< March 14
March 16 >
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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this result was overturned at deletion review. GRBerry 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude and wealth[edit]

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

This seems to be a POV fork (see Wikipedia:Content forking) of Latitude. It also seems to be Original research. The presence of sources does not discount this interpretation - the sources given are for things like the malarial belt and connecting global warming with disease. This article takes the unacceptable (for Wikipedia) step to bring these ideas together into an article connecting latitude to wealth, without sourcing this particular idea to any outside source. POV fork+OR= Delete. (oh, prodded and de-prodded) Mak (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of references doesn't necessarily equal a well-referenced article. Mak (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source for interesting domestic study in GB: [4]. —Ocatecir Talk 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which divides between the traditional economic regions of England, not by latitude: South Wales is among the poorest areas, and is almost due west of the wealthy Home Counties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 16 March 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 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lhotse Merriam[edit]

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

Non-notable It seems like the only notable thing she has really done is marry Tony Hawk. All the other things are trivial. Simply being the wife of someone famous does not confer notability. I have a strong suspicion that the creator of the article, Lhotsem, may be the subject herself, violating WP:COI.—Ocatecir Talk 00:10, 15 March 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 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) - allusions to other series[edit]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) - allusions to other series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Extreme case of original research. Consists of observations that some editors believe is a reference to to something else in another Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series. Unreferenced and unverifiable, and mostly subjective. Saikokira 00:07, 15 March 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 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references in Dead Like Me[edit]

List of references in Dead Like Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is the very definition of Indiscriminate Information. A list of "references" in a TV series... to just about anything! A reference to "spaghetti", a reference to "pyramid schemes", "origami", " a mole", "ballroom dancing", "Hill Street Blues" "kite flying", "Richard Nixon", etc. I could give additional reasons for deletion, but the list speaks for itself. Saikokira 00:10, 15 March 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 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of occurrences of game consoles in entertainment media[edit]

List of occurrences of game consoles in entertainment media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research, unreferenced and unverifiable. And indiscriminate information - ANY instance of ANY game console appearing in ANY "entertainment media". Apparently compiled by people watching these movies and TV series and adding any consoles they believe they spotted to this article. Saikokira 00:09, 15 March 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. Enough! kingboyk 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Pocket[edit]

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

Hoax. The name, Thomas Albert Pocket, of this eminent gentleman doesn't show up in various databases, and no record of the references seems to exist in WorldCat. Spacepotato 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a speedy. CSD G1 is for unintelligible material, not false material. Spacepotato 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. Nonsense is nonsense, however intelligible it is. I've restored the speedy tags, but if you revert them again I'm not going to try a third time. This, however, is a waste of an AfD. EliminatorJR Talk 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, I'm reverting. Feel free to read the definition of CSD G1 and patent nonsense. Spacepotato 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:IAR and plenty of precedent on AfD, but fair enough, go with it. I think hoaxes should at least be plausible :) Odd thing is, WP:HOAX defines hoaxes as vandalism... EliminatorJR Talk 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose, I'd suggest keeping it here. The sole proponent seems to think he's valid, so WP:SNOW doesn't work here, but if it stays here and comes up again, we can just G4 it. =^^= --Dennisthe2 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per pocket, this word is a corruption of the Old French word for pouch, not named after some mythical inventor. Nardman1 01:09, 15 March 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. A userfied copy will be provided upon request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W4D[edit]

W4D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly violates WP:AUTO CodeWeasel 00:41, 15 March 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)[edit]

University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prior AFD overturned at deletion review, but not strongly enough to avoid this discussion. This is a technical nomination as the deletion review closer, but I will comment. Original deletion rationale was "Page is superfluous as University of Wisconsin is now a redirect to UW-Madison. Per consensus on the talk page, the article can be deleted and the relevant information placed in the specific articles as history of the various universities." Whether there ever was consensus as described in that nom was challenged in the first AFD, and the history is now somewhere in the history of Talk:University of Wisconsin, so I'm not going looking for it, but there certainly wasn't such a consensus at deletion review. GRBerry 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With what's on the page, no need for a dabpage. Could be noted at top of the larger institution's page, but leading to a disambig is too much. Alex43223 T | C | E 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While Dhartung's proposal is more lengthy and more detailed than typical disambig pages, it appears much more helpful. Normally Kopf1988 would be correct, but we have already seen in previous discussions that his "The only problem is ..." brings strong arguments from both sides that shouldn't be dismissed. The situation calls for more clarification than WP needs even for generally similar cases like the SUNY system. Dhartung's proposed page puts all the related links in one place that can be used when "found by accident". Putting a hatnote on two of the many articles would help only a fraction of the readers looking for information. Putting all these details into a "history of" article wouldn't be quickly useful to most readers. Barno 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you want a beefy dab page try Saint John or Springfield. Kopf1988 was in fact my inspiration. There are far more than three distinct "things" with the name! That's when I realized that this entire debate wasn't about whether we needed disambiguation -- that much is clear -- but on how many bins we're putting things in. Particularly given there are a number of items that don't fit easily in either, not to mention the things that are often confused with the university (like Concordia, or the Medical College of Wisconsin) or loosely affiliated with it.-- Dhartung | Talk 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good lateral thinking. My three-way attempt was partly motivated by the desire to get a stable long-term solution, and at that it was obviously a miserable failure. There is a grammatical sense in which any University of Wisconsin - XYZ is a sort of University of Wisconsin, and we should remember that not all users (or even editors) of English Wikipedia are native English speakers. This version has a lot going for it IMO. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:19, 19 March 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 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Evans[edit]

Only notable as a blogger. Does not meet WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 01:00, 15 March 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 deletion nomination withdrawn by nominator, combination of redirect and various see also links have aided WP navigation. Thx. — MrDolomite • Talk 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1944 D-Day Operation Overlord[edit]

1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

added Template:otheruses4 to 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) article, this disambig page is not needed for such a narrowly named article or search. — MrDolomite • Talk 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is no real point to deletion if you're going to over the article for the video game to this location. FrozenPurpleCube 05:38, 15 March 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 List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Faith[edit]

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

Very little information, nothing useful. Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it, and even then, I'm unsure of it's notability. I have a plan to make a List of Dragonlance Sourcebooks, where this could one day be incorporated. DoomsDay349 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Delete. What work? That single sentence and plugging info into a cut-and-paste template took what, about ninety seconds? If someone actually wants to create a useable article on the subject - to the degree anyone bothers, because the entire series consists of similar stubs at best - more power to them, but since this stub was created, it (and the other related stubs) hasn't been touched in nine months. If there's that little interest, it should be merged into a larger article. Ravenswing 15:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, you do know there's no point in redirecting and deleting, don't you? Once you delete a redirect it's gone. No more content. If your concern is with the history of this article being kept, it's really a minor concern, the disk space concerns are below minimal. And I assume you find either the proposed List of Dragonlance game products or List of Dungeons & Dragons modules acceptable for the redirect target.
You assume correctly. Ravenswing 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft is not a reason to delete, and should be avoided as nothing more than an opinion. It would be much better to explain your problem with the subject of the article than throw around a slang term. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see inclusionism's taking over... Just because Wikipedia is not paper doesn't mean it's necessarily an encyclopedia of garbage: not every scrap of information on the planet, every book, or every game subject deserves to be here just because it exists and it's a well-written stub. There's 16 of these, let's make an article on every one, shall we? According to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, there are literally hundreds of these modules, no different from each other and none more notable than the rest. What makes this module stand out? If it's the most widely played in the entire history of the game, keep it. Was it widely played at championships or competitions? Keep it. As of now, I see nothing to show any hint of notability. The only thing we can say is that they exist. As does my cat. -Wooty Woot? contribs 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, though, it has good potential, and isn't unverified... it really exists. Just that apparently none of us are fans that can add any information or sort through sources. WP is not paper, so no reason to delete it, especially considering it still could be notable. Kopf1988 04:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you misinterpret my comment to crystal ball? By could I was refering to the that that it could ALREADY be notable, and just hasn't been verified yet. Kopf1988 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is also not wastepaper. One of the goals in AfDs is to delete articles that are not notable. We need to see more than an airy supposition that well, maybe, a subject might be notable. If it is, document it. If you can't document it, delete it. Ravenswing 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, but I haven't really seen any try too hard at documenting it, have you? Kopf1988 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, no, I haven't. That would be one reason I recommend Deletion. If so many people are passionate about saving this article, then one would think at least one or two would feel passionate enough to make it a viable, notable, sourced article. Ravenswing 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been improved since the AfD started. Not sure what viable means, since it's a pretty good article, but it has sources, the Primary source itself. As far as notable, Wikipedia:Notability is now disputed, and doesn't look like it's goig to make it. - Peregrine Fisher 05:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' For all the arguments as to notability, the fact is, this was a product of a notable gaming company, and part of an unquestionably notable series. (If you need proof that Dragonlance is notable, just ask yourself if something not notable would have over 100 books involving it. I'm sure somebody could tell you the sales figures and such, but I don't think there's a reason to try). This is, and the other modules which have been nominated, were part of the initial series that introduced Dragonlance to the world. Thus some coverage of it is appropriate, even if it were just to mention its name and a brief description in a discussion of Dragonlance products or the adventure series it was in. I'm willing to say there is a valid question in how best to cover the subject of this article, however, outright deletion, is not the best way. There are other options. FrozenPurpleCube 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Wooty, we can't say your cat exists. You can, but without independent sources on the existence of your cat, we're just taking your word for it.  :) FrozenPurpleCube 14:54, 16 March 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 List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Light[edit]

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

Very little information, nothing useful. Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it, and even then, I'm unsure of it's notability. I have a plan to make a List of Dragonlance Sourcebooks, where this could one day be incorporated. DoomsDay349 01:34, 15 March 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 List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Ice[edit]

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

Very little information, nothing useful. Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it, and even then, I'm unsure of it's notability. I have a plan to make a List of Dragonlance Sourcebooks, where this could one day be incorporated. DoomsDay349 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Really? Up until this AfD, it hadn't been touched in nine months. Upon what do you base that belief? Ravenswing 13:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no time limit on wikipedia articles, so the speed at which it is being improved is irrelevant. - Peregrine Fisher 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the point. The point is that a claim was made that the article will improve over time. I'm questioning the basis for that claim, being myself unsure how one can tell by a casual glance at an article that it is destined to be improved. My casual glance says that except for the couple paragraphs thrown in specifically in response to this AfD, no one's touched it and there is nothing to suggest that anyone else is likely to do so. Ravenswing 18:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know why they think it will eventually be improved, but I think it's because that's what happens with wikipedia articles. As far as nine months going by, that doesn't seem like a long time in the scope of what wikipedia is trying to do. There are tons of D&D stubs, and not that many D&D editors. It's going to take years to finish them all, I would imagine. Deleting this will extend that time. - Peregrine Fisher 18:33, 16 March 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 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Karch[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable wrestling announcer, fails WP:BIO and WP:A One Night In Hackney303 01:34, 15 March 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 Gnangarra 11:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who played Nazis in movies[edit]

List of actors who played Nazis in movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list. There's nothing notable about playing a Nazi character and there's no reason why actors such as Brando and Will Ferrell should be grouped together just because they happened to have portrayed a Nazi at some point in their careers. Saikokira 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This list tells us nothing about how actors approach playing a Nazi. Otto4711 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not "very" similar, unless you consider playing a generic Nazi character as significant as playing the President of the United States. This list is many, many times worse than that one. Saikokira 06:54, 16 March 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 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of horror TV series[edit]

List of horror TV series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, this is what categories are for, which is why Category:Horror television series already exists (and makes a much better job of it). Saikokira 01:40, 15 March 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 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of live-action/animated films[edit]

List of live-action/animated films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, just duplicates films already listed in Category:Live-action/animated films. List has zero context so is of little encyclopedic value as well. With the existing Live-action/animated film article and Category:Live-action/animated films there is no additional need for this list. Saikokira 01:40, 15 March 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, as decided before and already done by UsaSatsui. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Mighty Poo[edit]

The Great Mighty Poo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN video game character which only appeared in one game. Dismas|(talk) 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by me. A combination of author-requests-deletion, wikipedia-is-not-an-instruction-manual, and the fact that this AfD is certain to result in deletion means that I have to WP:SNOW this. - Richard Cavell 00:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinewood derby car modifications[edit]

Pinewood derby car modifications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not an instruction manual (and Transwiki to WIkibooks request). I am the author of the page and I realized after starting that it is much better suited to Wikibooks. I started Wikibooks:How To Build a Pinewood Derby Car and imported the page over. At this point I am requesting a delete of the original page as a part of the Transwiki process. Kkmurray 02:27, 15 March 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 merged. Majorly (o rly?) 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters From The Invisible Man[edit]

Characters From The Invisible Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a list of 8 characters from a 2000 Sci-Fi Channel series called The Invisible Man, and this list already exists at the main article. Usually I would just change this to a redirect, but the title is ambiguous, considering the infinitely more well-known H.G. Wells original and many other TV series with the same name, so it would be better just to delete it. Saikokira 02:13, 15 March 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 12:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schmuckdomain[edit]

Schmuckdomain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Players[edit]

Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Gibberish, NPOV, whatever else you can think of. dsm iv tr 03:42, 15 March 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. A userfied copy will be provided upon request to aid in creating a category, if desired. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian's in music[edit]

