The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — vandalism. — ERcheck (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog: In Cyberchase[edit]

Seems to be a hoax from our good friend Chucaluca. WhisperToMe 17:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Hoax. —Omfg 18:08, 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Greatest common divisor of two polynomials[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the article fails WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. the cited vedic methods and books propageted by the article have no mathematical relevance. the topic is covered in the articles Greatest common divisor and Euclidean algorithm. if necessary serious information can be added to these articles

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Cube affiliates[edit]

The entire thing is unencyclopedic and has no sources. A google test (using various wordings of the title) revealed nothing. Seems to just be fancruft Ted87 20:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR, unsourced. — ERcheck (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's encyclopedic about a list of people who have met Ice Cube? Wavy G 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Already working on List of people who have met Ice Cube by date of birth ;-) --Action Jackson IV 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. As above. |?|3lit3man 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ronbo76 16:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, WP:NN, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Action Jackson IV 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any of teh mentioned connections would more properly belong in other article if they were of signifigance. This article comes off more as a trivia collection. -- Whpq 19:20, 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, hoax. --SB | T 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunther Pierre[edit]

A so-called Yu-Gi-Oh! GX character who is not real... WhisperToMe 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC) *Keep It does seem to be a character on the programme, seems to meet WP:FICTION.Telly addict 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And the evidence is... where? THERE IS NO PAGE STATING THIS! And if you look at the creator, who is known for creating hoaxes. Well, this should be 2+2. Please, discount Tellyaddict's vote until further notice. WhisperToMe 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot say to discount my vote, this is AfD, it is where wikipedians give their opinion on articles, no matter how much you disagree with someones opinion you cannot discount it unless in the most extreme circumstances. Regards - Telly addict 17:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any pages about this character and I admit that I was wrong but you did not have to speak in such an uncivil manner about it by capitalising your text. Telly addict 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's just a hoax. —Omfg 17:59, 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. - Daniel Bryant 08:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comedian Hypnotist The Incredible BORIS[edit]

Strong Delete: Ludicrous Vanity. Delete! Delete! Delete!--Jack Cox 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - complete vanity page, no content. --Haemo 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per Vanity page, there is no content. Daniel5127 | Talk 02:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Vanity. Interlingua ^{talk email} 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete assertions of notability are ludicrous. A7 this thing. --NMChico24 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Via Google I found a couple of very small blurbs in local free newspapers about his gigs (basically saying where he would be) but nothing at all that would confirm he was on all those TV shows that are claimed in the WP article and on his site. LastChanceToBe 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' -- Vanity page. Xdenizen 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vanity hoax ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - vanispamcruftisement. So tagged. MER-C 05:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Can't believe it's lasted this long. Realkyhick 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related Spam: The same editor who made this article has also put advertisements for our friend BORIS at User_talk:Comedywood and to a lesser extent User:Comedywood -- LastChanceToBe 06:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed the user page, it's on my list of myspace userpages to watch and prod at a later date. MER-C 06:49, 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.--Wizardman 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Handsome Man[edit]

Non-notable and unreferenced neologism. At best, redirect/merge to Big Beautiful Woman. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:NOT. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 01:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference. Hardly a neologism. Why don't we just redirect male to female while we are at it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of keeping it. Most of it is covered in the other article. It also seems to be OR --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete neologism, entirely unreferenced ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Looks like somethong someone made up. At best, a neologism. Realkyhick 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not exactly a neologism - but it's not worthy of its own article either. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly a neologism, in that it is a construct of recognised English words. But it is an artificial, constructed phrase with no wide-spread usage in reality. Certainly not encyclopedic, any more than any other phrase of two adjectives and one noun would be.--Anthony.bradbury 11:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for it, and there's no sources to boot. Gan fon 13:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe redirect to fat bastard :o) Guy (Help!) 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and no refs so failing WP:V and violaes WP:NEO.Telly addict 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because there shouldn't be an article. Because this shouldn't be the article as it is unreferenced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely a stub, let alone encyclopedic ZBrannigan 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No sources with assertion that approaches WP:OR. Ronbo76 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is deleted, Redirect to Fat admirer perhaps? FiggyBee 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect Delete stub of course. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and in my view not really a place for such articles although these other fat fetish articles seem to prove otherwise. I would suggest redirecting to the page suggested if we must have such a page for fat fetishism. However I see the article Big Beautiful Woman exists and is quite valid. I say unless the article is expanded a bit and professional valid sources given just redirect. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 09:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 09:53, 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 keep (due to the addition of references that assert notability, not because of the "all schools are notable" argument) and discuss any possible renaming on the article talk page. Grand master ka 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metea Valley High School[edit]

