwards that can't be had elsewhere? --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) Rosalindfranklin, if you could provide a list of news articles about your business this might help resolve this issue. If the answer is "none" then that helps resolve this too. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Jonathan Edwards in concerned, I believe all his work is available online as well as in a complete collection from Banner of Truth Trust. However very few of his works are available in print singularly at any price. If we go by amazon, there are no other editions of 'The Apocalypse and Final Judgment' available, or the highly important works 'The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners' or 'Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God'. Ditto with some of John Bunyan's works. G A Studdert Kennedy, the famous war poet, his book the Unutterable Beauty was completely out of print and not on the net or CD or anywhere else. Ditto with 'Una and Her Paupers' which we paid a fortune for as a rare antique book to scanned to be made available as well as Linda Richards, the famous nurse's pioneers' life story. We have also published other very rare books not available anywhere else. Our books are regularly reviewed in newspaper, magazines or TV and radio. Media events include The Richard and Judy show (2006) and a host of radio shows. In recognition of our success, we were invited to the Galaxy British Book Awards hosted by Richard and Judy Finnegan in London in March 2007.
At least three of our books have been nominated for awards - 2006 Emme Award for Astronautical Literature, The Lulu Blooker Prize 2007 and The Holyer an Gof Trophy 2007.
We were in the Sunday Times on June 3rd 2007, Writers Forum Magazine, March 2007 and Writers Forum Magazine, February 2007 as well as a host of other smaller newspapers and magazines. I am not always aware of all the publicity as I do not have time to look it up. Everything I said is verifiable (eg we have the sale stats in writing from our distrubutors) but I am not sure whether I can get it from 'published sources' easily for you so will therefore remove those 'unverified' to your standards claims. Rosalindfranklin 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable sources call those two Edwards books "highly important works"? Moreover, if the works are widely available online and in print from multiple publishers, I don't think printing them as stand-alone volumes qualifies as a notable attribute for your company. I can't speak to the books from other areas, but I must admit I'm dubious. The reviews in various outlets and nomination of your books for minor prizes may mean the books themselves have some notability, but I don't see that that notability thereby transfers to the publisher. As for your company's appearance in various media outlets, are any of these substantial (more than a few sentences paragraphs)? The one from the most significant source, The Sunday Times, is naught but a passing mention of you as a self-publishing outlet. Can you provide links or, failing that, scans of the others if they are more substantial? As for your sales figures, we cannot take your word for it; they must be verifiable in independent, reliable sources (even Amazon reports would count), or they're not verifiable at all for the purposes of the Wikipedia. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, Flex, every protestant theological student knows how important these books are. Don't make me jump through hoops to prove something that is really, really obvious already. They are not in print anywhere else apart from as a complete and volumnous collection of Jonathan Edwards works. Fine if you are studying at Princeton but not for Joe Public. By splitting these books up, not only do we make these more available and affordable, but also we make the public more aware of what he did and did not write and make them more likely to read any of his works. For example, I personally, although interested in theology, would never for leisure buy a complete works of any Christian author, apart from possibly one by James Hudson Taylor, my 'hero'...but then he did not write nearly as much as Bunyan, Owen or Edwards et al. A single edition is a good chance of dipping one's toe in the water to discover whether you like the author or not. A lot of Christians struggle with the idea of eternal damnation, and many are not aware of this book 'The Justice of God etc' because it is hidden in a vast collection with lots of, dare I say, drier material. We have made it readily available and 'out there' for those wishing to research this subject as we have done equally with the apocalypse etc etc. Theology should be more avilable to the 'man on the street'. Anyway, I repeat, that is not the only thing that makes us 'notable', it is just a contributing factor with lots of others. And of course, if you were going to maintain your current argument, then it disqualifies a lot of other publishers listed on Wikipedia.Rosalindfranklin 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that, IMHO, you're overstating your case by using the qualifier "highly important". Calvin's Institutes is highly important; Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is highly important; Edwards's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is highly important -- their continued appearance in the Western cannon and being continually in print since they were written, their being widely analyzed, studied, and referenced, is evidence enough of this. The same cannot be said of all of Edwards's (or Buynan's or Calvin's or anyone's) other works. They may be highly important in some limited context (e.g., the history of the First Great Awakening, the development of the writer's thought, etc.), but that doesn't make them highly important in general. If you think I am wrong in my assessment of these particular works, provide a reliable source. The burden of proof is on you. But this is all rather secondary to my main point: even if these works were notable, that notability does not automatically transfer to a reprinter of them, particularly when they're widely available in other formats. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As for your sales figures, we cannot take your word for it; they must be verifiable in independent, reliable sources (even Amazon reports would count), or they're not verifiable at all for the purposes of the Wikipedia

Do you do this to other publishers too?! Sales figures are rarely published except possibly in places like Publishers Weekly etc by the main players such as Random House and Penguin, and even then you do not get the whole story. As we as a press publish aiming mainly to a niche market we are unlikely ever to make it to rankings page on Publishers Weekly (one day though maybe!), just as Banner of Truth and most other Christian publishers will never make it in there. For example we know a lot of the Samuel Zwemer books will not sell huge amounts (I publish them more as a service than anything else as I have an interest in training and mobiling more Christian missionaries to Islamic countries.) and equally there is not a huge demand for John Owen's books nowadays. However as I feel they should be in print, I make it so. And before you say his collection is already out there, the 16 volume set published by Banner of Truth is US398 dollars on amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-John-Owen-Set/dp/0851513921/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3468277-5156716?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181481647&sr=1-1), which let's face it unless you really love Owen you are never going to purchase. However, just because our sales figures do not get onto Publishers Weekly best-seller lists does not make our titles or our sales insignificant. There are lots of other important 'small' to 'medium sized' presses out there equally who keep literature alive whose sales figures are never published. If we all aimed just for the mass-market, then God help us, most classics or academic books would never get published. Here is a link to the Feb. article in Writers Forum, this is not an advert, we do not advertise anywhere as we are too busy as it is - [[33]] I have a scan of a March article in Writers Forum from another author which I do not know how to attach. Both were two to three page articles. I also have a photo of me at the 2007 Galaxy British Book Awards with the soccer player Sir Bobby Charlton who presented one of the awards. I was invited out of only 10 UK publishers (NB the only woman publisher) because of our significant clout in the market place. I have not kept every media article. We were also on Richard and Judy show in 2006 and lots of radio shows which is hard to prove in retrospect. I don't think we should be penalised as being unnoteworthy because we don't have a PR machine feeding out lots of information about us to the press, or collecting all the articles on us that are out there. We are too busy publishing and selling books to bother feeding the media. The only amazon reports you can access (which does not show all our titles but it will do) is for the Diggory Press titles on amazon.com - [[34]] for the Exposure Publishing titles on amazon.com [[35]] and a similar thing can be done on a host of other websites including amazon.co.uk and barnes and noble etc. Note that despite what some think, amazon is not the main player for booksales, we make many more sales to bookshops and libaries.Rosalindfranklin 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures aren't a requirement, but they would help substantiate that Diggory is a significant player in the marketplace. If that's not true or can't be substantiated, Diggory could still be notable for some other reason. In any case, all claims to notability must be verifiable from reliable sources. Please see your target at WP:CORP#Primary_criterion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Pamphlets would be a more appropriate term than books"