List of Australian musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (52kb, 3 columns wide, and incomplete)
List of Australians in music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two lists, the later is a partial version of the former. Neither list has any criteria, they include individuals and bands, some of which may not meet WP:MUSIC. Since there are no inclusion criteria, are problems with WP:LIST; in addition to the issues with potential size as well as category overlap. Delete --Peta 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please give a reason. JRG 00:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not notable, it is not the job of this discussion to decide what is or isn't - we use an AfD. A category can contain non-notable bands too. JRG 00:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Lists and categories are different things and they can co-exist. I think editors here need to realise that. That reason is being cited far too much in these Australian list debates and it's just not true. JRG 11:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and categories are different things, and therefore their strengths lie in different areas. Lists such as these that have vague or hugely inclusive criteria are not useful. Lists with well-defined and tractable membership that identify the membership as notable and contain additional information are different to categories that contain alphabetic-sorted lists of people with articles only. This means a number of lists with loose criteria were created in the early days of the project as aides-memoire. These are no longer needed or appropriate as the project has evolved. Many "good" lists have associated categories. So do many "bad" or obsolete lists. Some of these are being cleaned up. You appear to show up at every discussion and claim that if it was cleaned up, the list would be OK. Most of the ones being considered are so far from being a suitable list that it would be better to start afresh with proper references, if they could ever be made suitable. Examples of good Lists of Australians with matching categories include (I have not checked for completeness at either level, or either direction):
List of Australian Test wicket-keepers
Category:Australian wicket-keepers
Australian national cricket captains
Category:Australian cricket captains
List of Australian Test cricketers
Category:Australian Test cricketers
List of Australian government ministers
Category:Government ministers of Australia
Premiers of South Australia
Category:Premiers of South Australia
List of cast members of Home and Away
Category:Home and Away cast members (the category is proposed to be removed as being what lists, not categories are good for)
List of Anglican bishops of Sydney
Category:Bishops of Sydney
Some of these need more articles written or added to the category to make the category useful. Other lists exist without appropriate matching categories. This is about cleaning up the list detritus. --Scott Davis Talk 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about cleaning things up, why won't anyone help out? Everyone's so mega-keen to delete anything, yet no one can be bothered to put in the good work and actually do some cleaning up and create some useful Australian lists. Why can't we keep these here so we can actually know what we need to improve on. Wikipedia is not about having every article perfect -it's also a work in progress, and these sort of articles help us to understand where we need to clean things up. I'm really tired of advocating things to be kept, when there is good reason for it, when other people are so zealous and stuck in their ways about deleting anything and everything. JRG 11:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to-do lists then go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do. Don't put/keep to-do lists in article/main space.Garrie 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the lists we're looking at are not getting nominated, so you don't have to advocate in a deletion debate for most of them. Since you sound like you think it's personal, here's some evidence that we are helping too. I haven't bothered to check the others' voting records, but I know I've supported keeping a couple lists that were nominated for deletion recently.
None of us (you included) get to these edit counts without doing something good for the project! Sometimes it's adding content, sometimes cleaning, tidying and formatting, and sometimes it's putting the rubbish out. The deleted lists are like cleaning up and putting out the recycling. I don't want the place full of lists that attract vanity edits. An article about the person can stand in its own right to demonstrate notability. If there is no reliable reference for the list, it is usually better as a category. --Scott Davis Talk 13:50, 20 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Unti[edit]

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

Non-notable biography, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. All references are self-references, no multiple, independent sources. Leuko 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. He is either the subject, author, or a commentator in each of them.

  • Comment: Well ... after having gone through the first several of them, they are either posts from a bulletin board, articles where he is named as an arrested protester, articles about someone else where he is quoted speaking about the article's subject or (in the first case) where he isn't mentioned at all. Those are completely trivial and non-applicable references. Ravenswing 14:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Go ahead and get rid of the entry if you insist-- I am relatively new and perhaps I don't comprehend the criteria well enough. Let me just point out that first you wanted to strike the entry because you claimed the items didn't pertain to Unti. Discovering you were wrong, you now offer another set of reasons based on triviality. He's one of the top officials at the largest animal group in the country. If someone wants to ever start reading about the issues they are going to run into his work. He's an encyclopedist himself if you look at the DAH and encyclopedia entries he authored.Schweizerbueb 12:47, 17 March 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. John Reaves (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Human Rights Watch[edit]

Criticism of Human Rights Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Criticism of" article. There seems to be more consensus these days that "Criticism of" articles are a bad idea from an NPOV standpoint. —Ashley Y 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Talk:Human Rights Watch and Talk:Criticism of Human Rights Watch. - Francis Tyers · 09:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question was about the nom. Ashley Y seems to be generously conflating a number of recent nominations into a consensus to delete, but the ones I know of were kept, e.g. Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Mormonism, a couple others. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 16 March 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, but note that the consensus at this discussion explicitly does not include any of the side issues of whether to merge content back into the main article or create redirects (some of which already exist). Those side issues need a separate discussion, and in the case of redirects, potentially RfDs, to get a consensus.Chaser - T 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names for USB flash drive[edit]

Alternative names for USB flash drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

So many of these names sound made-up, and every single one of them is unsourced. Nerd stick? Sex drive? Geek whistle? I say this page should be deleted on grounds of being unverifiable. TheCoffee 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Most of them would not be search terms and questions exist as to their verifiability and breadth of use DanielT5 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a very silly sad result.--ZayZayEM 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone uses them, even if you don't. It'd still be good practice.--SeizureDog 13:01, 16 March 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 12:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewater Mall[edit]

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

substandard assertion of notability-I lived in Mississippi, the whole of the Gulf Coast can be driven across in less than an hour. Mallcruft. Chris 06:02, 15 March 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. I am going to redirect this to Anna Nicole Smith for now and interested parties can merge the content from here to the main article as they see fit.--Isotope23 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Anna Nicole Smith[edit]

Death of Anna Nicole Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Why do we need an article for a persons death?the original page is good enough,not good enough for a separate articleRodrigue 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh... yes. It's been over a month, and it's still heavily covered in the press. ◄Zahakiel► 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be making that same snarky comment if it wasn't an anon? — MichaelLinnear 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem, are you putting Saddam Hussein, after all the leader of a nation and all that, on the same shelf as a model and actress? --Ouro (blah blah) 08:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment .192.30.202.20 has voted twice in this AFD. dposse 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a vote. It is a discussion. Pablothegreat85 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A New Type of Wikipedia Article?

Folks, I wonder if we have invented a new type of Wikipedia article with the Death of ANS. On the one hand, the story is more than the daily (or even weekly) WikiNews. On the other hand, as things settle down, the article will eventually be condensed and merged into the main ANS. This suggests that our new invention is a time-delimited article, probably of two months, at which point a call for Merger would almost automatically kick in. With this new type of article, there would be no need for every Wikipedia article to be seen as "permanent" -- whatever that means in the world of Wikis and the Internet. Bellagio99 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then, is there really a reason to not just merge in the first place? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not: notability is permanent. That's a very important principle. Everyking 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think we've invented anything new. We have a (rather common) case of editors who seem to feel there's a prize for being the First To Make The Edit conflated both by a lack of judgment as to whether information is timeless or trivial and by the certitude that whatever drum E! Tonight is thumping on any given week Must Be Of Vital Importance. I'm sure many of you have seen that in the fields you follow, recent or immediate news gets as much space in articles as all the previous history of the subject combined. Unfortunately, the only way this syndrome will be corrected is with time. The Wikipedians of five years from now will trim these bloated, superficial articles down. I doubt we'll be allowed to do so. Ravenswing 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we can be selective, and we don't need to leave the entire text in the article. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Williams College. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Record[edit]

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

Contested prod, contested merger, and most recently, someone contested even the ((notability)) tag. Fallacious reason cited for removing the notability tag was that it survived an AfD back in October 2005, which in fact ended in a non-consensus keep, pending improvement of the article. One year and a half on, it's still an unsourced stub about a low circulation journal not known outside the university and whose notability appears to hinge exclusively on its age. Ohconfucius 06:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would highly protest a merger with Williams College. It is an independent newspaper seperate of the school and to do so would be inapproriate. If need be, delete the article, but please do not merge.
  • Could you source that, please? A Google search of "Williams Record" on the Boston Globe website turns up exactly one hit. A similar search on the Berkshire Eagle website turns up exactly two hits. That's desperately underwhelming. RGTraynor 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all respect, the web does not index all data sources (by far), the web tools of the Eagle and Glob[e] do not reach all their content from the covered periods, and web data itself restricts us to the past decade or so (at best). The Record is mentioned in at least a few front-page NYT articles in the 1960s ('Vassar Co-ed...' 1962). A web-based view of the world is both "underwhelming" and inherently prejudicial to the questions here. Most of the comments here are purely subjective, while "Notability is not subjective:"
    • Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. KenThomas 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below for "non-local mentions."
  • Comment: Great ... so source it. WP:ATT is not a passing fancy, it's the fundamental requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can't just wave it off by claiming that there are no web sources, search engines don't go back that far, etc etc etc. As it happens, the Globe's search engines go back 28 years, but in any event, it's not our job to prove the absence of verification, it's your job to prove that it exists. Presuming we could read those linked sources (which I can't, anyway), are they about the Williams Record in any meaningful way, or are they "trivial sources" per WP:ATT? (And what does the Berkeley Daily Cal have to do with this discussion?) RGTraynor 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATT however, like everything here, is not a procedural rule, and it is being approached as such here. This is supposed to be an attempt at consensus based on genuine attempt to arrive at a truthful determination, not a no-holds-barred-prove-your-position fight. YOU assert triviality, despite the fact that you can't even read a good part of the, ahem, "record." It's up to YOU to show that your perspective is valid with concrete reasons, not to shove the burden of research and evidence on others.
The historical record is much, much larger than what the Wikipedia readership can easily access-- pure and simple. And that is one good reason for exercising a soft hand with deletion and such discussions, rather than having a procedurally focused 'thought police' (yes that's perjorative!) who scour the Wikipedia-space looking to remove articles that don't fit their particular subjective perspective on what is notable. The 'notability' criterion, to have significance, must be applied objectively. Practically, this means that as contributors and editors, the responsibility lies on each of us to make good faith efforts to determine the "truth of things"-- whether a particular article is 'notable,' etc, based on evidence we can find-- and to consider the limitations of our own subjective perspective.
That said, RGTraynor's particular arguments thus seem in violation of the Wikipedia ethics: to gloss another FAQ, its not up to the community to educate users, its up to users to read the governance FAQs and documentation, educate themselves, act in accordance with the semi-consensus model, and not "grind axes!"
Somewhat OT, the publication requirement has IMHO also reached the limitations of its 'scope' in a case like this; we're asking a higher standard of "volunteer" editors that than the NYT asks of reporters. Yes, I can cite examples; the point is, I don't have to!
Finally, "PS," there's a direct historical connection between the Williams Record and the Daily Cal, and if we delete the Record, we will risk "falling down a slippery slope" where we have to delete the Daily Cal-- which seems to (but may not) meet the 'notability' requirement. In such a case, there are two options (forks): delete both, or revise our sense of 'notability.' I beleive the community will have to do the latter.
Footnote: Note most of the evidently 'independent' references to the Daily Cal in other media are the result of Daily Cal personnel moving to other publications and making those references-- this is also true of the Williams Record (historically). And from my (subjective) POV it is trivial to assert that the Record is more 'notable' than the Daily Cal (argument truncated for now).
Footnote comment: There is currently no Wikipedia article for the Russellville, KY publication 'News-Democrat,' which, from a presentist perspective, is less notable than the Williams Record. The fact that the archives of the ND are only accessible in microfiche in Russellville should not obscure the fact that the ND published early articles from William Jennings Bryant and Robert Penn-Warren; just the opposite. A "stub" should not be deleted simply because of the lack of the Wikipedia community's research or the difficult of "verifiability:" it should be preserved to remind us of the tasks to be accomplished, else we succumb to the perspective limitations our media. (Again, this challenges the scope definitions and limitations of the {POV} policy (as expressed), which is itself a historical construction with it own self-referential "{POV}" problems. In short: the {POV} policy derives from the Wikipedia encounter with physics "kooks" and has scope applicability problems when applied outside that defined context. KenThomas 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Presuming we could read those linked sources" ... We? Okay...well even if you can't access proquest (most schools have a subscription), these are published works than can be verified. Check with Wikipedia:Reference_desk if you need help confirming. SERSeanCrane 09:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Rabinovitz, Jonathan (2006-11-15). "College Idealism Was Fertile Soil for Fringe Group". The New York Times. New York Times Company: A1.
  2. ^ Russell, Jenna (2003-11-30). "Meeting Resistance". The Boston Globe. New York Times Company: E1.
  3. ^ Dorman, Larry (1995-11-12). "College Football (The Amherst-Williams Week)". The New York Times. New York Times Company: A33.
  4. ^ Moore Jr., Gilbert (1993-02-17). "Campus Journal; A Test of Racism Produces an Uproar". The New York Times. New York Times Company: B9.
  5. ^ UPI (1982-10-17). "Maid Service Is Ended on Williams Campus". The New York Times. New York Times Company: A55.
  6. ^ Cooke, Robert (1982-05-23). "Group's Ad Attacks Sex Research Project; Williams Professor Defends Study of Mice". The Boston Globe. New York Times Company: 1.
  7. ^ Jordan, Robert (1980-11-18). "The Racial-Hate Fires Must Be Extinguished". The Boston Globe. New York Times Company: Editorial, pg. 1.
  • Great, there are a number of links which we can't access. Are any of them about the Record, as is required, as opposed to so-called "trivial mentions" of it? No one is disputing that the paper exists, but heck, I'm sure I could come up with otherwise non-notable community leaders that have been quoted by local newspapers more than seven times in thirty years. RGTraynor 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, by we you mean you. I'm sure a large number of wiki readers accessing from a decent school can access the articles. Second, a large number of these articles use The Record as a primary source for their article and as such, give it proper attribution. If the argument is that this is "a low circulation journal not known outside the college," these repeated mentions in the New York Times and Boston Globe are evidence to the contrary. SERSeanCrane 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all.:

So basically, we have some newspapers that may reference it but there isn't enough info to merit a full article. I say merge and start a Publications header in Williams College like in Swarthmore College (where they also mention independent publications of the school so I don't see the objection about merging). Chevinki 04:09, 21 March 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. John Reaves (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California Review[edit]

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

Contested redirect. This unsourced article is about an "outspoken and controversial" political journal established in 1982 which I do not believe is worthy of an article per plenty of other non-notable student publications. Many Ghits, but these are principally based on the generic appearances of the word "review". One relevant hit is from when the journal itself picks up a story about Campus censorship of Koala. 3 unique Ghits for "California Review San Diego" Ohconfucius 06:49, 15 March 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. John Reaves (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Moderator[edit]

Cornell Moderator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Cornell Centrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prods. Unsourced articles about recently established not notable partisan college journals. Consensus tends to favour deletion or simple merge per WP:ORG. A summary of the most important details has now been incorporated into the Cornell University article. The remaining details may occasionally fail WP:SELF, and would be of less than passing interest to people outside the University. Ohconfucius 07:01, 15 March 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. Hu12 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Rush[edit]

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

Was PRODded "doesn't appear notable, no independent sources". A day later the PROD was replaced with an AfD template with an edit-summary "article has been around for 2 years. deserves debate". I'm just completing the nom here, I abstain. DMacks 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all but Jason Leonard. Majorly (o rly?) 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Davis[edit]

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

Non-notable train driver. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 07:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Jason Leonard, none of these articles appears to meet the notability criteria. I think we should delete them all. SkipSmith 08:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Come to that, for all we know, the "Jason Leonard" for whom that engine may be named could readily be a long-term rail employee like the others, and not the rugby player at all. Ravenswing 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I checked into it, and it does look like that train is in fact named after the famous rugby player: [[14]]. SkipSmith 20:46, 16 March 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 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verse Studios[edit]

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

Previously prodded, prod contested. It's an independent video game company that was founded last year, and it doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines, so I'm listing it here. Coredesat 08:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their first product will be launched on April 1st, so the statement that they have "no product" is misleading. They are self funded, and looking for additional seed capital, so the statement that they have "no money" is also incorrect. Would you consider waiting until after April 1st to delete this?

  • No; presuming this company succeeds in getting a product out by April 1st or any other date, it still needs to pass WP:CORP, and that means getting significant, reliable third-party sources to talk about it. If that happens in the future, an article may readily be recreated, but Wikipedia's policy is to have articles about notable subjects, not about subjects that hope one day to become notable. RGTraynor 17:37, 15 March 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 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleepfarmers[edit]

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

Delete Contested prod. Band is non-notable, extremely limited exposure. Fails the main criteria and all 11 sub-criteria of WP:BAND and article author has WP:COI issues. The Kinslayer 08:56, 15 March 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 (transwikied). John Reaves (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SugarStars[edit]

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

Article for a webcomic. It asserts notability, so it's not a candidate for A7. However, the article still does not satisfy the notability guidelines for web content (website hits aren't on WP:WEB, and it only "nearly" reached the top 10 of a toplist), and the article reads somewhat like an advertisement. There is also some crystal-ballism afoot, and all but one of the sources are the comic itself. Coredesat 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where, as it happens, it doesn't seem to be notable enough to appear either. RGTraynor 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comixpedia doesn't have notability guidelines. --Coredesat 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which would suggest that no one cares. RGTraynor 04:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well you're a blunt one aren't you.76.97.51.60 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've transwikied the article to Comixpedia myself. --Coredesat 09:39, 18 March 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 12:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gray (pastor)[edit]

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

A pastor. He ran a church. Er, that's about it. The only external source is a news report about an accusation of child molestation. Appears to exist solely to cast aspersion on fundamental Baptism, which is understandable (I don't think much of the fundies either) but not a good reason to have a substantially unsourced negative article on a living individual. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 15 March 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. John Reaves (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dappankuthu[edit]

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

OR all the way. Has been tagged for OR since Aug '06. And content is totally unencyclopedic. Sarvagnya 09:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense!! My nom doesnt talk about notability at all, though I have to admit that notability is also an issue. Further, the Mohiniattam doesnt have BS like

while not comfortable with rhythm yet 

    take one step in sync with beat
    if front foot is left foot
        point left fist to the sky
        point right fist to the front
        tilt head slightly above horizontal
    else // front foot is right foot
        point left fist to the front
        point right fist to the sky
        tilt head straight down
    endif
    bob torso vertically once by flexing knees, in sync with beat
 end while
 while not (tired or bored)
    dance
 end while
in the article. Instead of ranting away based on imagined biases, I'd appreciate it if you could improve the article(Dappankuthu or whatever) and save it from deletion. Sarvagnya 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article in Wikipedia requires that notability be established for the subject using reliable and verifiable sources. Claiming that the sources establish notability when they dont, is in a way, OR. Sarvagnya 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you there there is no relaible source that deals with this subject matter at this point listed in this stubRaveenS 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost as to how I or anyone else found this as anything to do with the AFD. In any case, if you suspect you are been stalked, at Wikipedia we have various policies to help you with that. I suggest you file a report at WP:AN/I immediately, to prevent possible stalking escalating further. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 17:51, 21 March 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 12:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John McDole[edit]

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

Unverifiable bio for which db and prod tag have been removed without further explanation. Tikiwont 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Tyrenius 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani cricket team in India in 1979-80[edit]

Pakistani cricket team in India in 1979-80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Worst.Article.Ever. Seriously, could it be any more uninformative? I don't mind stubs, but hate empty stubs that just serve to fill up a red link. Consider this a blanket nomination for any other article created by User:BlackJack that simply restates the title. I'm not up to searching for all of them, so could someone give me a hand in listing them? Also, I am against a merge/redirect, as the article is too specific, and having bluelinks would confuse people into thinking these articles exist, who would probably give up finding the real articles after their first clicks are redirects. SeizureDog 09:31, 15 March 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 speedy deleted (housekeeping). kingboyk 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Election results, Comptroller General[edit]

Election results, Comptroller General (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no Comptroller General position in the State of New York, of which this page currently redirects. I believe this page exists due to a typo by myself from previous edits of the New York State comptroller results, as I used the Attorney General results page as a template T0llenz 15:59, 14 March 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 12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Lagan[edit]

Kate_Lagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non Notable local councillor - I wanted to update to include notability but was unable to find anything of note Weggie 19:29, 14 March 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 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen McClelland[edit]

Noreen_McClelland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Local Councillor who has not achieved election to a national legislature amd nothing else of substance for wiki purposes Weggie 19:23, 14 March 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 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandiya Kula Kshatriya Mara Nadar[edit]

Pandiya Kula Kshatriya Mara Nadar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is basically nonsense and OR. I went through the article a couple of times and couldnt find much that could be salvaged from this article. If there indeed is anything that can be salvaged, it ought to be merged with the already existing articles for Pandyas, Naickers etc.,. This article is patent nonsense and ought to be deleted. Sarvagnya 17:00, 14 March 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 12:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Happy Tree Friends kills and List of Happy Tree Friends deaths[edit]

A list of which character is killed how often and in which episode. Trivia, not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 10:34, 15 March 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 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in World War I (Timeline-191)[edit]

Participants in World War I (Timeline-191) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article confused the hell out of me when I found it wit the random article function; I thought it was just misnamed at first. In any case, there doesn't seem to be enough information for it be have its own list, and can quite easily be worked into prose of the main article(s). SeizureDog 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep - (nomination withdrawn). Yuser31415 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Swan[edit]

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

Not notable. Keep she apparently has had independant and reliable media coverage not mentioned in the article. Epbr123 11:24, 15 March 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 g7 per author request below. NawlinWiki 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of RahXephon staff[edit]

List of RahXephon staff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Listcruft and Fancruft. --Sterdehn 11:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I swear we need something like a WikiCredits or something. Our film, TV show, video game, etc. articles are odd for missing staff lists, which are quite notable and encyclopedic.--SeizureDog 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surely not fancruft - that seems rather uncivil to me. I'm not too fond of the level of detail though.... The sound engineer even? --GunnarRene 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - sockpuppet or not, the fact remains that the article is just a huge list of credits which is way more detail than needed for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I am fully aware of that and I strongly disagree with Whpq's recent comments. --Sjones23 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... all right. I will help fix up this article and use the cleanup with Ganryuu. I also strongly disagree with that article being in the AfD. We should use the scriptwriters, storyboards and episode directors for the list of episodes, per User:GunnarRene's ideas in the talk page. --Sjones23 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm too busy right now to improve this all on my own, so I propose moving it into somebody's user space if it's deleted. --GunnarRene 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Staff lists are boring, not aesthetic, and offer no real useful information. It's a list, and it's extremely crufty for a list at that. Nique talk 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, Nique, and I, unfortunately, will be really heartbroken if this is deleted. It will not be so hard to find. I am strictly opposed to that. --Sjones23 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the 'really important' staff members can easily be fit into the appropriate sections of the main article, making this article superfluous. If this article were trimmed to the bare essentials of the list, it would be a stub. Also, this page isn't for commenting about how terribly upset you are and how your ears are burning in your furious sadness, it's for discussion about why the article should or should not be deleted. Nique talk 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that idea, Nique. Thanks for the comment. I will remove them and add them to the appropriate sections for good. --Sjones23 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the impotant staff members from the movie and I will move them as per Nique's request as well as deleted the entire article for good. Everyone, Thanks for all the help we can get. --Sjones23 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well written and agreed. I moved the really important staff members for both the TV series and movie back to the main article for the greater good of the editors. I personally agree with all of the comments. --Sjones23 21:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DarthGriz. I put the "db-userreq" tag and all of the page has been deleted for good. Sjones23 22:52, 17 March 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. John Reaves (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanica[edit]

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

Another Interlingua derivative created by a single person and with an insufficient claim to notability, other perhaps from being mentioned in other Wikimedia projects, a self-fulfilling prophecy. An earlier deletion discussion resulted in the article being turned into a redirect to Interlingua, but this was undone later. I say this article should be deleted outright to prevent this from occurring again. -- Dissident (Talk) 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. WP:SNOW kingboyk 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Womadhism[edit]

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

Delete Contested prod. patently absurd nonsense. Author claims it's legitimate becuase he is trying to spread the word, which wikipedia is not for. Unsourced, unverfiable, non-notable. The Kinslayer 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second deletion under WP:SNOW. I couldn't figure a speedy category, so I prodded the article. Scottydont (the articles creator) contested the prod with the same reason he's given above, so I've moved to AfD per procedure, and to shut him up explain the foolishness of his article by showing him just what everyone thinks of bullshit silliness like this round here. The Kinslayer 11:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Careful of WP:BITE there - I suspect this is just a misguided young user trying Wikipedia out, and even if there was a malicious/disruptive intent WP:CIVIL still holds. ~Matticus TC 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, even philosophies were requried to be attributable to sources, and Wikipedia was not for made-up things. Has this changed since I last checked or something Albatross? The Kinslayer 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd or not, WP:ATT is not an optional extra. If you disgaree with it, take it up on the talk page there. And given this 'philosophy' started 3 days ago, I severly doubt any sources exist out side the mind of the article creator. 0Ghits for a start with the -wikipedia parameter. The Kinslayer 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And look how an unregistered editor changed the date of the "religion"'s creation to 11th March 2005 after this discussion has started. I guess it's the time to close it. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vanity/nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 13:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're supposed to WP:AGF, but you can't help looking at Albatosses contributions and wondering... The Kinslayer 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a definite case for getting this deleted under WP:SNOW. What do you lot think? The Kinslayer 16:24, 15 March 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 12:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian rehabilitation center[edit]

Indian rehabilitation center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No sources, no notability, not written as an encyclopedic article. It is, as it states, a copy-and-paste of a website. Frankly I'm surprised it was not deleted the day it was created. Robinson weijman 11:44, 15 March 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. —Angr 09:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brown Quote[edit]

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

Made up, unsourceable neologism and something someone made up at work someday. This was deleted through prod a year ago, but contested at vfu so it's here. - Bobet 11:55, 15 March 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 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretia's Daggers[edit]

Lucretia's Daggers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity article on band with small claim to notability. Vanity articles on members deleted. Praise is random review quotes (one from myspace!). Sources were requested and were practically thrown at the article, with no effort to properly cite. Contains loads of original research about themes. Drat (Talk) 12:08, 15 March 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kirk[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROFTEST - NYC JD (interrogatories) 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please specify why it fails this test. Robinson weijman 12:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course he passes WP:PROFTEST. He only needs to pass one of the criteria listed. He will almost certainly satisfy 1 and 2, but this may be subjective. However, there is no doubt that he satisfies others.