This article is for a school that had not been built yet, there are no refs or claim to notability killing sparrows 00:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the school appears to be in the detailed planning stages, and all high schools are notable, IMHO. Noroton 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that is not polciy or guideline, so it doesn't matter. I could say that no soccer articles are notable, but that wouldn't be good enought to delete them. TJ Spyke 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously the school has not had MUCH history yet - but if you read through the links provided in the article and in the parent Indian Prairie School District 204‎ article, you'll see that the planning and acquisition of land has already been highly contentious. It took two ballot attempts on the part of the district to be allowed by its taxpayers to float the construction bonds for buying the land and starting construction. The district is still in an ongoing dispute with the lawyers representing the trusts of what's called the Brach-Brodie property; the former refers to the late Helen Brach (as in Brach's candies), who owned quite a bit of land just north of 75th street in Naperville and Aurora. Her estate has also tried to get the private Naper Aero airport closed down on multiple occasions, on the argument that its close proximity reduces the value of her lands (Lowe's, Staples and a Costco are on her former lands on the Naperville side of IL Route 59 now). These disputes are notable in the Naperville/Aurora area, DuPage County, and even the State of Illinois as the district petitions the Illinois General Assembly for "Quick Take" powers to seize the land required to start construction and open the building by its planned 2009 opening date. Sorry, but I see NO grounds for a delete here. --JohnDBuell 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the fact that the school isn't notable? TJ Spyke 01:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, this school (which won't even open for several years) is not notable. MAYBE in a few years it may be notable, but not yet. TJ Spyke 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so let me get this right, I can't claim it's inherently notable (as I argue here), but you can claim it's just not notable? Nice little argument you've got there TJ. I think it can be assumed that the building of a high school will be covered by the independent press, and it strains believability that there aren't multiple articles somewhere about this school being built, given what it costs for a local government to build a high school (in my community, a high school was torn down and completely rebuilt for $78 million). The school will only get more notable over time. Noroton 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see TerriersFan has already added the articles. I should have checked first. But they're always going to be out there because high schools are just so notable. Yet another great job, TerriersFan.02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - already notable, with multiple non-trivial sources, because of the political controversies. With election candidates citing the School, people are likely to look the School up and we should have an article (as we do with other major or controversial building projects). As a 3,000 student high school it will be inherently notable (and if its not we might as well fold our tent as a serious encyclopaedia of record). The concept of deleting it now, while its construction is getting media attention, and then recreating later, is simply not sensible. TerriersFan 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is demonstrated by the references. --Eastmain 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to one of the four referenced news articles (this one), the question of obtaining land for the school went all the way to the state legislature more than once. LastChanceToBe 03:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability is the controversy, not the school itself. Make a new article called Metea Valley High School Controversy, but the school itself doesn't even exist and has no inherent notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I actually wondered myself whether this might not be a better title. However, the practice in, for example, Category:Planned or proposed arenas is for projects that are expected to be notable (and even the most die-hard deletionist would be hard pressed to argue that a community of well over 3,000 people is not notable), have articles under their own names. One can look at City of Birmingham Stadium and Greenwich Arena for example. As construction progresses there will, doubtless, be a constant stream of media articles focussing increasingly on the School. I would not resist strongly if a compromise was suggested for the article to be moved to Metea Valley High School project (a better, more all embracing title than 'Controversy') with a fresh article being created (and no doubt debated) when the School is opened. It just seems a rather technical approach. The content, however, plainly satisfies WP:N and while I can see a logical case for a move I see no basis in policy for a delete. TerriersFan 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N. There is no consensus that schools do or do not have inherent notability. We would need a crystal ball to know whether this school will be notable once it has been constructed and, indeed, whether it will ever even be built. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to notability generated by its controversy. Realkyhick 05:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the controversy surrounding it. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep worthy of keeping - non trivial sources, seems notable SMBarnZy 13:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Good start on a legitimate topic. Cloachland 14:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Regarding notability: The Indian Prairie School District is one of the largest in Illinois - the two primary communities it serves are the second largest (Aurora, population approx 157,000) and fourth largest (Naperville, population approx 140,000). While these are NOT the only districts for these communities (Naperville has one other, and Aurora has two), Indian Prairie has been the one experiencing the most growth over the last 15-20 years. Any arguments made that the school itself is not notable I really take issue with, because the entire controversy is being fought over the school's existence. If for some reason the project should never get started, or indeed, FAIL, yes I could easily see making a "Controversy" or "project" page, but I have never known any Chicago area school district to NOT complete a project (just leave them vacant, for a time). I realize that even having this article at all, more than two years before the planned opening (a date which will very likely slip), is seen as a bit premature, but as has been pointed out, building projects yet to begin or which may never begin still have their own articles, and under the name of the building as it has or would have been planned - three area examples are 300 North LaSalle, under construction, and 29 South LaSalle and the Chicago Spire, both of which may never see the light of day. It's also not unheard of to have school articles created before the actual school opens, as in the case of Plainfield North High School (although that was a case of a few months rather than 2+ years), yet that article has not been challenged while the school still has not been filled to full enrollment, and has yet to be fully accredited for sports or have a history of achievement exams. --JohnDBuell 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well the article has refs so it now meets WP:V and it also passes WP:SCHOOL.Telly addict 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References, political issues/ballot measures meet WP:V. Notability established. Ronbo76 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good citations and interesting article. Smee 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep has several references and is notable enough. LordHarris 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A thoroughly-documented article providing ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate Notability. Alansohn 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, school is not even open until 2009/2010. The controversy seems to be primarily covered by local news and a blog -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — School is not yet open, so I'm avoiding support for now. — RJH (talk) 22:38, 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. If you guys want to recreate it as a redirect to Race of Jesus, that's fine.--Wizardman 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jesus[edit]