That is highly unfair. These are properly bound books of a high print quality often of a larger than usual paperback size (eg 6 by 9 inch, some bigger). Therefore the same word count can be got into a 108 page than other publishers stretch out into 250 pages. Furthermore, how can you possibly call a book such as [[37]] a pamphlet??? I am sure Edwards and Bunyan and many other Christians would argue with you about their works 'substantiality' which WERE usually originally published as single works. And also this is not about being based solely on whether we are on amazon or respective sales ranks on amazon, the amazon mention is proof that we are out there and that our books are widely available but it is only one factor along with many others.Rosalindfranklin 14:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware how these were published. Before and during the rise of magazines & newspapers in the 18th century, material that would now be of article length was inevitably published separately, in what would be considered today as pamphlets--a commonly-used name at the time was tracts, and such formats for works of religious outreach continued through the 19th century. They were many of them republished as larger collected volumes, & many religious figures also wrote substantial single books; I recognize some members of of each class in the Diggory line. Almost all of these have also been reprinted in other formats--the most accessible is the free online formats, and the most reliable the collected library editions. It is a worthy business enterprise to provide them in convenient printed editions as well. But the notability of the authors and the works does not necessarily transfer to reprinters. There are a few notable reprinters; Pocket Books for example has an article--they republished many thousands of titles during a span of half a century; Diggory has published 150, and existed for only a few years.
Neither is Diggory entirely a specialist publisher: from the article, it has a subsidiary that engages in what the article calls "self-publishing", its line of 800 books would more objectively be called vanity press productions. Vanity presses are not generally notable. That it has published a book for a MP makes neither the book nor Diggory/ Exposure Press notable.
Some publishers are famous, as publishing houses and as individuals, but it generally takes more than 150 published reprints to get there. The usual WP criterion of secondary sources applies: the major publishers have not only scholarly articles but whole books written about them individually: some of the older university presses have multi-volume treatises devoted to their activities over the span of centuries. Some individual editors also have been the subjects of full biographies. Such firms and people are appropriate for WP articles. Even many less important historically known ones have significant mentions in comprehensive works. The study of publishing includes books both academic and of more general interest, and a number of specialist journals--I'm even on the editorial board of one. Diggory can't be expected to be treated in this way yet, and of course it isn't. Optimistically, perhaps you will, and then there will be an appropriate article. You won't have to write it yourself--I'll do it gladly.DGG 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reprints are often substantial reprints of well over 250 pages at 6 by 9 inch size. That is far from a pocket book or a pamphlet or tract. Some of our books have NEVER been reprinted since their first publication and were extremely rare and NOT online anywhere. We do more than publish 'reprint's too, publishing original and novel works. There have been two full length articles this year in Writers News about us (Feb and March). There is also a full length article here: [[38]]. We are far more notable than many other publishers and individuals you have listed here but frankly, do what you want, I have had enough and am out of this discussion.Rosalindfranklin 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your books: I will reiterate, a publisher of notable books is not necessarily notable itself. Can you supply links (or email scans) of the Writers News articles? I'll investigate the Write Words article (UPDATE: I read it, and it is not independent coverage. It is you giving an interview about your book publishing, and you do all the talking. Again, there's nothing in your efforts that's not commendable; it's just that this can't yet be substantiated as notable from reliable sources and is therefore not encyclopedic.) As for other junk, that's not a good argument in your favor (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:30, 11 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 – no verifiable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. - KrakatoaKatie 21:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Merge and Refresh Worship Toronto ministries[edit]

The Merge and Refresh Worship Toronto ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:BAND. This seems to be about a worship band in a church- does not need its own article. Also, it is written in an unencyclopaedic tone, and has a "promotional" feel to it. Article is long, and a lot of effort seems to have gone into it, but the subject does not seem to merit its own Wikipedia article Lurker 13:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that perhaps a small amount of information from the article could be merged into the article on the parent church, though I have concerns about the notability and tone of that article too Lurker 14:22, 8 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 and salt. Sr13 02:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kakistocracy[edit]

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

Because it's bollocks. cornis 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is NOT a neologism, Chambers Dictionary, 1983, has "'kakistocracy', noun, government by the worst. From the Greek 'kakistos', superlative of 'kakos', bad, and 'kratos', power." The OED has examples back to 1829. The joke about GWB is weak though. No objection to deleting on grounds that it is a dictionary definition, but please check your facts before claiming neologism or bollocks. DuncanHill 13:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I could remove the comment regarding GWB, but then the page is still just a dictionary definition at that point, which might merit a merge into Wiktionary. Wildthing61476 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as first presented was just another attack George Bush page. That material has been edited out to leave a dictionary definition of a word. Nick mallory 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note- There already is a definition at Wiktionary. The page was transwikied before and recreated. Which is why I think it should be protected against recreation Lurker 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that actually regarding Wiktionary, delete and slat at this point. Wildthing61476 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What have parrots got to do with it? Grutness...wha? 03:12, 9 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. Tyrenius 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Umowski[edit]

Orphan article about a living person. Sources merely confirm that she won a scholarship from the Hellenic Times Foundation. If there isn't anything else verifable to write about her, I suggest that we delete the article. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 8 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. Sr13 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barossa German[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is a neologism. There are sources cited but none of them mention the term "Barossa German". Username nought 12:36, 7 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 per apparent bad faith nom. Also, seems notable to me. Non admin closure. Whsitchy 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia's Children's Hospital[edit]

British Columbia's Children's Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates Notability Policy. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. ObsequiosityFYM 23:29, 7 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. Sr13 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Hewitt[edit]

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

Largely self-authored and self-promoting to the point of gross exaggeration RandomHumanoid 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert have a comparable number of articles to Hewitt on Google Scholar.--171.66.49.141 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's absurd to even compare them...