6. The person has received a notable award or honor". He is an emeritus professor.

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. Consider this information from Nottingham University website [22]:

Publications include: Journal articles:

Books:

Book chapters:

Reviews and Other Writing

Case closed I think. Emeraude 13:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Commment I don't know about his publications, but emeritus is neither a notable award or honor. You should probably strike that pending some real achievement. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually at many universities there are two status, emiritus or retired, the first is an honor with benefits, the latter is not. I know of many professors that never had the benefits of emeritus status, and a few that do. --Buridan 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that may be so, but it doesn't change the fact that simply being emeritus is not especially notable. I don't even know that the university he teaches at makes this minimal distinction. FrozenPurpleCube 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly even if it represents a special status it is not proof of notability; there must be thousands of emeritus professors in the UK alone at this moment. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that it's tough to claim (in the lack of any evidence, come to that) that the man's work on "zombies" makes him notable at the same time he admits he screwed it up to the point that he wrote a book refuting his own prior work. RGTraynor 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the benfit of contributors from the US who may not be aware, in the UK the title 'professor' is far more important than an American professor which seems to be synonymous with any university teacher (we would call that a lecturer). A UK professor is usually equivalent to head of a university department (see Professor#Most other English-speaking countries) So, being a professor is notable, and the award of emeritus, granted by fellows, is more so. Emeraude 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, we're aware of it. Nothing in WP:PROFTEST accords automatic notability to department chairs, either; it just isn't notable in of itself. Really, the issue at stake here is simple: is he widely regarded as a significant expert in his field? If so, it should be easy to provide sources backing that up. If sources attesting to his notability don't exist, then it seems he isn't all that widely regarded after all. RGTraynor 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, this is just what I find in five minutes of searching. There is possibly more, but I am not interested enough to spend more time on this. Pharamond 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re Pascal.Tesson's question, I think there is in fact sufficient discussion of Kirk's work in the literature. As well as the references already cited in the article, and those quoted by Pharamond, I find the following after a quick search:
  • Physicalism and strict implication, Jürgen Schröder, Synthese 151, #3 (August 2006) (discussion of Kirk's "minimal physicalism")
  • The prospects for Kirk's non-reductive physicalism, A. Melnyk, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76, #2 (June 1998)
  • Mind and Body, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82, #2 (June 1, 2004) (review of Kirk's book)
etc.
Spacepotato 03:39, 21 March 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John McKissick[edit]

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

This was tagged with prod, but I'm not so sure it fits that definition. 500 career games and being in the hall of fame seem to imply notability, if sources can be found. No opinion yet on retaining. Lankiveil 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some confirming sources that confirm the information in the article, i.e. 500+ wins and hall of fame, are

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.253.25.115 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 15 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Cortés[edit]

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

Suspected hoax (see description page of Image:Pablo cortes.jpg); no relevant Google hits for "Pablo Cortés" buccaneer, "Pablo Cortés" corsair, or "Pablo Cortés" pirate. Delete. Originally nominated for speedy deletion, but the article has been around for some time. Could also somebody have a look at the references listed in the article? - Mike Rosoft 13:31, 15 March 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. Hu12 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason pankey[edit]

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

Not notable - no releases, virtually nothing on Google. andy 13:36, 15 March 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.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Roffman[edit]

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

Notability (unimportant), Tone (reads like a resume), Lack of Citations BostonFilmGuy 13:56, 15 March 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. Hu12 02:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of visual novels[edit]

List of visual novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Since it no longer has any redlinks, this list is redundant with Category:Visual novels. Also, trying to create a list of every visual novel would be really, really, damn hard, though I might attempt it someday.... SeizureDog 13:56, 15 March 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 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vaccaro[edit]

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

On the surface, this looks like a legit article, until you realize that this is a 20-year old who's only claim to fame is writing in the local press about his High School sports teams, and a soon-to-be-published book about, yes, his High School football team. This appears to be a vanity bio, given the history of who's edited it, so I have WP:COI concerns as well as notability concerns. It might be a candidate for userfying, but until this "journalist" is published a bit more widely, the ariticle doesn't seem to meet our notability standards. Akradecki 14:01, 15 March 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 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Quinton[edit]

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

snake oil advertising and non-verifiable ZayZayEM 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Came here via Deep Sea News. This page is very suss and likely just blatant advertising for snake oil type hackery. Rene Quinton might be a real figure of notability, which is why I'm giving this the benefit of a VFD not a a speedy.--ZayZayEM 14:23, 15 March 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 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. McElwaine[edit]

Notability, verifiability, etc. There is no evidence of any of that in this article, individual (if it is even him) also fails WP:BIO. Crossmr 14:31, 15 March 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. Hu12 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caustic Window untitled album[edit]

Caustic Window untitled album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unreleased record (from a guy who reportedly has hundreds of unreleased tracks); only source provided is the user-submitted discogs.com. kingboyk 15:02, 15 March 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. Hu12 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bustos[edit]

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

This is non-notable autobiography and a plug for the author's company. There's an assertion of notability but fundamentally this is spam andy 15:19, 15 March 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. Kafziel Talk 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinas College Salter Point Campus[edit]

Aquinas College Salter Point Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Largely duplicates Aquinas College, Perth and does not appear to serve any purpose. I can't locate similar campus articles for any other notable schools. DanielT5 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure every school claims they have the most beautiful grounds, and Aquinas College (which is in Salter Point) is notable, this AfD is about the above article which is just a copy paste of part of the original article for no real reason DanielT5 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But according to WP:N - "notable if it has been the subject of published material and is independent of the subject, reliable, and most importantly, attributable" - this article has ~ten inderpendant sources stated in reference section. 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "the subject of published material". It has to be published material whose subject is Aquinas College Salter Point Campus. The subject of the westcourt website is Christian Brothers' Schools and Ministries (incidentally that site does not appear to support the assertion that you've referenced with it). The subject of the City of South Perth Municipal Heritage Inventory is the heritage places of the City of South Perth. The subject of Peninsular City is the social history of South Perth. The subject of the Mount Henry Peninsula Management Plan is the Mount Henry Peninsula. The fact that these sources mention Aquinas College Salter Point Campus does not confer notability upon it. And that's why Aquinas College is notable, and Aquinas College Salter Point Campus is not. Hesperian 10:22, 17 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Whatley[edit]

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when the bulk of the article essentially synopsizes episodes. — Whedonette (ping) 16:21, 15 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Killington[edit]

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when the bulk of the article essentially synopsizes episodes. — Whedonette (ping) 16:23, 15 March 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 List_of_Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip_characters#Supporting_roles.--Wizardman 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Li[edit]

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not maintain one-line articles in order to cover every secondary, minor character on the show. — Whedonette (ping) 16:25, 15 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Kenwright[edit]

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when the bulk of the article essentially synopsizes episodes. — Whedonette (ping) 16:26, 15 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Hawthorne[edit]

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when the bulk of the article essentially synopsizes episodes. — Whedonette (ping) 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. A reader searching WP may remember the character's name but not the show. --DeLarge 10:52, 22 March 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 List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. The decision to redirect to the list of characters and not the show itself is due to the fact that she is a character. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha O'Dell[edit]

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

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show. — Whedonette (ping) 16:31, 15 March 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 move. Majorly (o rly?) 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RVLiving magazine[edit]

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

This is a defunct publication, that was, in-fact, a publication by an RV dealer, for the benefit of that dealer. Since the publication is gone, was a small publication, and was, very much a vanity publication. I think this article fails to meet Wiki standards for being useful and/or informative. N7bsn 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad thought, that could work. Ralph N7bsn 15:40, 17 March 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. Due to the web video soliciting votes, those with few or no other edits outside this topic, have been stricken.Hu12 03:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Monkey[edit]

Fred the Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A previous incarnation of this article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey.com for failing WP:WEB; I still do not see any assertion of meeting the criteria of WP:WEB in the article. The afd-related animation [24] is still hilarious, however. Tizio 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a significantly different article from the one that was deleted last year per the previous AfD; different enough that it isn't really a G4. AfD is the right place for this.--Isotope23 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once again, I ask: exactly what are these awards that it has won? Heck, I can actually truthfully claim that I'm an award-winning playwright. Am I notable now? (The award was best parody of The Importance of Being Earnest in my high school English class in 12th grade.) If these awards that the web site has won are legit, then by all means share and that will certainly influence my opinion, and probably others' too. But as long as no one is willing to name them, that seems pretty suspicious to me. And if the awards are not legit, then what criterion of WP:WEB does this site meet? Mwelch 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' - Even so, it is obviously fairly popular. The forum has 669 members, 223708 posts and 4740 topics. It is obviously active, so we know that it isnt like the commic isn't well known. --Scabloo 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment' - What does it matter if what the article is about is funny or not. Just because you do not find somethe humorous does not mean that it shouldn't be part of Wikipedia.
    • Answer: - Not sure if I should reply to an unsigned comment but, intending to be polite, here goes. I mentioned that I found it not humourous merely because so many had found it funny - it was simply to balance those comments. I agree, it is not a reason to delete the article. But that it is not noteworthy is. Robinson weijman 12:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commentand why exactly is it non note worthy?--Scabloo 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer: I'm not aware (correct me if I'm wrong) of it appearing in any publications outside Wikipedia. I assume that if it did this page would contain links to it. I think the question should be, "Why *IS* it note worthy? Robinson weijman 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Because it is fairly popular, and it *has* gotten some daily awards on newgrounds. The creator also says he won an award at a local college.--Scabloo 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Then I suggest you add the awards to the article. Though winning an award at a local college does not make it noteworthy, I think. You've created the article - have you also created the Fred The Monkey video as well? Robinson weijman 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Answer': No, I did not.--Scabloo 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There would probably be no harm in having a Wikipedia article about my niece's pet hamster, either. That doesn't mean there should be one. But the important thing is that at least we're acknowledging that the only real arguments anyone is presenting for keeping are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NOHARM. For the reasons put forth in their essay sections, I can't say I find any of those arguments particularly compelling such that they'd justify making this an exception to WP:WEB. But that's just my opinion, of course. Mwelch 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, one episode was came in second for Daily Favourite on Newgrounds, while another came in the Daily Fifth. Does that count? Doubtful there is anything more though, except maybe for other episodes.SecondFifth --Scabloo 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't imagine that's anywhere near what WP:WEB has in mind for a "well-known award". But again, it's just my opinion. And of course WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy, and thus is more apt to be subject to exceptions than are policies. I don't personally feel this site should be given such an exception, so I still say, without hesitation, to delete. And I'd note that of the four who have thus far argued for "keep", one is the article creator and two of the other three are SPA's. But all of that said, others are certainly free to have a differing opinion, and if the article ultimately remains, as much as I'll disagree with that, it's probably not exactly going to make my Top 10 list of "Wikipedia articles with which I have a problem". (If it is deemed notable enough to stay, though, and if I'm featured as a Wikipeida villain in the next animation, then I'm going to try to press a claim of inherited notability and create an article for myself.) ;-) Mwelch 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well, an award is better than none. Also, even though he can't prove i on the internet, the creator of the animation says he won an award at a local college. I know it probably doesn't count (It would be pretty crazy if it did), but i might as well mention it.Anyways - yes, 2 people who voted for Keep are SPAs, but it isnt like they are saying "Fred The Monkey FTW! Keep da Article m@te!" they posted a reply in, in my opinion, an accountable way. Finally, going back to your nieces hamster, in comparison, most likely no one publically knows, or really cares (no offense) about it. Here however, people do know, and care about the article / animation.--Scabloo 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me be clear that I didn not mean to suggest, even for a moment, that a SPA cannot contribute to the debate in an intelligent manner. I only bring up the point because it does at least call into question one's neutrality on the subject. I absolutely assume that all contributors to the argument are making their contributions honestly and in good faith, SPA or not. But I would argue that if a person hasn't done anything else or much else on Wikipedia besides work on Fred the Monkey, then it's at least possible that their perspective on whether that article should be kept may be a bit biased. Especially if the arguments they cite for keeping it are not supported by any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Mwelch 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So it appears a bunch of the keeps are SPAs. I've contributed to Wikipedia quite a bit in the past, just never made an account. All I'm saying is that it'd be a shame if the article was deleted again. So much was put into this one and it's so much better than the one that was deleted before it. Also, as has been noted, the site does have a pretty large following. The forums, while not as large as say IGN, they've still got a decent number of users and a ton of posts. The toons have been on newground.com and have won a few awards over there. So yes, they may not be the most well known awards, but shouldn't the fan base speak for something, too? Astoc 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. Just because someone appears to have only contributed to the Fred the Monkey article doesn't mean that that's all that they have done. I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for years, but only recently made account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninja is the new black (talk • contribs).
  • Comment. The nomination for deletion isn't because it's an animation; it's because it's not notable per WP:WEB. Homestar Runner, on the other hand, is notable per WP:WEB, since I can point you to references to Homestar Runner in such non-trivial tech publications as Wired, as well as in mainstream media like The Cincinnati Enquirer and the National Review. If the same could be said for Fred the Monkey, then this wouldn't even be an issue. Mwelch 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Everyone should remember (and I've now added the template at the top to serve as a reminder) that this is not a vote. The decision will be made by the merits of people's arguments, not on the basis of how many "votes" each side has. It is perfectly acceptable for an IP to offer arguments for consideration. In this case, even those voting to keep seem to acknowledge that the site doesn't meet WP:WEB. So that would mean that the question seems to be whether this site is worthy of an exception to that guideline. The arguments in favor of giving it an exception all seem to boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIGNUMBER, or WP:NOHARM. Mwelch 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' - Well, does the final desicion come down to you. The reason I ask is because since you still do not think it should be on the site, and it comes down to you, then all of this seems futile.--Scabloo 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. Absolutely not. It is an admin decision, and I am not an admin. Beyond how persuasive (or non-persuasive) others find my arguments in this discussion to be, I have absolutely no say whatsoever in the final decision. Mwelch 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh, ok. Well, i'm going to add the awards to the page. hoefullt that'll help. --Scabloo 23:59, 19 March 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 plumber/internet celeb has to go. Sorry. kingboyk 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Weeks[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable internet gamer. De-proded by aurthor.Hondasaregood 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Todd Week, the martial artist, IS notable. Please disregard all negative messages.