Nomination - too much nonsense information (e.g. "...born in Lazytown, Indiana...")--eskimospy ^(talk) 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing nimination. no stance. -- saberwyn 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minorly asserts notability, but is completely non-attributed. If there's nothing more to this guy than a myspace page, it should be deleted. Oh, and isn't Black Jesus a nickname of Everlast? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no legitimate notability asserted or proven. Realkyhick 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This page marks as nonsense, examples as mentioned ar... born in lazytown?? Telly addict 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonsensical info in nature, might be worthy for Uncylopedia.--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable with no sources--SUIT^양복 18:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources and likely there are none. Maybe a redirect to Race of Jesus to fill the void?--UsaSatsui 19:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per JzG. --Ted87 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Crested Penguin 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Race of Jesus. --Geniac 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Race of Jesus. -- I saw this before and was going to nominate it but I got lazy. SakotGrimshine 10:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you from Lazytown? Wavy G 14:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails notability requirements per WP:BAND. Ronbo76 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would this "Black Jesus" be possibly more fitting as an article? (Probably better under "Steven Tari" if so)--T. Anthony 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Race of Jesus. -Sean Curtin 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I watch Lazytown and I've never seen any Black Jesus in it Croxley 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a source can be found, otherwise Delete, redirect to Race of Jesus??? Are you kidding me? Are you people even looking at the article? and if not why the heck are you participating in this discussion?--E tac 04:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, for all most people know the literature refers to the question of Jesus' race as the "Black Jesus" theory, echoing Black Athena). But if this person really exists, and certainly if he was on BET, then he's notable. Unfortunately, the name of his supposed record label gets no relevant ghits. Anyone know for sure that the BET claim is false? --zenohockey 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right the article could be about that, but if you are going to participate in a deletion discussion it is probably a good idea to take a gander at the article in question before commenting.--E tac 05:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I read the article. I think it should be deleted. However, I also think that someone typing "Black Jesus" into a search is likely going to be looking for info on the race of Jesus Christ. Just because this article isn't about Jesus's race doesn't make a redirect there any less valid. --UsaSatsui 06:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, redirect the page. Black Jesus is a name that has been used for lots of random stuff... ie; one of Robert Mugabe's genocidal commanders (Perence Shiri) called himself Black Jesus, Tupac has been called the same, etc. This page should be a re-direct to Jesus' Race. tactik 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revise to disambiguation page for Race of Jesus and Steven Tari. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:57, 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 speedy deleted as copyvio. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ingold[edit]

Copy and paste job, badly referenced, possible copyright violation, also nominating Taskscape.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not well written, is too long, and gives far too much information about his biography rather than his significance. However, it is verifiable, much is neutral point of view, and the original research can be pared down. The man was editor of Man for 2 years. That alone would make him notable. Interlingua ^{talk email} 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyvio. Changes from original text are very minor and huge chunks are word-for-word the same. WjBscribe 04:16, 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. Grand master ka 10:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loic Lacasse[edit]