Reasons to delete As far as I can tell, Carl Hewitt meets neither the criteria for WP:BIO nor Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). That his article is largely self-authored is an embarrassment and this kind of self-promotion should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I want to add that I have nothing against Carl personally. If he is indeed someday included here, someone else should write the biographical article. I suggest Carl read and respect WP:Autobiography. RandomHumanoid 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmnn, Wikipedia:twinkle must not complete the AfD process properly.RandomHumanoid 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most faculty, particularly in Computer Science have far more publications. That he has published is indicative of nothing.--RandomHumanoid 15:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about toning it down a notch? E.g., calling him a "jerk" certainly doesn't belong here. WP:Civility --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 07:38, 11 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 Obvious speedy keep, Canuckle seems to be right in suggestion of bad faith. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia[edit]

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates Notability policy ObsequiosityFYM 23:34, 7 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. Sr13 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Sickels[edit]

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

Hard one to assess, this page has been speedied twice, the guy has done many things but none are supported by substantial references and there are no significant achievements. Bridgeplayer 22:34, 7 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. Sr13 03:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)[edit]

St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I propose that this article is deleted because there is no evidence of notability for this subject. Regular contributors to the article believe current sources listed in the article give evidence of notability. However, the only source that meets the requirements for proving notability is Walkley (1985). Username nought 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC) New information: Walkley (1985) actually does not meet the requirements for proving notability. The book was published by the college's council and Walkley was a previous member and chairman of the council. Therefore it is not an independent source, therefore there are no sources cited in the article that meet the requirements for proving notability. I will discuss this more in the debate section of this page. Username nought 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Further to this, there seems to be a few weasel words that have crept in from people boasting if you will about the article's subject. Does someone else have a few spare minutes to deal with them? Thewinchester (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just thought I'd point out that the page in question commits none of the sins listed as "How to spot Schoolcruft". I have removed a few of the POV wordings as well.--Yeti Hunter 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Excessive citation of the school's student diary as a purported reliable source should be expanded to Excessive citation of the school's student diary or website... Garrie 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As GarrieIrons said, can't get any better than that. And as I said, borderline schoolcruft. And it's a good call on expansion of the essay, will look into it. Thewinchester (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Are you kidding? This is what you consider schoolcruft? First off, citing the school website a lot is not necessarily a bad thing. If you're using the school website to site things like activities and buildings etc. Many of these things aren't notable themselves, and therefore won't have outside citations, but it's necessary information for a school article. Not citing the school website means that the material is unsourced. Generally, school websites and newspapers are reliable sources about general school facts. So you can either not have that basic information, you can have it completely unsourced (quite possible OR), or you can source it with the school website and newspaper and other minor sources. That's NOT a sign of a problem. The only problem with the article is that it's slightly informal, it's braggish in areas, and there are a couple things that sound like quotes but aren't specified as quotes. While these problems are not insignificant, they are relatively minor ones. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:24, June 10 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Further to the accusation that the article has too much cruft, WP:CRUFT does in fact stipulate that containing cruft is not in and of itself a reason for deletion; rather, cruft articles tend to be poorly written and lacking sources. Whether or not you think this article is an example of cruft, you can't say it lacks sources or is poorly written.--Yeti Hunter 13:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, St. Ann's College (University of Adelaide), Lincoln College (University of Adelaide) and Aquinas College, Adelaide should also be deleted and merged with University of Adelaide, wouldn't you agree? ABVS1936 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes I would. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the sarcasm in the above comment was a little too subtle... I was merely stating an argumentum ad absurdum. You would claim, by that logic, that ALL residential college pages be deleted and merged with their respective university pages, as they themselves are not notable in their own right. When, in reality, most if not all of those colleges are only by the minutest detail affiliated with their "parent" universities (in Australia, I cannot speak for the rest of the world), and are certainly notable in their own right, providing that suitable references and sources can be found. ABVS1936 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with UofA is inappropriate, as the college is independent of the University and a good proportion of its residents attend other universities.--Yeti Hunter 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, username nought, you have only given half the story. If you'd care to take a look here, you'll note that Walkley (1985) actually does satisfy the requirements for a reliable source, as it is relevant to the notability, it is not contentious, it is not unduly self-serving, it does not involve claims about third parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. So, learn. Ryan Oceros 03:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a reliable source but it is definitely not an independent source, which is required to provide evidence of notability. From the Wikipedia notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Username nought 04:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Touche on that point, for now. However, the first paragraph on the page you have cited states that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense", which, sadly, you do not seem to have exercised since you first defaced the article. Ryan Oceros 05:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added another reference for the article: http://www.history.sa.gov.au/history/06HistoryWeekProgram.pdf. Apparently the History Society of South Australia thinks some of the buildings of St Mark's are of note. Ryan Oceros 07:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another: John La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution (1972).Ryan Oceros 09:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another: C. Kerr, Archie, the Biography of Sir Archibald Grenfell Price (Melb, 1983)Ryan Oceros 10:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's good to see that something productive has come of this--adding extra sources, etc. I'm more than a little confused as to why this was nominated. I believe not only that people really misunderstand the notability guidelines, but I agree with dreftymac's comments (Wikipedia talk:Notability#Wikipedia:Notability *Abolish It*) that there's absolutely no need for it. All of the reasons people say that the guideline is important are in fact covered elsewhere, in other policies and guidelines. And, something else that people misunderstand, it's a GUIDELINE. Do you realize how silly this is?? It's because of idiocy like this that IAR is policy. And I don't like IAR but which scenario here improves the encylopedia? By the way, those alumni ALL need sources. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:52, June 9 2007 (UTC)

  • ...Nought, dude, did you read the book?? (if so, well done, it's only been a day or so since it was added as a ref). The cover of Archie is the portrait of Grenfell Price that hangs above the college High Table. It has significant coverage of the college, hardly trivial. Apparently some want it to be featured on the front page of The Australian before considering it notable.--Yeti Hunter 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though they would then probably argue that The Australian was not an independant, reliable, unbiased and NPOV source... (I kid) ABVS1936 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above user has six contributions to his name, five of them today, four of which are related to Flinders University Hall. I particularly like the complaint about ABVS1936 removing cruft from the flinders article. Bias? Certainly. Sock Puppet? Very probably.--Yeti Hunter 15:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my reply regarding that comment on the Flinders Uni Hall talk page. Meanwhile, I have made an effort (prior to that comment being made) to remove much of the biased information and "cruft", however as I am not and independant contributor I can only go so far. Could someone with perhaps a little more wik-perience and a lot more independance have a crack at it? I'd be most grateful if someone would. ABVS1936 16:51, 11 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 that the repeated copyright violation has been expunged from the article's history, leaving the original non-infringing version of the article. Uncle G 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrain[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ukrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:SPAM, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY. Should be speedy but struck down Javit 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with redirect, which I've now noticed was the original content of the article upon creation. --Javit 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I created the article. But it was to create a redirect. I don't really care what you do so long as the text on that page right now goes away. --mav 23:09, 7 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. Sr13 03:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Desktop[edit]

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

Stub on non-notable, quite clearly dead Linux distribution. Chealer 02:01, 8 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 per apparent bad faith nom. Please note Canuckle's concerns though, they are valid. Non admin closure. Whsitchy 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Fringe Festival[edit]