Comment. No, I don't. Have you read WP:BIO? -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. Todd Week is an internet celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpouel (talk • contribs)

Comment. You only get to 'vote' once, though you can add to the discussion by providing sources to verify the notability of this person. Just saying 'he's notable' over and over is not an argument that will prevent the deletion of the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this gets deleted, Todd Weeks will still be in our hearts! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.134.64.194 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

TODD IS AWESOME!!! KEEP IT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danpouel (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Barrymore Halpenny (2nd nomination)[edit]

Baron Barrymore Halpenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Artist/cartoonist of questionable notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Barrymore Halpenny for first nomination. This article is different, so I am not speedy deleting it as a recreation (I've undeleted old revisions so you can compare). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 16:57Z

If anyone has any doubts about the article "Baron's Pen is Peerless" Why not contact the newspaper that printed it? Their archive section will show it to be true!
Their website is: http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/ and information is Evening Telegraph "Baron’s Pen is Peerless" Article Monday, June 15, 1987. They should find it from that. Goldburg 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has under 100 edits, most of them related to the Halpenny name. Tyrenius 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much like the article Baron Barrymore Halpenny to be deleted. I never asked to be on this website or listed here and the first I knew about it was from an e-mail to me from Mr. Goldburg. I now find it through Google when checking my Websites. I appreciate Mr. Goldburg’s intentions and maybe he’s right and maybe he’s not, but as I made clear to him in an e-mail (part of which he put on here and I was a little annoyed as the e-mail was to him only), I would much rather people come to my website if they want to know about me or my art.
I’m very angry that on Google, this website called wikipedia appears when “googling” my name and has detrimental and damaging references to me regarding being “not notable”, deleting etc. this for something I had nothing to do with. Before this wiki thing came onto the scene, my name brought a clean list on Google for my websites, making it easy for people to access my material etc.
As it is, I want the article about me deleting as it serves me no purpose being on here and I have explained my reasons. As to being notable? If only you really knew, but I’m not saying here as I know Mr. Goldburg would use it to list me again and that would defeat my object of getting the Article removed.
I encountered from an early age, jealousy and bitterness. People who did not know me had already made up their minds about me. I was brought up not to be jealous and to be open-minded. All coins have two sides and before you open your mouth look at both sides.
So I actually set out to control as much as possible, what’s written about me when I was in my late teens. This is why I don’t do interviews now (if I did do one I would have to have the right to vet it), and why information is funnelled through my websites that I control.
I will have an art agent for my commercial work and galleries that deal with my paintings. And I like it this way.
I have done a few book covers for my father and for other people. I have also done illustrations for books. I love cartoons and use pseudonyms for certain ones. I enjoy my art and you may well have seen my work without knowing it. It is my Art I want you to see, like and enjoy. I want you to know my Art … not me.
I don’t really want to come on here again, so I don’t want to see these annoying references on Google again. So I would very much like an Administrator to REMOVE the Article about me and also all these daft references of deletion etc and stop Google and other search engines picking them up. Thank you!
Baron Barrymore Halpenny - Artist, Illustrator and Cartoonist
A thought. If we are all going to just use Google and rely only on Google then why do we need the Wikipedia? Encyclopaedias are built up using many sources for reference. If your form of research is just Google, then it just shows how poor and lazy you are for doing proper serious work. If Google disappeared, then so would 95% of the editors on Wikipedia. I think this debate is showing how weak the Wikipedia is in how the editors research. The Wikipedia to be a truly independent Encyclopaedia must stand on its own two feet and focus on hard facts and reality. It maybe on the Internet, but it should not rely on the Internet for its information and certainly not google! Nor should it remove an article that is neutral in content, just because the artist would like it to be. But like I say I can understand that the unwanted statements have probably swayed the artist’s opinion.
To remove this article will show Googles strength and Wikipedia’s weakness.
Goldburg 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you google the books of Bruce Barrymore Halpenny, you will inadvertently google the work of Baron Barrymore Halpenny as he has most likely done the Artwork and this I feel would be the same for the books he does for other authors. So really his artwork is right across google, just his name isn’t.
I don’t know much about art as it does not interest me, but I can verify the work of Baron in his father’s books, if that helps in this discussion? Anyone can if they just get a copy of the books, esp. Wartime Poems. In this discussion that is as far as I can go. I would just like to say that Goldburg has put a very good case here and is right in a way.
However, if the artist himself does not want to be here and I should say he is doing very well without being on here, would it not be best to close this chapter? Baron Barrymore Halpenny is a talented young man and obviously knows what he is doing. But then as his work does become better known, if not by Goldburg, then certainly someone else will once again list him. I’m unsure whether to remove or maybe wisest to just leave the stub, which at present is pretty neutral?
I’ll leave that to an Administrator. Maybe the administrators should discuss this topic? --James Dunston 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor has made 18 edits, all of them about the Halpenny family. Tyrenius 04:11, 21 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old man car[edit]

Old man car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - nothing links here, arguably original research (the references just go to car reviews). --Vossanova o< 17:05, 15 March 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 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre Ordained[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariane Pearl[edit]

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

Disputed prod. The wife of a man who died in a notable incident. I don't see her personal notability myself and recommend deletion. kingboyk 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mariane Pearl is indeed the widow of a famous person. She is also a journalist in her own right. However, how she had endured, survived, and suceeded following theJsjoholm 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC) kidnapping and brutal decaptitation of her husband, ten days before the birth of their only child, does merit her bio being included in Wikipedia.
I do not know personally Mariane Pearl. But, from research I have conducted concerning her life, I can attest that Ms. Pearl is a woman and a journalist, of profound moral and spiritual courage. Her story doesn't only deserve to be told and shared in this forum, it needs to be told.
To delete it would be to delete a valuable part of our contemporary history. "To forget history dooms us to repeat it." We cannot forget this part of history. Gd forbid it should be repeated.
Shlomit Mary Lucich" 63.214.55.226 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very notion of deleting this article is in my hmo ridicules. Jsjoholm 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown Jewels[edit]

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

Basically a box set that includes the bands first eight studio albums. The only article that links to it is 'Queen discography'. — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I interpret the comments by !voters below the weblinks as reaffirmation of their positions, so the result is unanimously to delete.Chaser - T 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-4-One Has Left the Building[edit]

All-4-One Has Left the Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Alleges to be an unreleased album, I can't find anything even close to verifiable on this, not even any blogs or music sites. Appears to be a hoax, but I can't tell for certain, so I'm bringing it here. badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There is still the issue of notability. The album was not released, so we can't talk about popularity, sales figures, or anything else that would contribute to an encyclopedic discussion of this album. ◄Zahakiel► 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the album can be verified to have been in existence at some point, notability no longer becomes an issue given the artist. If it wasn't something that I could verify, I would have never brought it here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you checked, I do the same thing. I think in the case of it being verified, I would still only be in favor of a merge to the group's entry; I don't really think unreleased albums should get separate articles unless there's a strong reason for that, like a controversial reason why it wasn't released. ◄Zahakiel► 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we assume this was an album officially considered for release, it's tough to determine where the bar of inclusion lies with unreleased material, as they tend to not get the reviews and coverage that released albums get. Some of them do achieve a sort of legendary status, as in the Beach Boys' Smile album and Guns 'N' Roses' Chinese Democracy. I notice Prince's Camille and Space's Love You More than Football have articles, while Pet Shop Boys' Relentless, for example, does not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, although it's interesting to note that neither of those two that do have entries cite any sources or make any claims of notability either. The difficulty in establishing these two criteria (verifiability and notability) for the inclusion of unreleased/unpublished material does, I would have to say, make perfect sense. In the case of the AfD here, other bad articles don't justify the presence of this one :) ◄Zahakiel► 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Xiner[25]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi[edit]

Sri Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minimal online representation, difficult to judge importance. Pigmandialogue 18:53, 15 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SDL syntax[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. I'm not aware of other, similar articles that simply describe an API. Material like this might be better on Wikibooks and then expanded appropriately. And, of course, the user can just consult the official documentation. - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:56, 15 March 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. Daniel Bryant 11:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funism[edit]

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

Appears to be one artist's description of his philosophy of art. While the artist may or may not be notable, the style doesn't need its own article. NawlinWiki 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've perused other contemporary artist's entries, determined that Magnusson most definitely satisfies WP:BIO criteria and added an entry Norm Magnusson. I continue to think that funism deserves its own entry but will fold it into the artist's page if that's the consensus here. Andreammoss 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only been one book written about me and my art, it's a mini-monograph written by Jim Beasley and it sold out on Amazon.com. (http://artist-info.com/cgi-bin/search/user_search.cgi?action=display_artist&ID=21402)

The book's acquisition by Cranbrook University's Art school was noted online here: http://www.cranbrookart.edu/library/newacq/nwbk1102.htm

I'm listed in the Museum of Modern Art's (MOMA) research library, the DADABASE: http://library.moma.org/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Norm+Magnusson&Search_Code=GKEY%5E&SL=None&PID=m2-QHBEX3PzsgA2FDSWY7doXJgz7&SEQ=20070316095921&CNT=25&HIST=1

And the Princeton online guide to American Artists http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/america.htm Other stuff:

I get over a thousand hits on Google, largely due to my extensive exhibition history. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22norm+magnusson%22&btnG=Search) Google cites sources such as Artnet and Rhizome; numerous art galleries; museums such as New York's MOMA, The Springfield Museum of Art, The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, The Shore Institute of Contemporary Art, The Pember Museum; publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, Orion Magazine, The American Museum of Natural History's magazine The Sciences, France's Courier Cauchois and Paris Normandie, Germany's Der Vogel, Christchurch New Zealand's main newspaper The Press, Wildlife Art News, The Week, scads of local press; numerous blogs and online ink such as The Huffington Post; organizations such as The National Coalition Against Censorship and WNYC, The Franklin Furnace and Art in Context; television and documentary appearances both in the U.S. and abroad; and last but not least all the cow parade hits online.

My art is in the permanent collections of museums such as MOMA, The Springfield Art Museum, The Anchorage Museum of History and Art and others; corporate collections such as AmSouth Bank and Simmons U.S.A.; and private collections such as Kenneth Cole, Andy and Kate Spade and Laurence Rockefeller (dec.)

Upcoming exhibitions include "On this site stood," which is this year's Main Street Sculpture Project for The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum http://www.aldrichart.org/exhibitions/future.php, “Insight/Onsite : Site Specific Sculpture at SunyUlster," and "America's Seven Cardinal Virtues," a solo exhibition of paintings at the Van Brunt Gallery http://www.vanbruntgallery.com/magnusson.html.

I was honored a few years back with a Pollock-Krasner foundation grant in recognition of my work and am currently under consideration for a Guggenheim Fellowship, a NYFA grant, and an Art in the public realm grant.Andreammoss 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Art movements are certainly notable.