Appears to fail notability guidelines. Claim to notability is being a "goalie prospect" and being "#181" in a 6th round draft. Might attain notability with a successful career, but for now he's just another hopeful. NMChico24 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a prospect is not notability- amounts to cystal balling. No reason to have an article on this person at present. WjBscribe 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WJBscribe, will likely never amount to more than a stub ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the article claims his prospects "are not bright." If he makes it to the big show, we'll revisit this. But until then ... uh, no. Realkyhick 05:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. If he's notable later on, a new article can be made later on. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. WP:NOT#CBALL Ronbo76 16:53, 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 speedy deleted (CSDA7). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistock[edit]

Wiki with no claims of notability or meeting WP:WEB. Googling only gets me about 90 unique hits and most of them are either stuff like WikiIndex or other link lists. I didn't find any secondary sources on it and none are provided in the article. Delete as failing WP:ATT. Wickethewok 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources + no assertion of notability = fails WP:A & WP:WEB = delete. -- Scientizzle 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delelte. No sources, seems to be original research, quite likely is an ad or vanity site, no notability. Interlingua ^{talk email} 02:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as web content with no assertion of notability. So tagged. WjBscribe 04:21, 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 keep. Peripitus has by far the best argument in all of this, that he probably meets the WP:BIO criteria about lasting importance (despite his low importance to any of us it seems.) Whether anyone will ever do the physical library searching remains to be seen. Grand master ka 10:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Augustin Calahan[edit]

Non notable writer which doesn't satisfy WP:NN. Only has 545 entries on google, most referring to other people [1] Only assertion to notability is writing a non notable book that is supposed to be a continuation to a famous book KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and bulk up. Only 545 hits? I only need three good ones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that most of these hits contains nothing about the person, but are names for others. Also the person doesn't fit into any of the notability factors for WP:BIO --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that should tell you that there is something there, you just need to dig deeper and do more hard work. His obituary was in the New York Times archive and he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He is also listed in a paper biographical dictionary, and Google book search has 10 of his books scanned and indexed. Google news archive also lists him in several papers. It makes me happy to see a niche writer get the web presence he deserves. I will add more from his biography when I get more time, and see if I can contact his grandchildren for an image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Richard Arthur Norton ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until RAN finds his three good ones. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Searching on "Harold Augustin Calahan" in fact gives you 65 unique ghits, all for him (and he is not always referred to by all 3 names). He seems to have written a number of books on yachting, some of which have had recent Dover reprints, showing continued interest in his work. See this recent review, for instance. He used to write a prominent magazine column on yachting. I don't think he is exactly a household name, but he seems to have had some importance in the little world of mid-20th century American yachting. Brianyoumans 07:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for an author born in 1889 about such an obscure topic there are a lot of his books available. Books still being reviewed as of 2002 and he seems that have at least 8 books listed at Dartmouth library. I'm sure that some physical library searching will show he passes the WP:BIO part The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. from the brief search I've done - Peripitus (Talk) 10:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no doubt from me. The book Back to Treasure Island is, as i understand, rather well known. Why is it actually so difficult to find something about him? It is quite probable that some will find more material about the author, so until then keep.Summer Song 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I own the book Back to Treasure Island. He has written a long introduction in which he defend the writing and says it is actually Stevenson's honour and not his own. I think Calahan should not be an unknown name for those who are interested in novels and discussions around them. It is probable that he is a somewhat obscure person, but it should clearly be noted who he is. I hope for some to come who knows more about him. I am myself astonished that it is that little to find on the internet, but probably there are some facts outside the internet. Summer Song 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable. The Dover reprints mentioned above clinch it for me. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - low priority, but notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ghits are an incredibly bad measurement for 19th century topics. And the fact that some of his books are (or were) still in print after nearly a century clinches it for me. Easily as notable as many contemporary authors who will have thousands of ghits. Not (obviously) a very notable author, but easily notable enough. Xtifr _tälk 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's one of those topics internet research still kinda sucks on. Ghits are a valuable guideline for notability, but hardly the last word. Ford MF 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and the other 542 hits mentioned by the nominator. Ronbo76 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good sources, author of some intriguing works. Smee 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. Someone took the time to find stuff written in books (remember those?) about Calahan...and even his WWI draft card. This makes this article exemplary already. Putting it still further over the top is the 1952 New York Times article, which explicitly states that "it's doubtful that he ever wrote a word that hasn't been read with interest" among sailors. --zenohockey 19:26, 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. Grand master ka 10:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Cabral[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. A Google search for "Sergio Cabral" -Wikipedia +"Rede Omega" returns 11 results, no news. Also written by Sergio123cabral so WP:COI as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:ATT ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I see the words, "You can reach (name of subject) at ...," I almost instinctively reach for my gong stick. Vanispamcruft, or whatever the word is. Realkyhick 05:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotion; unverified (WP:A). — ERcheck (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, WP:ATT is policy, WP:AUTO/COI issues. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:46, 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. Everyone except maybe the nominator wants it kept in some form, if only as a redirect. There's no clear consensus here on what to do with it other than that, so I suggest you guys duke it out on the article talk page. Grand master ka 10:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate yorkie[edit]