Vancouver Fringe Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates Notability Policy ObsequiosityFYM 23:31, 7 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 (seems it meets standards, plus nom withdrawn) Orderinchaos 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Ghost Train[edit]

Zombie Ghost Train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced, no assertion of notability. contested speedy. tomasz. 12:18, 8 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 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Leeuwenhoek Times[edit]

The Leeuwenhoek Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student publication, only recently established and yet to establish its notability Tito Pao 12:02, 8 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. "An Afro Lusitanic American is an inhabitant of Brazil who is of African ancestry..." - this clearly describes an Afro-Brazilian, for which there is already an article. Lusitanic is apparently a neologism; the adjective actually used is "Portugese". Herostratus 13:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afro Lusitanic American[edit]

Afro Lusitanic American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Already Lusitanic seems to be a neologism, but this term is hardly used by anyone and the article is an unnecessary fork of Afro-Brazilian Tikiwont 11:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Euro Lusitanic American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Tikiwont 11:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should not have an article about people just to emphasize an argument about their possible name nor confuse logic and fact. Even if Afro Lusitanic American was a common name for Brazilian citizens who are black or part-black, we would mention it at the artciel in question, redriect and possibly dispute the best name according to WP:NAME. What counts is the verifiable fact of the name actually being used, not whether wikipedians find it logical or not. And I am not aware of any such sources. Moreover, your logical argument extends at most to Luso-American, which is as ambiguous as Hispanic American (The latter is actually currently a disambiguation page offering a sligtly different take than yours) as it either may refer to someone from the U.S. or not. If you add a third term, things get complicated and the term Afro Hispanic American isn't very common either nor do we have an article. As far as sourcable, both could be mentioend e.g. in Afro-Latin American, but all of this is no reason to have a content fork.--Tikiwont 17:43, 10 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. Sr13 03:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slodonia[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax: apparently "an island off the coast of Dalmatia" but nothing on Google [44] apart from a link to an RPG and the name of a children's story. No incoming links either. Bencherlite 11:22, 8 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. Sr13 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Walsh (Candian Politician)[edit]

Holly Walsh (Candian Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As a fellow Candian, I was going to clean this up and give it its missing vowel, but upon inspection the subject is not notable. Local politician of a town of some 2,000 on the Rock who clearly fails the guidelines for politicians laid out at WP:BIO; this article should be deleted. Eusebeus 11:20, 8 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 – fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Nathan Ernest Morris[edit]

Darryl Nathan Ernest Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Removed prod. I see no real evidence of notability here. All of this person's claims to notability appear to be one-off appearances on very minor radio shows; there is no evidence of any sustained notability. DWaterson 11:16, 8 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. Natalie 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Panicles[edit]

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

Non-notable student publication of a Philippine high school. Tito Pao 10:15, 8 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 Sr13 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megalith Nu Sigma Phi[edit]

Megalith Nu Sigma Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fraternity based on a Philippine university or college. Tito Pao 10:24, 8 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. Sr13 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Albans Anglican Community Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St Albans Anglican Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church per WP:ORG; has been tagged with notability since October 2006. The article was included inside a large multi-article AfD with the result "trainwrecked". Given that there appears to be no substantial progress on the page since then, bringing it to AfD vote seems appropriate. The article doesn't even give the church's location, although nom believes it is likely to be somewhere in Australia. Article is not categorised and has no pages linking to it. Paddles TC 10:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you'll be doing the same thing for The Royal#Hotel, The Royal#Theater, The Royal#Cafe next... ;) Garrie 22:25, 11 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. David Eppstein 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Like Me (1987)[edit]

Black Like Me (1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article had an expired prod with concern "notability tagged for some time, we have no idea what sort of textbook this is: what grade level, what country/countries used in, if it is widely used, etc. In abscence of evidence to the contrary, I am assuming not wiki worthy". However, the article was previously prodded and the prod challenged, so cannot be deleted by that process. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never mind, I confused myself with the better known 1961 book by the same name. I withdraw my comments and I have no opinion in this debate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:52, 8 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 as non-notable team, fails relevant portions of WP:CORP. - KrakatoaKatie 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tewkesbury Town F.C.[edit]

Tewkesbury Town F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This football team has never played in the top ten levels of the English football league system, which is required by WP:CORP. Prod tag was removed by major contributor to the article (who is also the team's manager) without explanation, so here it is at AfD ChrisTheDude 09:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merge is not appropriate, as a consensus at Tewkesbury seem to believe this article worthy of a "See also" internal link in that article. I do not believe that a Merge would assuage the Tewkesbury editors. Ref (chew)(do) 10:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the editors of Tewkesbury should refer to WP:OWN if they have an issue. Pedro |  Chat  10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pedro, regardless of what the existing editors of the Tewkesbury article think. - fchd 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No further Merge required, in view of my edit to the aforementioned article, removing the link to Tewkesbury Town F.C. and replacing it with as much passing info as you would need. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears this is the third of four Tewkesbury teams in Cheltenham League. PrimeHunter 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and sits in Division Four of five divisions, to boot. So not even at the top tier of this lowly league. Ref (chew)(do) 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the former standard of the top 10 levels has been removed from WP:CORP, so unless it goes back it can no longer be cited and the discussion has to go back to each team's notability. TerriersFan 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Cheltenham League is described as level 14, so the article up for deletion is still way outside the frame on notability. Note also my previous comment re: Division Four of five divisions. They can't even contend for the prime Cheltenham League championship as things stand. Ref (chew)(do) 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not arguing that this team is notable. The point that I am making, from an amin perspective, is that no admin will have regard to the level that the team plays at unless the Football project decides to press the inclusion of the agreed standard in WP:Corp. Failing that the only consideration is if there are multiple, reliable secondary sources . TerriersFan 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just cite overwhelming longstanding precedent and consensus amongst WP:FOOTBALL editors.......? ChrisTheDude 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, it looks like it won't be a problem but the issue will arise when someone defends a team with multiple references from the local paper. AfDs are never closed with regard to precedent. The only safe way forward would be for the football project to re-establish the standard in WP:Corp or, as an alternative, write a guideline page WP:Football (soccer). TerriersFan 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - did you not read the comments about WP:CORP being uncitable for this (above)? Ref (chew)(do) 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no, WP:CORP can still be quoted, only not in the definite clear guideline of must be at level 1-10. Other bits of that policy/guideline may still apply, i.e. lack of multiple secondary sources etc. - fchd 16:30, 12 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. Tyrenius 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Bajena[edit]

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

Article had an expired prod with the concern "Having a single six-page article about oneself -- or perhaps just appearing within a single six-page article -- isn't a bad achievement for an eighteen-year-old but it hardly constitutes encyclopedic notability." However, the article was already prodded once and the prod was removed by the article author, so the article cannot be deleted that way. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:41, 8 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 into Turkish-Kurdish conflict. - KrakatoaKatie 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Turkish incursion in Iraq[edit]

2007 Turkish incursion in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The reported incursion was reportedly fake. Perhaps rather than a delete a merge to Kurdistan Workers Party would be better. -- Cat chi? 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I'm the guy who wrote the article and I'm sorry if it's not up to snuff. This was actaly the first article I wrote for wikipedia. Anyways I have sources for the timelene but when I went to add them the next day I saw the don't edit until the deletion debate is resolved thing so i didn't touch it. Anyways at this point all media sources agree that there is a Turkish presence in Iraqi Kurdistan and that there are 11 confirmed Turkish millitary casualties. I personaly say it should stay because it appears very likely that this conflict could escilate. If not it could be renamed the Turkish-Iraqi Kurdistan Crises of 2007.