Comment. I don't think the issue is whether art movements are notable, but whether this one is notable. Freshacconci 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked each of the links he sent prior to posting them here. I certainly feel this artist deserves his own page but right now am more interested in the funism entry. Should I create a page on the artist? Should his one of his dealers create this page? Should he? Thank you for your polite discussion, I appreciate it. Andreammoss 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, his dealers definitely should not create the page. That would be a conflict of interest. If it's something that interests you, I would suggest you create it. If all the references and links are accurate (and I'm only saying "if" because I haven't looked at any of them myself), then the artist would appear to be notable in his own right. A very brief mention of "funism" could be included. This has happened before when an artist who was notable had an article on his/her art movement merged with the main artist page (see Guity Novin for an example of this). Freshacconci 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1983 I opened Bridgewater Fine Arts, one of the early galleries in the East Village. Sometime around 1988 a young artist, Norm Magnusson, came to me and explained that he and a number of friends were developing an art movement he described as "Fun-ism." The idea, creating art that was both relevant, and fun. Along the lines of Dada-ism, it poked fun at established orders, while making comment on environmental, social and political issues. My partner and I followed his work for a number of years and upon his return from a hiatus spent living and working in France, we decided he was finally fully developed and ready to show. In 1994, Bridgewater/Lustberg, now in Soho, began a seven year relationship, resulting in five one person exhibitions and inclusion in innumerable group exhibitions, always with an emphasis on "fun" and relevant commentary. Throughout his travels and showing in France, New Zealand, and throughout the United States, the term Fun-ism has been applied and re-asserted in both Museum text, catalogues, reviews and conversation. Not one of the Museums or collectors that have acquired his work, including MOMA, The Springfield Museum, The Anchorage Art Museum, Kate Spade or Laurence Rockefeller, once disputed the validity of his claim and use of the expression that his art was "Fun-ism" itself.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David rosser[edit]

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

Bumping this up from a speedy because notability is asserted. I'm not sure it's verifiable; a web search doesn't seem to turn up anything relevant for a skater by that name. (Please note when searching that there are several other people by that name who might be notable, including an actor and a photographer; this is not, as far as I can tell, any of those people.) If the article is kept, of course, it should be moved to the proper capitalization. Shimeru 19:13, 15 March 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 CSD G1. Naconkantari 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost on stenaline[edit]

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

Unrferenced story. The weird external link merely reinforces my view that this is an hoax. -- RHaworth 19:17, 15 March 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LDN Wrestling[edit]

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

Page was originally tagged speedy delete, with the following comment: "nonsense (see references to "passionate gay affair," etc.); no notability asserted; fancruft; if for some reason it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (and I think it does), then could somebody please put it up for Articles for Deletion (I can't do so because I don't have an accont and am not going to make one.) Thanks." I am listing this purely as a maintenance task from CSD. ZsinjTalk 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm tempted to agree with you, however the national TV coverage gives it some notability. On the other hand, perhaps given the state of the article, deleting it might be the better route so it can be created properly from scratch. EliminatorJR Talk 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm worried that it's full of false information, and it seems spammy too. We shouldn't keep that kind of article around in the hopes of improvement without knowing someone is working on it. Mangojuicetalk 14:48, 22 March 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 12:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Daniel Peters[edit]

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

unsourced, looks autobiographical, google search just comes up with wiki mirrors ccwaters 19:57, 15 March 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 12:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodless bullfighting[edit]

Bloodless bullfighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
See also: discussion of article in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 3.

Originally created back in June, this article was created as a self-promotional vanity page by User:Pebs96. It's unreferenced, and any Google hits that I've been able to find are either web pages created by User:Pebs96 or wikimirrors on the topic. The applicable information has been merged into Bullfighting, and when I redirected the source to Bullfighting per the GFDL, I was accused of vandalism. There was a lengthy discussion on the Conflict of INterest noticeboard here, where all of the claims to sources were laid out, and it finally came to light that there were no credible third party sources and that it would be better suited for AfD. As such, I've brought it here. Delete. fethers 20:20, 15 March 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 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shun tao hu[edit]

Shun tao hu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No case made for notability. Seems to be advertisment for a small cluster of clubs. Peter Rehse 06:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Veinor (talk to me) 20:23, 15 March 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 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONLANG[edit]

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

A mailing list that doesn't really seem to meet WP:ATT. I can't find any secondary published sources about this mailing list. Most of the Google hits are about constructed languages (which "conlang" is a common abbrev for) or are links to personal websites. As it is, I don't think this meets attribution criteria.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons within Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles[edit]

Comparisons within Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Synthesis of pre-existing material in a novel way is considered original research. — Whedonette (ping) 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be 100% OR and cannot possibly meet WP:ATT --Haemo 00:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it. It's useful information, it's accurate information. - pokemaniacbill

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University School of Law faculty[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Notable faculty already listed at Northwestern University School of Law#Notable faculty. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:15, 15 March 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. - Bobet 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rojor[edit]

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

Clearly a promo-piece for a British singer songwriter. It was uncategorized so I figured I'd just stubify it and find a few sources one might work with. But these sources don't seem to exist. 200 Ghits in English (most completely unrelated to the subject), with only this BBC piece [27] that even remotely qualifies as a reliable source. (In fact I even have my doubts about this one: see this page which says "to get your band on here, email tees@bbc.co.uk") Pascal.Tesson 21:15, 15 March 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 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Goldfarb[edit]

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

Article does not assert the notability of the subject. Besides being the current president of a midwestern University, how else is he notable? Is being University president make him inherently notable? Methinks not, but I welcome thoughts. Seinfreak37 21:25, 15 March 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 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Station Elementary School[edit]

Belmont Station Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet WP:N. This is a single non-notable elementary school within a large school division. OscarTheCat3 21:49, 15 March 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 Deleted (WP:SNOW), obvious hoax/joke. GarrettTalk 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Kart DS[edit]

Luigi Kart DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that Luigi Kart DS is an upcoming game in the Mario Kart series, as claimed. Almost certain hoax, couched in weasel words. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Currently fails Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability (software), and is unlikely to be salvagable. Dancter 22:04, 15 March 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 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Luck[edit]

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

Contested Prod (which, in the interests of full disclosure, I added just under 5 days ago). The subject of the article is a "rising motocross star", who appears from a Google search not to have actually risen far enough as to be notable. Some of the article seems to be a cut-and-paste job from a local newspaper or something along those lines, but the only sources I can find are those indicating the man's existence, although there was a fake link to a Wikiquote page on him at one point. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:14, 15 March 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/no consensus Opinion is certainly split. On the one hand, per trialsanderrors, there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed. The counterargument to this seems to be failure to meet WP:WEB. There are assertions made here that aren't well-countered that this is more than a mere mailing list, so WP:WEB may not apply. I put "keep" first because I think the keep arguments are the stronger here, but there certainly is not a consensus strong enough to delete this article. Mangojuicetalk 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Natural History of South Asia mailing list[edit]

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

closure of first AFD as delete was overturned for relisting at deletion review, in significant part due to a rewrite the article reportedly got during the first AFD. Procedural nomination on my part, I have no opinion. Original deletion nomination was "non notable MLs". GRBerry 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: The claim of notability isn't backed up. Per WP:WEB, Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.. So, mere mention of the mailing list or inclusion on a list of "things related to India" is not a justification of notability (most of the "references" to the mailing list seem to just mention this trivially). --Ragib 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has ANY academic publications made non-trivial mentions, discussions of this mailing list? Thousands of mailing lists are reported trivially in research papers -- those one-line mentions do not make them notable. The article claims it has been mentioned by academic journals - yet a look into those "references" show no more than a single line mention of the list, most likely under the "links" sections.
  • Several links/references in the article appear to be to fraudelent, pointing to nameless webservers rather than the organizations they are supposed to be. For example, a reference "Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA", points to a server hosted at 144.16.65.194 [28] (which is an Indian organisation), the reference 9 therefore points to this page rather than an actual website of the American Museum of Natural History. The page too seems to be a list of links from an email archive. --Ragib 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "claim" that the Journal "Indian Birds" cite it is also dubious ... my search of the reference (8) shows a single link "NAT-HISTORY INDIA: vivek@ee.princeton.edu" (sic) to the name ... without even a one-liner mention!! --Ragib 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "claim" that Ecological Society of America has cited it is also dubious ... my search of reference (10) shows two sentences in the news letter:
For those interested in the natural history of the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other neighboring countries) there is a subscription electronic bulletin board called, "NATHISTORY-INDIA". This bulletin board contains information about happenings, crises, news events, information requests, etc. It is a must list to be on if you are working on the Indian subcontinent. To subscribe send a request to vivek@EE.Princeton.EDU and he will sign you up.
Such trivial mentions are made to thousands and thousands of mailing lists, but that isn't really a "cited by journal", and hence the claim is dubious. --Ragib 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "claim" that IUCN has cited it (reference 12), is actually a single sentence on page 33 of a paper, without any non-trivial coverage.
  • The "claim" that the "Eaglenest Biodiversity Project" has cited it (reference 11) is actually a single sentence in the acknowledgments section of the report (that too to Mr. Vivek Tiwari, and NOT the mailing list). --Ragib 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances of this fake "citations"/"Evidence of notability", I request people who has been misled by this to reconsider their votes and check the claims themselves to decide whether this mailing list is at all as notable as it claims to be. Also, note to closing admin, please consider these fake or misquoted "references" that has affected some users into voting for "keep". Thanks. --Ragib 23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If searched on the internet in Google Search Engine etc. as "Natural History of South Asia", "NatHistory-India" or "nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU", it has ample amount of hits which also speaks well about this List's notability. Atulsnischal 06:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a proof of notability, as even my email address or an alumni mailing list I maintain gets a lot of hits. --Ragib 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, again, I myself get 58,000+ hits in google. By this argument, I am more notable than this list!!! The very low number of hits actually goes against the claim of notability ... :) --Ragib 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leading to the logical solution of giving Mr. Ragib his own wikipedia page :) Bakaman 23:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G has already said much of what I'd like to say in response to your accusations of systemic bias, subjective decisions and "selective amnesia". About your arguments for notability of the list, "other species discoveries" were not first announced at the list -- they are merely forwarded announcements ([37] is a forwarded doc that was originally published Magnolia Press; [38] lists all binary attachments, only two of which are announcements of discoveries, and both are forwarded press releases). And I couldn't find any sources for "a lot of legislation happening through this network". As about LKML, if you feel it's non-notable, please nominate it again for AfD. Unlike Windows/Solaris/Mac OS, the Linux kernel development doesn't take place in a company office -- LKML is the place for it. The book I'm talking about is Linux Kernel Development (ISBN 978-0672327209) by Robert Love; the chapter is Chapter 20. In case you find the Wired magazine article questionable, here are the original posts by Alan Cox[39] and Linux Torvalds[40]. And I would like to say for the fourth time, I am not "belittling" the list -- I appreciate the work being done here, but I don't think it deserves an article of its own on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 05:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following 2 Comments from Shyamal and me are copied by me here from personal communication from our Talk page for record Atulsnischal 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atul, from what I can see the article on nathistory India cannot possibly ever make for encyclopaedic content. However there is a way to incorporate and highlight the role of the group and the ideal place would be to place it within the History of conservation in India article as a section on the contribution of the Internet era. Hope this is fine with you. Cheers. Shyamal 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shyamal, You are welcome to change your Vote :), but it is only one vote, there is no need to panic, you might want to save a work copy of the article though in case it is deleted and hidden again. As for me I believe it is encyclopedic, I will like the article to stay as it is. But you have a very very good point, you can also always do what you propose above, great and a fitting idea in itself. So I suggest NO Delete And Merge, Keep the article as it is, yet have a section on the contribution of the list in other major conservation articles on India and elsewhere. Exactly as you say it should be also mentioned in the Contributions of the Internet Era to the Natural History and the Conservation of the region. As for me I firmly believe it is encyclopedic in itself to have a article on this South Asian Natural History Network. Thanks for your input Atulsnischal 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if it could pass notability criteria too. According to your definition of notability, I get 75,300 points for Notability. utcursch | talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you haven't given a reason for deletion. Trebor 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the "number of noteworthy predictions"? There is only one prediction, which is not confirmed. utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Mailing lists of this sort are very important in the academic world generally. All small groups of scholars use them, and they have ben as important means of scientific communication since Usenet days. The size of a particular list is irrelevant--what is necessary is that the list be notable in its own field. Its own field is the study of the subject it covers. What is necessary is that it be a principle method of communication for the specialists in the subject.
  2. This is demonstrated by the use made of it, and the references made to it.
  3. It is time for WP to recognize the conventions of the medium which is the substrate for its own existence. The people who work find references to the (virtual) places at which they want to work on the web, They do not find them in printed books or journals; they do not even find them in on-line journals. They learn about them from their use by other comparable web places. The distinctive characteristics of most of these places is that their editorial control is relatively weak but not non-existent. Usually it's there. almost all serious mailing lists have a moderator (In this instance it's Vivek Tiwari. Most are published from a major academic institution. In this case it's Princeton. Usually the good one have established their reputation with time. This one has been going for 12 years now.
  4. How do we judge whether they should have articles on WP? The same basic way as anything else, RSs, the presence of encyclopedic content, and some indicators of importance. The sort of indicators we use for other media are such things as number of books an author has published and where he has published them, number of recordings a musician has produced, and so on. We look for number of users--considering the size of the subject, the almost 1000 members is very respectable. We look for the importance of contributions to it (some have been demonstrated). We look for references and recommendations to it in other sources (some have been demonstrated). DGG 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many lists with size over 1000. And if this list is "very important in the academic world", where are the sources for the same? The "importance of contributions" to the list? One unconfirmed prediction first posted to the list? Or one discovery of new species announced on the list? And the "references and recommendations" in other sources? A mention among many mailing lists in "Indian Birds", or a mention in "List of India-related websites" by an individual? Other references merely mention the list once "In a discussion on the Internet, members of the NATHISTORY mailing list, set up to discuss India's eco-diversity and wealth, stressed that this decision would protect..."[42], "On the listserve nathistory-india, at least a couple of dozen people wrote against the bill"[43] etc. utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added details above showing this is not "notable" except for a few one-liners (and some of the claims are not really what they are claimed to be!). If real, non-trivial references are made, then the list may be notable, but such one liners (or listing someone with an email address matching the site) don't make the list notable in any way, as you suggested. --Ragib 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per T&E? Same question: Where are the "number of noteworthy predictions"? utcursch | talk 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Natural History of South Asia is an important subject. But the discussion here is about "Natural History of South Asia mailing list". How does it meet "our criteria for insertion", simply because it "can be worked in as the means for communicating ideas on the Natural History of South Asia"? utcursch | talk 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If given a chance, the subject is encyclopedic because it is helping define a branch of knowledge that, although of primary relevenace to the academic community, is relevant to the rest of us in the contect of an encyclopedia. Both the mailing list and its subject are relevant and noteworthy. Bluestripe 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up at WP:WEB Blue. Cheers Lethaniol 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Shyamal has suggested, the article content can be incorporated in a new article (probably Natural History of South Asia). Just because a mailing list is discussing an important subject, it doesn't become notable enough to deserve an article. utcursch | talk 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following three comments have been copied and posted from my talk page as most part of them deals with this debate and are my answer to Bluestripe. Thanks Atulsnischal 13:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two things. First, I would feel more comfortable if you maintained a user page. The idea of the red link to nowhere is disconcerting. Second, it is the Natural History of South Asia that is encyclopedic; not the mailing list addressing same. The mailing list might be included in a broader article that deals with the Natural History of South Asia. Bluestripe 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like you suggested, I wrote a few lines on my user page, instead of leaving it blank or as a redlink, when you get time can you kindly help me Archive my talk page, please do it anytime you get time. Thanks. As for the mailing list I firmly think it is a pioneering example from the region and is hugely notable and hence Encyclopedic :-) Atulsnischal 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I learned about archiving by visiting User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto. Hope this helps. Good luck with your review. Remember, you catch more bees with honey. Bluestripe 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atulsnischal has been attracting a lot of users to this page[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]; I don't know whether to call this canvassing or not -- I am not sure about the criteria for choosing talk pages. utcursch | talk 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time Atulnishchal has done this. During the last Afd for this article, he spammed/canvassed many pages as well, and outright demanded at various project/talk pages that other users vote "keep". I notice that he is doing the same for this AFD. --Ragib 15:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, just found these people seemed to know the rules for discussing articles for deletion, so just wanted their view too, just picked a few randomly from deletion review page close to first deletion review for this article as utcursch is trying to force a bit too much of his opinion here, his attempts to get this article deleted is turning out to be a personal vendetta to win this debate and Ragib and Aditya Kabir seem to be pals, I have already mentioned in first deletion review that I have a problem with Ragib he has been systematically following the articles I have worked on and undoing changes. Thanks Atulsnischal 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Personal vendetta"? I don't think we've ever crossed ways before this deletion debate. And no, User:Ragib and Aditya are not my pals. In fact, I remember encountering Ragib at only three places: Wikipedia talk:Vernacular scripts (where we had opposite opinions), this debate and WP:INB. And I've never encountered Aditya before this debate. And for the fifth time, I don't have any hatred for this list -- I just don't find it notable enough for a separate article. You might be interested in going through WP:NPA. utcursch | talk 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, let me rephrase for all, utcursch wants to come across as a great CowBoy macho WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR, cruising on on his Horse and winning debates by the thousands. No body said you were friends with anybody though. What I said was User:Ragib is friends with Aditya both have given shallow strong deletion votes, both have been collaborating before. As for utcursch there are better things to do then winning debates to become and retain WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR status, "Personal vendetta"? YES to win this debate, you have been going on and on in the first deletion review also, I requested before too to let others participate but your ego is too much, cowboy on a horse type macho EGOAtulsnischal 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, Atul. You became quite pissed off with me when I pointed out your canvassing and attempts of vote-stacking in the first AFD. Then you started personal attacks against anyone who votes against you! Please prove that I have asked anyone to vote here, before commenting on whether I'm bringing "pals" here. You, on the other hand, have been active in canvassing in favorable places to stack votes.
As for my removal of huge amounts of spam from some articles you have edited, you are free to report that to WP:ANB. I have failed to make you understand that adding 30 external links to a few-paragraphs article is a bad approach, so someone else may have better success there. --Ragib 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atul, all I can say is that you seriously need to read WP:NPA. My involvement in this debate is result of its listing at WP:DSI, and nothing else. utcursch | talk 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the DRV, so a notification of a follow-up discussion is not unusual and accepted canvassing. I haven't checked if only one group of DRV participants was canvassed, and if, the others should be informed as well. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, many of the keep votes have been solicited by Atulsnischal (talk · contribs), as seen by the messages left on the talk pages of the users. This sort of canvassing is just a way to subvert the afd. --Ragib 06:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I have explained myself above already. Also please reread canvassing, Thankyou Atulsnischal 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Hi Ragib you like to give me many friendly advices right, here is one for you as per WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a battleground" for taking out personal grudges against people. Hope to remain friends with you :) Atulsnischal 13:03, 21 March 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 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris Games[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are games created by Osiris Games and a baby company (Myrtilus Games) of them:

Chart Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bestseller (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Myrtilus Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Insider Tabloid Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’ve done a Google search for Osiris Games and it reveals 655 results [56], for a notable game company that doesn’t seem enough. Further more, the article lacks sources. I can’t find many reliable sources for them. The games Chart Wars and Bestseller don’t seem notable, there’s big questions over their notability as well. The main Osiris Games article is created by Damien Russell, which to quote the article is one of the four members Osiris Games so it also looks like vanity. The other creators of the articles also have very little edits.

Myrtilus Games is the baby company of Osiris Games so god knows how small they are if Osiris Games has only has four members and that seems to be the parent company.

Myrtilus Games also has a page about it’s game Insider Tabloid Magazine, which also seems none notable.

Due these serious questions about notability, probable vanity and lack of independent sources, I am bring this up for AFD. Based on the lack of evidence I’ve found, my vote is delete. Englishrose 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep I disagree.. of cause. Osiris Games and Myrtilus Games (baby company?) are two of the fastest growing freeware gaming companies on the web. The website (especially Osiris Games) registers hundreds of hits per day, and if the article's werent being looked over; why is everyone editing 'Bestseller'? If you have Bestseller, you need the Osiris Games, and Myrtilus Games articles. Chart Wars is also THE biggest freeware music simulation game on the internet. As for Insider; if you feel you must, fine.. but I still think there is nothing wrong with any of those articles and I would like them all to stay.Damien Russell 04:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a cursory look for any verifiable sources and found none that were reliable. Damien Russell, despite the conflict of interest, I'd suggest that your best bet to keep these articles up is to source independant, third party coverage in major news outlets. Staff reviews by places like IGN, Gamespot, 1UP.com, and other major gaming sites would help immensely as well. If sources exist, source the article. If they don't the article fails verification, probably has notability issues, and according to those two policies must be deleted. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reviews from such places as IGN, Gamespot or 1UP.com because the games are not published to such a broad audience. They are indie games, and Osiris Games and Myrtilus Games are indie developers. Please see the websites for more information, but other than that, the site is mentioned and linked on other sites (freeware gaming sites, and download.com of cause) - but no major review sites (because they only review major releases). Look, fine; if you want to remove these articles from wikipedia then go right ahead, but you better be willing to remove every other indie-developer's page on wiki as well. I mean look at the links up for removal; all Osiris Games related articles.. why are these up for removal when theres a whole list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_independent_game_developers, that are happily being accepted? Damien Russell 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .. This is an indie company. The articles have been cleaned up remarkably since they were first introduced and people are continually trying to update it when new attributable sources are available. There is an interest in the game, and those who are wishing to learn more about it, and the companies, would benefit from having these articles on Wikipedia. To say that the fact that the articles were created by people who haven't had a long history of edits on Wikipedia is not only unfair, but a very slippery slope to start down. Subjecting your decision to a "Google" search and saying that Chart Wars nor Bestseller don't seem notable indicates your obvious lack of knowledge in these genre of games and their popularity. Perhaps maybe you should nominate your "Furniture (band)" article for deletion. I see no sources on there and I certainly haven't heard of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secandido (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. - Bobet 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim and Cindie Travis[edit]

Tim and Cindie Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. -- Longhair\talk 23:02, 15 March 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. This debate is hard to interpret, some rewriting took place that changed the issue. There aren't enough delete comments to overbalance the keep comments that mention the real notability claim of the article. A fresh AfD listing would probably be appropriate, but let's give it at least a couple of weeks. Mangojuicetalk 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmen hunters[edit]

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

Delete as nonsense. User:ScottS insists on removing ((db-nonsense)) tags, so I now raise the matter here on Afd. --Xdamrtalk 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there has been a substantial tidying-up of the article within the past 24h, I think the G1 speedy deletion (as nonsense) is now inapplicable. There certainly seems to be a genuine topic behind this, although the article was pretty meaningless at the time of nomination. Given that we now have a reasonably coherent article, it all boils down to one question—is the subject notable? I will therefore leave this nomination open so that this issue may be settled.
Xdamrtalk 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please keep. I do not understand why, this is continued to be tagged. Please discuss.


Please do not delete.

Several people, as I believe directed by the original deletion notice, have voiced their desire to see the article remain. They've made their voices known here: [58]. Yes, it's a kind of stand-in article currently, but HUNTERS fans are now on the way to update/expand/fix the entry. Please do not delete. Thanks

Answer to address Haemo's contention that HUNTERS is no more than a school project, here is the bio/background of the show/makers: Zanzibar19 BioZanzibar19
Still does not meet WP:A or WP:RS, and totally fails WP:NOTE. Also, abusing the Speedy Keep terminology does a disservice to everyone involved. --Haemo 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do aplogize if I have abused the terms. I'm trying to learn as I go. Zanzibar19

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

GoFish.com, Veoh.com, StupidVideos.com, Grouper.com Zanzibar19

Answer to address CosmicPenguin's questions on Ryan Neisz' credits, here is a page from Yahoo TV's crew credits page, which outlines some of his credits. As for accomplishments in the world of online entertainment, I'd again point questioners (as I believe they are honest and earnest in asking these questions) to this episode of VIRAL.Zanzibar19
Comment - please read the standards under WP:WEB. None of these "sources" come even remotely close to meeting this. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes - it's very hard to read this AFD like this. --Haemo 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument. --Haemo 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Seriously, sign your posts. And you have a serious WP:COI commenting on this AFD, since you appear to be involved in this project. Unless your username is simply a coincidence, which I doubt. --Haemo 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Haemeo: I'm sorry if I've not IDed myself correctly per WP guidelines. This is my first serious exposure to being a part of a WP article, and I'm unfamiliar and trying to learn quickly as I go. I believe with this re-edit I've gone back and signed the answers I've provided today. As to the forum mention, I put that up today when one of our fans stated they had created a WP entry and I saw it was flagged for deletion. I'm sorry if this is against a WP guideline. It thought the WP community simply weren't familiar with us, and thought those interested in having a WP entry should let their voices be heard. I apologize if this is against a WP policy as you point out.

I am trying to abide by WP practices/guidelines (even while trying to get work done today. lol) which is why I have not edited the article itself or corrected inaccuracies within it. Zanzibar19 I'm sorry, I don't yet know how to time-stamp my signing.

  • Comment You can sign your posts by simply putting 4 tildes at the end of them. I highly recommend that you read WP:AFD WP:N, WP:WEB and other relevant Wikipedia policy guidelines. It'll make this process smoother for everyone involved.Chunky Rice 03:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will do Chunky. Thank you for your aide. Zanzibar19 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably my last comment, as I don't want to do anything to damage/enrage/tweak the WP community or push unduely to have a SNOWMEN HUNTERS article if it doesn't meet the criteria. Per Haemero, Chunky's and other's questions per WP:N and WP:WEB, I believe these conditions are met primarily by VIRAL and to a minor extent here, both independent of Zanzibar19 Bio. Other independent links can be found above. On a final note, I'd ask the judge of this discussion with whatever grace I have not to have the legitimate efforts and work of our fans be tainted by whatever way I may have mishandled this discussion. As a former journalist (don't laugh now) I understand the need/value of independent information (which is why it would have been a kick to have a WP entry if it plays out like that) rational discussion and the difference between a popularity contest and a reasoned evaluation. I hope the sources I provided clarify that, and ask that my missteps (admitted) be seen in these lights. Thanks everyone. (And yes, I understand the oddness of outlining this back and forth in light of how ridiculous the show at issue is). Zanzibar19 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First let me state that a cursory viewing of the forum associated with the production company Zanzibar19 will show that one of the moderators of that forum has the same username as the one I use here. That is because we are one and the same person. I do not have any other association with that company and am only a moderator because of my knowledge of running a forum. When my expertise became known to the owners of the company and their production schedule would not permit an active involvement by either of them in the running of the forum I volunteered to help out and moderate. My total involvement as a moderator is to delete offensive posts i.e. spam, porn. I recieve no compensation for this service and therefore there should be no conflict of interest. If you beleive there is please contact me and explain why you believe so.