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 04:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Dell[edit]

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

A teenager (it would seem) who takes skateboarding photos. He seems pretty good and may well go far (and I hope he does). Once we disregard his age, however, his achievements seem minor: an article seems premature. Previously prodded; the prod template was removed. Hoary 09:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first glance looked like there was some TV work but it's web based. Fails a google search and looks like WP:NOTE applies. I can't seem any merge benefits to the linked articles from this one. Pedro |  Chat  10:38, 8 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 redirect to Scrin. Sr13 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rift generator[edit]

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

Awfully crufty and unsourced article on a non-notable element of a video game. Contested prod. MER-C 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to either Scrin or Wormholes in fiction. --Exarion 04:29, 9 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. While there are more keeps than deletes, AfD is not a strict vote count, and I agree with Marasmusine's assessment of the sources; there aren't enough to meet the notability criteria. Unfounded allegations of corruption don't exempt the article from it. Veinor (talk to me) 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Way (game series)[edit]

The Way (game series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Amateur game made with RPG Maker. Doesn't meet notability requirements, or has verifiable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gaming World is a 'write your own review' site; the reviews are user submitted therefore not reliable.
  • Kobra's Corner shows no sign of editorial control, it's a blog-type website, again not reliable per WP:Reliable sources
  • Phalanx Games; Don't know about this site's history or if it is reliable, but hero bash doesn't appear to be a staff member, so I assume a user-submitted review.
  • The Misao Game awards; I will give the benefit of the doubt here, as a gsearch for 'misao awards' brings a large number of hits.
  • RPG Maker wiki, not reliable per WP:EL etc.
  • Reviews Workshop; forum, not reliable per WP:EL
  • Crestfallen Studios; not an independent source.
So, whilst I accept the Misao Game award as possibly a claim to notability, there aren't enough independent, non-trivial, reliable sources to back it up. Marasmusine 16:01, 11 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. Sr13 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cell Research by Biswajit mandal,Department of Chemical, Engg, Haldia Institute of Technology,West Bengal,India[edit]

Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cell Research by Biswajit mandal,Department of Chemical, Engg, Haldia Institute of Technology,West Bengal,India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is an WP:OR violation, written by the subject of the article, in an essay-like tone. A few shreds of information might be include-able into extant articles on fuel cells, though I doubt it. Agamemnon2 08:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:OR is not a speedy deletio criteria though. Nor is obscene long titles in articles, though it should be. Mind you, I did nominate another similar submission of his with speedy earlier, but that was procedurally incorrect since it didn't fulfill any of WP:CSD--Agamemnon2 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the criteria of ((db-spam)) IMO. --Itub 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, since he is evidently an expert in the field, I'm sure there are articles that would benefit from his experience. --Agamemnon2 17:18, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't satisfy notability requirements of WP:WEB. Minor edit 08:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SarekOfVulcan has been spam-canvassing for votes so please inspect this case. [49] --Minor edit 04:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LimoWreck was a participant in the previous Afd; notifying LimoWreck of another Afd is reasonable, especially when the previous Afd was a unanimous keep. John Vandenberg 04:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reject that characterization. I specifically asked for good references to its notability.--SarekOfVulcan 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google brings up around 50,000 hits for the website; many are blogs (which for a website can satisfy notability), but here's one that's a secondary reference in a published book summarizing a scholarly seminar in Vienna in 2005, a very solid WP:RS:
Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries: 9th European Conference, Ecdl 2005 ... By Andreas Rauber, page 37 (Hierarchical Organization and Description of Music Collections at the Artist Level) --Parzival418 Hello 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is an example of organizing music by classifying it into genres and subgenres, but not as information source, ie it does not confirm the importance of the Ishkur's Guide. --Minor edit 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree the book does not say Ishkur's is "important". But that was not my intention. I was providing the reference merely to show that there is a reliable secondary source that mentions Ishkur's guide in print. This goes to notability and reliable source, which are not the same thing as importance. --Parzival418 Hello 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've added the above reference to the article. --Parzival418 Hello 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:SarekOfVulcan has been spam-canvassing for votes so please inspect this case. [50] --Minor edit 04:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a spam canvas for him to inform me that the DRV which promted this relisted closed and resulted in, well, this relisting. Further, it is probably a good thing for him to ask for somebody he recognizes as being knowledgeable about the topic in question to review the AfD. --Auto(talk / contribs) 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. Thanks for coming up with that phrasing, Auto.--SarekOfVulcan 15:47, 14 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 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster and Raynor[edit]

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

linked from one page, title refers to two people, no useful information Ohwell32 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, doing a ghit test on a 1906 paper is even sillier. DGG 03:24, 14 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 to redirect it to Homogenic. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto (song)[edit]

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

I don't think this Bjork song is notable according to the guidelines established at WP:MUSIC. It's a good song and all, but it was not released as a single and is not particularly talked about in third-party sources. Should probably be deleted and/or redirected to the album which it is on, Homogenic. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 8 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. Sr13 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great works of science fiction[edit]

Great works of science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list doesn't delineate its inclusion criteria other than to cite the single reference from which it was originally copied. If the inclusion criterion is being listed at the citation website, this is then a copyright violation. If that is not the inclusion criterion, then this list is an opinion piece and is original research- novels that are not in the original citation have already been added and I can only see more being added in the future. I cannot think of a way to improve this list to eliminate these problems, so I'm bringing it here. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:42, 8 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 that there was no consensus, and the article was kept. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Schwimmer[edit]

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

Unnotable person RandomHumanoid 04:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not noteworthy This person does not satisfy WP:BIO --RandomHumanoid 04:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you document any of these awards? --RandomHumanoid 05:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, doing that now (I just created the stub a couple days ago). For example, check here: [51][52] --Elonka 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I'm not impressed. Funny how we don't have math olympiad winners here but the national youth latin dance champion (?) merits an entry. Very bizarre to me but I'm an elitist, so what can you expect? --RandomHumanoid 08:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's high rated on a TV dance show? You must be kidding. (Please, tell me you are kidding.)--RandomHumanoid 14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't notable, and just because an article subject isn't popular with young white Western men doesn't mean it deserves scorn. --Charlene 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I neither like nor dislike it. I simply think it is irrelevant and certainly not notable. You are free to disagree or point out alternative viewpoints, which is why this page exists. But why on earth would you bring my race and gender into this discussion? --RandomHumanoid 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose because I think wikipedia's standards are increasingly disappointingly low. IMHO, unnotable TV game show contestants are not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia and do not even remotely satisfy WP:BIO. This dumbing-down of wikipedia needs to stop. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, particularly the long-term historic notability criterion. This girl certainly does not yet have that. --RandomHumanoid 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - fame, importance and popularity are not synonyms for notability. Neither are Google hits. Of course she's going to get a lot of Google hits as one of twenty contestants on a reality show. That does not automatically translate into notability. Slews of reality show contestants have been deleted despite having a bunch of Google hits. Otto4711 02:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google News does not measure "Google hits." It shows secondary sources, thus establishing notability as defined by the first standard set in WP:BIO. Mal Bad 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you take "fame, importance and popularity" out of the equation, what have you got left? --JJay 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about the competition in which she won the national youth championship? Is the competition itself noteworthy? I don't think it necessarily provides an obvious metric for measuring her fame. --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accusing the nominator of having "some issue" is not WP:CIVIL and it does not address the concern raised by the nomination, which is that the article's subject does not pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 19:26, 14 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Vaughan[edit]

Seemingly non-notable professor who fails WP:PROF. Gives no assertion of notability, and his published works aren't too prevalent in a simple Google test. fuzzy510 03:56, 8 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 failure to assert notability of any form, and promotional. Keegantalk 03:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"East Troy Bible Church"[edit]

"East Troy Bible Church" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable church. number29(Talk) 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As our entry follows the same presentation style as numerous local, independent churches already found in Wikipedia I must respectfully request your explanation as to why our entry is proposed for deletion. There is no copyright violation as was alleged. The references are verifiable. The information presented demonstrates in certain ways how ETBC is unique.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chummy (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to proselytize your religiion. Your "What We Believe" section has no notability and no place here. Upon closer inspection, this article is largely spam for your church.
--RandomHumanoid 03:46, 8 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 there isnt enough information/WP:RS to sustain an article but in this case most likely outcome is a merge but to what still unresolved. I have commenced a discussion section on the article talk page to adress this issue, please comment there. Gnangarra 14:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern District Times[edit]

Northern District Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The paper is a small community newspaper with a limited area of circulation. It is not a notable statewide or national daily, nor is it a paper of record. Circulation information comes from a self-published source, being the company that owns the paper. Does not meet WP:CORP and lacks WP:RS. It also is not linked to other than in a limited number of references from three articles. I'm split on the nomination of this one given it's a well-structured stub, so i'll open the floor to see what the community makes of it. Thewinchester (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment And how do you justify the claim of bad faith in this AfD nomination? The fact is there is no basis or information you can use to justify that claim, and saying that they did so is in itself bad faith. In respect to consultation, this is what AfD is for. Additionally, as the key contributor to the article you are exhibiting tendencies as documented in WP:OWN. I don't think anything else needs to be said. Thewinchester (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Comment no longer relevant as what it was in response to was withdrawn. Thewinchester (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - as to the average afd comment here seems to illustrate more here about the processes involved, the information tendered seems to be irrelevent - the business appears to either in their current form or in the earlier form have been a significant business as printer for a number of organisations and groups in the history of the north shore - back to the 1940s SatuSuro 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment having recently started a regional newspaper stub in wa I would stongly support this form as a way around the issue SatuSuro 07:53, 8 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 for failure to meet CSD A7. Dsmdgold 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Otani[edit]

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

As a courtesy, I am nominating this page at the request of an IP posting at the village pump (see "music teacher?"). The editor is concerned that the teacher is not notable. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:43, 8 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 snowball keep. Keep in mind that WP:GHITS isn't a real valid deletion reason. Attack page concerns should be noted though. Non-admin Closure. Whsitchy 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing white woman syndrome[edit]

Missing white woman syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Utterly fails notability test. Citations are all nonsense and do not mention appear to mention term except for a few blogs. Totally fails "google test" with around 600 mentions of this term, none of them on reputable sites, just blogs, etc. Appears to be POV pushing and attempt to assist in fabrication of a new expression. Fourdee 03:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but arguments about the people proposing the deletion that are of this nature are not appropriate. It is far better to comment on the content and not the contributors whenever possible. This sort of statement is simply inflammatory and hurtful. FrozenPurpleCube 06:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. suggest merging Missing White Women Syndrome into the article Squidfryerchef 12:25, 8 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 and redirect to Danny Sullivan (technologist). — OcatecirT 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Land[edit]

Search Engine Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Propose Delete, since this article is not noteworthy as is basically an ad for a website that sells ads, why should it be in Wiki? Look at the cites, one or two words in a cite and some do not mention this site at all. This is just a website that gets paid for advertising.Akc9000 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete and redirect to Video art. Sr13 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video Art[edit]

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

I don't think this meets WP:COMPANY. The title could be redirected to Video Arts 650l2520 03:36, 8 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. Sr13 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular social networking platforms by country[edit]

List of most popular social networking platforms by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

AfD was originally stared by User:Mikecraig at 09:44, June 8, 2007(diff) but relevant templates were not included when starting the AfD entry. Article is entirely based on original research, does not meet WP:V nor are any reliable sources provided to substantiate the information. Thewinchester (talk) 03:31, 8 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 A7. — brighterorange (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hashi[edit]

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

Non-notable page about a player on World of Warcraft. It is most likely a vanity page, in violation of WP:NOT#SOAP. CA387 02:51, 8 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, as original research without enough reliable sources. - KrakatoaKatie 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bread in the cuisine of Singapore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bread in the cuisine of Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The previous nomination for this page ended with a merge decision, but the closing admin admitted that it was hard to find what was worth merging from this piece. A month has passed and the merge has still not been performed, so I am renominating. The reasons to delete are the same as last time: This is basically a personal essay that violates WP:OR. Perhaps the references in the bottom somehow relate to the article text, but if they do, it is still obviously WP:SYN. It would require a total and complete rewrite of this article for it to be acceptable, and the relevant material is in Cuisine of Singapore anyway. nadav (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because the template on the page said to renominate if the merge is not promptly completed, and I personally believe there is no non-OR content that can be merged. nadav (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think there is nothing worth merging. And there is no justification for a speedy keep. nadav (talk) 03:04, 8 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 delete. Merged cultural impact with main Prisoner article, deleted the rest as indsicriminate collection of information. — OcatecirT 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner Overseas[edit]