Having said that, I would like to add to the discussion. I agree with James Love's comment above that this entry is about a hit cult video and as such deserves to be included here. There is a real need to stay abreast of current fast paced changes in the entertainment industry. Viral videos have an ever expanding presence in the marketplace on the internet as evidenced by Google's purchase of YouTube. This article is about one of the first hit shows on that medium and as such will provide some historical insight into the phenomenon for future researchers. In the past two days the article has been vastly refined and will no doubt improve as more research on the subject is done. If there are any improvements/refinements that should be made in the article I would welcome the input as this is the first one I've worked on. steveoutdoorrec 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Salseiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Yes, the initial posting raised red flags on whether this should be included because insufficient information was provided. I've added some stuff for them and gotten folks to add some of the necessary references to merit inclusion. It's obvious that they have a following. I enjoy their irreverent humour on youtube and given the awards, others do too. They are not a flash in the pan since they are working on their third season, so let's get over the initial submission mistakes and move on. jamesarthurlove 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The thing is, even if we accept all that as given, it still fails WP:N.Chunky Rice 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How nice of you to admit that the topic under consideration is not notable. If it's not notable under the current guidelines, then it's not notable. If you want to get the guidelines changed, this is not the place to do it - the aforementioned discussion page is. Unless you're able to meet guidelines under WP:WEB/WP:NOTE, your article should be deleted - since you admit you cannot, I don't know what more there is to say. --Haemo 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet you seemed to have been able to miss the point of my post completely. No where did I “admit that the topic under consideration is not notable.” My point is that there are other articles on similar subjects that did not have to pass through a gauntlet to be accepted. Of course I will be making an argument on the notoriety discussion page on that subject. Here I am just pointing out that while the initial posting on the Snowmen Hunters was simplistic it was there to start the process of inserting a full-blown article. Over the last 48 hours much has been done to flesh the article out to meet the standards set and I’m sure that more information will be included as the show grows and matures. To stop its inclusion because some people seem to refuse to check out the supporting interviews and written articles is unconscionable. Yes, there is a written article in the Chico News and Review in case you were wondering.steveoutdoorrec 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
o Also please refer to my post of 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) where I stated, “It is possible for something, a new sport, viral video or other youth oriented phenomenon, to become notable without any hard copy articles being written about them.” My point being that in this fast paced age of the internet there are other ways for a subject to become “notable” then being seen in the print medium that is rooted in the 19th century. To ignore this, what many believe to be, alternative process of becoming notable would be wrong.
o At this time I would like to also address CosmicPenguin’s post of 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) and his assertion that “Minor celebrities on YouTube is a bit of a reach, 691,551 all time views (for their "most popular" video) is a blip in the YouTube world.” What he chose to ignore, or just did not know, is that Snowmen Hunters is also on many more websites such as: ifilm, gofish, videobomb, vsocial, multiply, clipshack, tagged, vidilife, vsocial, and flukiest to name only a few to be found here. This list does not take into account the many facebook and myspace accounts of fans that have one or more of their videos embedded there by the owners of those pages who want to share them with their friends. Using the raw number on a counter of one website is not a suitable way to judge how many people may have seen one particular video. Every viewing on each website may generate many more viewings as a particular video is passed around by email or shared on any one of the many myspace type websites. That is why they are called viral videos and can create notoriety in a new way.steveoutdoorrec 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Wikipedia doesn't require written sources. Online ones will do. Surely a notable viral video would generate verifiable, reputable, secondary online sources? EliminatorJR Talk 00:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That’s my point. Some here have said that the subject is not “notable” due to there being no verifiable secondary sources. No amount of links to interviews and online, as well as one off line, article seems to satisfy them. It would look to an outsider as though they had looked at the original post and none of the refinements. steveoutdoorrec 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there we are then - it's up to you to add those sources to the article in order for it to be kept. But note that just giving a list of websites where the video can be seen is not enough - see here. EliminatorJR Talk 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Ok, I think I see what you are saying, but just to make sure I understand correctly; does what you’re saying apply to the article on Snowmen Hunters under discussion in these two instances as secondary sources? Or should some change be made to how the sources are listed to make them more creditable? Any direction would be appreciated as this is my first foray into Wikipedia.
 Under the heading News Articles I’ve placed a link at the bottom of the article to Days of Lore by By Mark Lore where Mr. Lore states, “Among the 3,000 entries came one from former CN&R film critic Chris Smith. The cool thing is Smith was informed this week that his was chosen as one of the 20 finalists (among them a video from Andy Dick), which will now go to a popular vote with the chance of winning $50,000 to make his own pilot. Smith filmed the video, entitled Snowmen Hunters, with his cousin Ryan Neisz outside of Lassen Park as part of a series in March of this year. The premise focuses on a couple of yokels named Sherman and Everett (played by Neisz and Smith, respectively) who have a disdain for men with eyes of coal, carrot noses and stick "appendages." It seems Everett has never been the same since he caught his wife plowing the snow. It's pretty damn funny, too.”
 Under the heading Interviews I’ve placed a link to the popular online magazine Viral: Episode Nine in which one of the reporters interviews the creators of Snowmen Hunters and talks about the upcoming season.steveoutdoorrec 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Here for the WP definition of primary and secondary sources. EliminatorJR Talk 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that we've covered everything that is needed to have the article included here. One development that occurred today is that the Snowmen Hunters videos have been nominated by YouTube as one of the Top Ten video series for 2006. With all the video series that were uploaded in 2006 to be in the top ten is the definition of notoriety. Case settled IMHO steveoutdoorrec 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. You've got one trivial mention in a paper. The interview is better, but it doesn't appear that the source qualifies as reliable. And the award you're talking about doesn't appear to be a significant award. It's not being awarded by YouTube, from what I can tell. It's just a user driven thing.Chunky Rice 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links speak for themselves:
Washington Post - YouTube Awards
BBC - YouTube Awards
CBS News - YouTube Awards
YouTube Home Page - Note button for the official "YouTube 2006 Video Awards. Vote for the 2006 Winners!" contest at the mid-right of the page.
YouTube 2006 Awards - Direct Link
These YouTube awards are official. Believe me, I understand if people don't enjoy/like/understand/get SNOWMEN HUNTERS, but it seems the notability portion of this discussion is settled. If some "just don't like" SNOWMEN HUNTERS, fine, but I'm not sure that's any more germane than the "I like it" reasoning so correctly excluded by Haemo above. If 'I like it' doesn't apply, neither can 'I don't like it.'
Maybe those asking for the inclusion of SNOWMEN HUNTERS were simply 5 days premature in advocating an article in WP. I don't concede this, but hypothetically let's say until yesterday the deleters on balance were right. The facts have shifted significantly just in the last 12 hours. A weekly online video show nominated by the largest online video site in history is by definition noteworthy. With this latest development, I think it's fair to say HUNTERS should be included in Wikipedia, along with other 2006 YouTube Award nominees for best series like WILL IT BLEND, ASK A NINJA, LONELYGIRL15 and CHAD VADER, all of which have WP entries.
Is this fair/honest/in the WP sprit/mission? I understand the nerves/questioning/horror given the original state of this article, but now it seems all the legitimate arguments for deletion have been answered fairly and fully. And yes, I'm an interested party as expressed above, but I don't believe that undercuts the reality before us. Whatever is decided, I thank everyone involved in this discussion, even though it's made me cry like a baby at times (We can joke here, right? I mean, if I were joking. Because in reality I cried puppy tears. It was thoroughly embarrassing). Zanzibar19 04:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is is just me, or was Snowmen hunters mentioned absolutely nowhere in those links? Ok, so you've proven that the YouTube awards exist, but you still have not proven notability, since as far as I can tell, the show has not won a YouTube award. This is getting ridiculous. Motion to close as delete per WP:SNOW. Leuko 04:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leuko, if you check the YouTube 2006 Awards Direct link, check the BEST SERIES link as indicated above, HUNTERS is there with the other 9 shows nominated. I've more than simply proven the awards exist, but proven HUNTERS was nominated. If you want to say it's only significant if HUNTERS wins (which won't be announced for a week) I'd respectfully submit the definition of notability you offer is remarkably tortured. By any normal notability standard, this more than qualifies. As for HUNTERS not being mentioned in the CBS/BBC/Post links above, those stories were written this moring based off a YouTube press release announcing the awards and before the nominations were revealed. The links were provided here to answer Chunky's questioning of the awards legitimacy. Just how is it that the awards are legitimate, the articles on the awards are legitimate, but those nominated are not? Didn't Xdamr, who opened this discussion, amend his comments to say notability was the only question remaining? If you honestly don't believe this qualifies, okay, but it seems a fair reading of all the notability arguments and links above run counter to your WP:SNOW proposal and the events of today. Zanzibar19 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Winning a significant independent award is certainly grounds for notability under WP:WEB. Being nominated isn't. It looks like Snowman Hunters might be on the brink, but it's not there yet.Chunky Rice 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Also, this isn't personal. It just doesn't seem to meet the notability standards laid out in Wikipedia policy. Believe me that I've argued for deletion of stuff I really liked, so it's not about that. If it is as you say, and the page gets deleted, just come back when the show has won an award or gotten some media attention and ask for it to be restored.Chunky Rice 05:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Chunky for clarifying. I didn't mean to imply you specifically were making this personal. I was trying to address what seemed to be the general notion that HUNTERS advocates were simply relying on the 'I like it.' It seems my writing of that came across more muddied than I'd intended. ('Say, how muddy did you intend...')Since you seem to be taking this fairly seriously and weighing it with a fair mind, I have to ask, does nomination really denote no notability? It would seem to me, at a certain level, even a nomination denotes significant notability. If this awards contest was from ObscureVideoSite.com, I'd understand. But this is YouTube, THE premiere online video site of the Web 2.0 era, and this is their first annual awards. Specifically, how does that not qualify as noteworthy?Zanzibar19 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like to address Chucky's assertion that the interview on Veho is from a source that, in his words, “doesn't appear that the source qualifies as reliable.” By using a popular internet thing called Google (you may have heard of them) to do a search for Veoh Networks, Inc, the owners of the program in which the interview was done, the second hit in the search produces a press release with the title, “Time Warner, Michael Eisner And Spark Capital Join Shelter Capital To Complete $12.5 Million Strategic Series B Investment In Veoh Networks.” There seems to be a lot of unknown people throwing some serious money into this unreliable source. How did I ever find this out you may ask? I just looked at the bottom of the screen where the interview was, right after Copyright 2007 and there it was.
I'd like to think it's not personal but on your profile page your stated "goal is to source and clean up geek articles (board games, comics, etc.)." When I look up geek the first line is, "A geek is an individual who is fascinated by knowledge and imagination, usually electronic or virtual in nature." If so count me as one because I too am facinated by knowledge and imagination. With them we wouldn't be having this descussion because there would be no online much less "a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project" steveoutdoorrec 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. I like to improve geek-hobby articles so that they meet Wikipedia standards. And from that, you've concluded that I have some sort of personal vendetta against this article?
You know, I've tried to be helpful and bother to actually explain why I was voting the way I was voting, and you respond by insulting me and questioning my character? I don't need that. My vote stands at delete and I'm done with this.Chunky Rice 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not an asshole, I'll still tell you that if this AFD resolves in the article getting deleted, you should seek a deletion review with the argument that significant improvements were made to the article after the debate began and that it should be relisted so that all voters can have a chance to consider the new information. They haven't swayed me, but others may have different opinions.Chunky Rice 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry if I have offended you Chucky. Please forgive me as it was not my intention, truly. As I look back at my post I see that I worded it badly. The trouble with text is that it doesn't portray the emotions behind the words. With your permission I'd like to ask for the record that we forget that part and move on.
My point in my first paragraph still stands that the interview was from a reliable source.
Thank you for the help in spurring us on to refine the article and for the suggested recourse if it is deleted. I would hope that all the voters would look at the article one last time before voting to see where it was when deletion was suggested and where it is at this point in time. They may then see that signigicant improvements were made in a very short time. Chucky without your input the article would not be in the shape it is in. For that I thank you. steveoutdoorrec 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I would also like to thank you Chunky Rice, and everyone else who have participated in this exchange. I'm not sure how it will come out, but I'm satisfied that between Haemo's, Chunky's and the other persistant posters on the delete side of this, along with the entries from the HUNTERS supporters like steveoutdoorrec and a few of my own entries, this question has been thoroughly examined. I'd like to offer my sincere thanks, and a hope that the things said in the heat of argument didn't sting unduely. Seems like some might, and that's too bad. I apologize for whatever part I've played in that. Suggesting another course of action was a stand-up thing for you to do Chunky, and I really do appreciate it.
All that said, I think it's almost time to call this. I did just get interviwed for tonight's KHSL Channel 12 local news, but we'll see if that runs tonight. I can't remember just how TV interviews figure into this. Who knows. There may be another ream of links in a week or so. Thanks everyone. Zanzibar19 20:38, 20 March 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 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Tycoon 2: Farms are Wild[edit]

Zoo Tycoon 2: Farms are Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely a hoax; there are no sources cited and 0 ghits with that title in it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:54, 15 March 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. Ezeu 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Village Elementary School[edit]

Park Village Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. No verifiable sources that make this particular elementary school stand out. It had already been redirected to the school district article (Poway Unified School District} as most non-notable elementary school articles are, but User:The Phoenix Enforcer keeps removing the redirect, then leaving a talk page message saying "Hah!" on my talk page. I have decided to take it here rather than get into a revert war with him. —Ocatecir Talk 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the page, I would like to leave something I have created.The Phoenix Enforcer 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that almost every school has won an award from time to time. I don't think this satisfies the threshold for notability (No independent source provided for this anyway). —Ocatecir Talk 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but according to Blue Ribbon Schools Program, it has received a very prestigious award. Its listed on the school website and I don't think a city government would lie about something like that, it could be considered illegal false advertisement if it was untrue. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - so the School is in the top 4%; that seems notable to me. We are in danger of applying higher standards to schools, that are public institutions and have a permanence, than to the thousands of article on transient poupular culture - virtually every commercial CD has an article, many of which are little more than a track listing, take New Erections for example. Which article enhances WP the more? TerriersFan 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Blue Ribbon Award now cited by U.S. Department of Education and Distinguished School Award by California Department of Education. TerriersFan 02:57, 16 March 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