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

Delete - the bulk of the article is the syndicated broadcast schedule of the show. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide and numerous similar articles for shows from The Simpsons to Desperate Housewives have been deleted. The rest of the article is tidbits relating to the broadcast internationally, which is pretty trivial, and a few mentions of fan activities and reunion appearances of the various cast members. Not encyclopedic in the slightest. Otto4711 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As mentioned in the article, the series was the first real Austrailian hit in the UK (and some other countries), so far from being just a 'TV Guide', it is a reflection of the cultural impact overseas. Jay Firestorm 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a primary source. If there is no reliable source to document what the Wikipedia article asserts then the article can't remain. Otto4711 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TV Guides/newspapers can act as the primary source. Thus the article could be verified by a trip to the British Library. The JPStalk to me 19:53, 13 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 wasKeep question raised in the nomination were addresses, and concerns of copyright violations rectified. Gnangarra 14:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elanora State High School[edit]

Elanora State High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is either non-noatable person, a non-notable school, a hoax or just silly Grahamec 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if the article is a copyvio then it needs to be speedily deleted as such. Otto4711 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elanora, New South Wales does not have a high school, Elanora, Queensland (postcode 4221) on the Gold Coast does not have an article. Suggest the school article be corrected. Google Maps shows Elanora near the border with NSW but distinctly in. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 05:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, NSW does not have "state high schools" - the "State School/State High School" is a peculiarly QLD thing (even though *everyone* I know uses "state schools" to refer to public schools, they're generally Senior High Schools here in WA, and High Schools in SA and NSW. Orderinchaos 06:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. - Created an article for the suburb. Orderinchaos 07:18, 8 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 per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. - KrakatoaKatie 22:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Jeu[edit]

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

WP:BLP violation. Unsourced from proper sources, and unnotable. -N 01:59, 8 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. Sr13 04:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner Episodes[edit]

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

Delete - The artcle is a list of what episode numbers aired in what year. It's utterly pointless. Otto4711 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a lot more that can be said. WP:NOT#IINFO is the only thing I can think of. EliminatorJR Talk 02:11, 8 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. Sr13 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matériel blanc[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article was recreated after being deleted following WP:PROD. Rick Block (talk) 01:56, 8 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. — Scientizzle 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agency of record[edit]

Agency of record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dicdef. Apparently just created so the deceptively titled What is an "agency of record"? spam link for creative-manager.com could be included, then this article linked to other related articles. Masaruemoto 01:38, 8 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. — OcatecirT 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Information Economics[edit]

Applied Information Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined this as a spam speedy, but I do not see any real sources that assert notability. Author has a conflict of interest, and has added links to this article to multiple economics articles, but COI is not a reason for deletion Steve (Stephen) talk 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the only reason this is seen as a "blantant advertisement" is the citation of my book. I'm fine with the removal of that. However, you will find that Applied Information Economics is taught in more than one university and used in several government agencies if you google the phrase. The term is not trademarked and the process is public domain. If you think it makes it "less blatant" then feel free to remove reference to Douglas W. Hubbard. But why not apply the same rules to the Balanced Scorecard article? Or the Analytic Hierarchy Process article?
Also, note that AIE is an alternative to Balanced Scorecard. Both are public domain methods although they were largely initiated by a single book or set of authors. Neither term is a trademark nor has either method been patented. In both cases, multiple firms exist that provide services in that area. One difference I see is that there are apparently no courses actually named "balanced scorecard" in the ciriculum of major universities. I agree that the AIE article should be just as neutral as the balanced scorecard article. If the AIE article must be deleted, then the Balanced Scorecard articles (and many others, no doubt) would have to be deleted if the same rules applied
Regarding the neologism accusaion, usually, a 10-12 year old term used in other publications by those other than the person who coined it, used as the title of a class in a university, and in the public domain (not trademarked) would not be a neologism. Or someone may need to define how long a term must be used before it is no long a "neo"-logism.Hubbardaie 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to fix a typo in the 1998 InformationWeek reader survey about IT metrics methods (which included AIE)Hubbardaie 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one of the original objections to this article was "internal spam". When I first posted the article, a header appeared saying it was an "orphan" and needed links from other articles. I went out and started to make links wherever it looked appropriate only to find out that this is called "internal spam". Which of these guidelines do I follow?Hubbardaie 04:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I put the original orphan tag, since this article had nothing else linking to it. This makes an article hard to find unless somebody is explicitly looking for that exact topic. Of course, these should be appropriate links. I don't think there are guidelines on any of this, and neither being an orphan nor "internal spamming" are deletion criteria. -- MisterHand 13:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your point and that is why I then searched out relevant articles to link to. I found about a dozen that were relevant and many of these were very closely related concepts (eg. business case and cost-benefit analysis). As you said, there aren't any guidelines but apparently that was enough to trip the "internal spam" alarm for some people. I'm sure real spam is a lot more than a dozen links. If this somehow crosses the line, then I think we need a lot more clarity on what "internal spam" means. I was inititially adding back links to Applied Information Economics that were removed by others but I suppose I might as well defer that until its detemined that the AIE article should be kept.Hubbardaie 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at other AFD discussions where a COI issue was brought up. I saw some that appear to be much less neutral than the AIE article and even more of a COI, but apparently passed muster. Having seen some of these other articles, I'm not sure how this article was even remotely suggested for speedy delete. I'm happy to oblige by whatever rules articles should comply with, but I think the rules need to at least be consistently applied.Hubbardaie 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedents do not apply and are not considered in AFD discussions. Sorry. - Richfife 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase that slightly: You can point out specific arguments that took place in other AFDs in order to save time and retyping, but the arguments should be reconsidered every time. - Richfife
I understand your point. But I wasn't really making the point that precident was the consideration as if once a decision is made, you are stuck with those rules for all future decisions. I was simply saying that, if we were consistent, it would be odd to accept some of the articles that have been accepted (like the one you referenced as a temper tantrum) and - applying the same rules - delete this article.Hubbardaie 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some additional comments in the discussion of the "Information Economics" article to better clarify the various topics this term has been used for. It should probably just direct people to other specific articles like a disambiguation would.Hubbardaie 05:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the discussion in the Information economics article. I added a detailed explaination of the different (and very muddled) concepts introduced in the article. This should clear up how the article is talking about several different highly unrelated concepts that should simply be in different articles.Hubbardaie 12:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how long does the delete tag stay? There hasn't been any new comment for a few days and the emerging concensus seems to be a keep.Hubbardaie 02:42, 15 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 both. Sr13 04:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Linux[edit]

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

Dead non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 01:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following page because it treats an equally non-notable product:[reply]

Force-get (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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 as copvio Mallanox 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video Industry[edit]

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

It is an essay type article that was created on May 2. It can also be found here http://open-site.org/Business/Arts,_Entertainment,_and_Recreation/Media_Production/ which claims a " Copyright © Open Site" but I don't know if it came from Wikipedia first or if their copyright allows this sharing. 650l2520 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unformatted text, single purpose account, stolid voice... Looks like another term paper pasted onto Wikipedia. I hope he got a good grade. - Richfife 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on reading the paper, I hope he didn't get a good grade. - Richfife 01:49, 8 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBLS[edit]

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

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Conflict of interest. Chealer 01:26, 8 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. Sr13 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moosylvania Marketing[edit]

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

Spamvertisment for a marketing agency of questionable notability. Article claims it's "currently the largest independently-owned agency in the United States"; Googling "Moosylvania Marketing" gives around 60 unique Google results, mostly business directories. Masaruemoto 01:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - Tried & failed to make the article worthwhile - Tiswas(t) 09:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment I was surprised, but upon review, it looks like awards are not mentioned as criteria in WP:CORP. ~ Infrangible 02:43, 9
  • Reply comment: it is true, but can be these awards the "secondary sources" in the criterion? According to WP:CORP: "include reliable published works in all forms", and awards are not in the except list. Carlosguitar 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I beleive there are awards for everything. Even if the award itself is notable, then the awardees may not be. And even more so the other way around. Each source needs to be judged by itself but to me two awards from the same source isn't "sources". Still if it can be properly expanded it may live. Maybe a statement from Bacardi (unreferenced fact) or facts about what made the agency Notable enough to be awarded could help. JAGulin 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, could you please explain specifically why you believe it to be spam? Rayth 05:30, 9 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 Speedily deleted as hoax --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernemike[edit]

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

Is this a hoax? or does someone know what it is referring to? 650l2520 00:48, 8 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneko Mino[edit]

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

This article has lacked sources since inception, and has been tagged as needing sources for about 8 months. The subject, if a real historical figure at all, obviously lacks any notability, both based on his "life" as written, and the fact that the title of the article isn't even a given name, it is an honorary title. It appears most likely to have come from the "Samurai Warriors" video game. History articles lacking verifiable sources are inherently worthless, and this one additionally lacks any apparent notability whatsoever or Verifiable Sources. Kuuzo 00:37, 8 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 – fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Platt[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BIO. He's very non-notable Delete GreenJoe 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse me, which two sources are you referring to, specifically? Browsing through the list of links (which has indeed grown), I found a number of blogs and online communities (not reliable), trivial mentioning, and articles written by Wes Platt (not independent), but maybe I missed these two? --B. Wolterding 08:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tampa Tribune profile (800 words, not exactly trivial) from 2004 and the 1991 article in the Times that confirms his involvement with the Oracle (neither of which were written by Wes Platt). The links to articles in the Times by Wes Platt merely confirm his contributions as a professional journalist. There was also a profile of him in the St. Petersburg Times Floridian section in 1991 after the Oracle achieved best student daily in the nation, but that doesn't appear to be available in the newspaper's online archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.203.202 (talk • contribs)
  • OK, I see. But the 1991 St Petersburg Times article is about a student newspaper that won an award, and Platt is named as the chief editor (there's actually no more information about him). That might be worth a side note in The Oracle (University of South Florida), but does not warrant an article about the editor, in my point of view. For the Tampa Tribune article (which seems to be longer actually, I can only access the abstract): Is this not an article about the game, rather than about the person? All in all, I do not see substantial coverage. --B. Wolterding 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tribune article is indeed longer (they charge more to see the full version), but it is about Wes Platt and his projects. His background and his involvement of those projects were the point of the article, not just the games themselves. The Times article about him from the Floridian section might be available in their hardcopy archives - and that was most certainly about *him*. It was reported by Anne V. Hull, a staff writer at the Times (at the time. She's now at the Washington Post). I certainly don't have personal access to those archives, though. He was also interviewed on Orlando's Radio Sci-Fi about his projects. Not sure if there's an archived audio file available, but I can research it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. Daniel 04:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy[edit]

UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreation of article on the same topic that was speedy deleted in June of last year. Subject is a non-notable concept from the writings of Michael E. Arth. All references are either to Arth's websites or books that make no mention of the article's subject. Much of the content merely summarizes sections of the article Technological singularity, and the entire "External links" section is cut-and-pasted from there. Schaefer (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arth is a graphic artist, and Introspective is an art book. UNICE is a subject whose only treatment in published sources is one mention of a similar-sounding idea in an obscure 1984 art book. The fact he got some of his graphic art published doesn't extend notability to ideas about consciousness he decides to write about online 23 years later. The article makes no reference to any published sources not by Arth that have considered his UNICE idea notable. Also, please note that "elikqitie" is User:Lynndunn, the author of the article in question, and that all of Lynndunn's contributions have been either to create or link to articles about Michael E. Arth and his ideas. Lynndunn is also responsible for all non-trivial contributions to the article on Michael E. Arth himself, and was its sole supporter when it was placed on AfD last year. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even under the strictly technical Wikipedia guidelines of general notability the article seems to qualify on at least 3 our of 5 points, with the other 2 points hanging by a thread.

1. (qualifies) The sources address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content.

2. (qualifies) Sources should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multipe sources are generally preferred.

3. (qualifies) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all form and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.

4. (barely qualifies, but only because of Arth's book published in the early '80s.) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

5. (barely qualifies, but gives support for merging with other articles)Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merge with another article.

Conclusion: Keep or Merge with Technological Singularity

Note: The above keep vote is the very first edit of the user AlexH20, and thus should not be considered. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex has brought up some good points to discuss no matter who he or she is, so I'm quoting Alex here:

[Redundant paste of AlexH20's above comment removed by Schaefer]

-- elikqitie 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quoted is still here and legible if anyone wants to read it. That's why I put it in strikethrough instead of deleting it. It doesn't need repeated twice. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comments indicates that either the editor himself has reconsidered or that he agreed that this comment is obsolete or redundant. Mentioning that the editor has no other contributions is usually done without striking, so I'll reinstate the comment. Additionally, that it is the very first edit doesn't automatically mean it is a bad-faith edit. Malc82 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is, however, still the user's only edit 12 days later. Sci girl 03:37, 12 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, IronGargoyle 05:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
elikqitie, please be aware that voting more than once is generally discouraged. Comments are always welcome, of course, but repeating the bolded "keep" marker is a bit misleading. Thanks. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to sign. The previous comments were mine. My conclusion is that UNICE deserves it's own article and links from various related articles.Astarte9 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Astarte9's account was registered June 8 and has only two edits prior to this vote, both to talk pages. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:49, 9 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.
More