A "Chocolate yorkie" is a Yorkshire Terrier carrying a double recessive gene for a red or brown coat. [2] The result is a Yorkie whose color and coat do not conform to the breed standard. The gene will also often result in brown or liver pigmentation of the eye rims, nose and paw pads, another flaw in a Yorkie. AKC has many colors on the list as acceptable for a Yorkie, which means that some off-color Yorkies may be registered. However, the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America opposes the breeding of these dogs:

"Blue born puppies and red/chocolate born puppies are not acceptable colors of the Yorkshire Terrier. The Yorkshire Terrier should only be born Black/Tan and later turn to a dark steel blue. The blue born puppies & red/chocolate born puppies are recessive colors being passed to the progeny and a repeat breeding should never occur. Puppies of these colors should not be sold as “rare colors”. Yes hopefully it is very rare to get them, but these are totally unacceptable colors and it’s not so much that they are rare, as that they are not true representatives of the breed. . . A breeder should not knowingly breed a dog that is producing such a known defect. The breed could shortly become other than what it is. . . The standard laid down by the YTCA is very specific about the Yorkshire Terrier. It states the puppy should be born Black/Tan and change color to a Blue/Tan dog later in life." (From an article printed in TYT Magazine © 1998 by Cher Hildebrand.)

Breeders of Yorkshire Terriers generally agree that breeding of such off-color dogs should not be repeated. [3] Breeding of such faulty Yorkshire Terriers is usually done only by backyard breeders and puppy mills.

"Chocolate yorkie" is not a breed recognized by any kennel club. Internet searches come up with no breed club for Chocolate Yorkshire Terriers (or Chocolate yorkies as indicated in the title of this article) or Brown or Gold Yorkshire Terriers. The off-color is definitely a mutation to the Yorkshire Terrier breed and NOT in line with the breed standard. In any case, it is NOT a new breed - and the faulty color variation does not warrant a Wikipedia article. If anything, the occurrence of the faulty brown and red colors should be addressed in the Yorkshire Terrier article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epopp (talk • contribs)

Rewrite The AFD included references! So what's the problem? Currently the AFD has more references than the article, so seriously, lets just replace the article with this AFD nomination. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per Swatjester —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Citicat (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. It's a lousy little stub that fails WP:ATT, but the reason for deletion -- when you take out the long-winded wind-up -- seems to be "not a recognized AKC breed", which has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies or standards. We're not the AKC catalog. If the breed is unofficial but notable there's no reason not to include it. But the article needs references. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The fact that the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America doesn't like it would certainly be irrelevant if it were, for whatever reason, widely written about anyway. However, the sources given simply talk about "chocolate" Yorkshire Terriers as one of several possible nonstandard color variants. It seems this could be discussed adequately in the "Coat and color" section of the main Yorkshire Terrier article. —Cel ithemis 05:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per —Cel ithemis. I see nothing here that couldn't be added to the Yorkshire Terrier page. Every breed has colours that are non-standard, some for good reasons (some colours are tied to birth defects), some for reasons that have more to do with the dog's original job (white fur can be difficult to camouflage in the forest), some simply for aesthetic purposes. Do we need a separate article on every undesirable colour in all 430 or so known dog breeds? --Charlene 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per others. Not in any way independently significant. I thought this was about Yorkie bars :o) Guy (Help!) 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with SWATJester's rewrite idea--it will really be a better article with that information merged into it. Oppose Merge. Once rewritten, it would unbalance the "coat & color" section of the main Yorkshire Terrier article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Just to be clear, the problem with this article was not that Chocolate yorkie is not a recognized breed. The point is that the article is misleading by saying that Chocolate yorkie is a breed. There is no support for this idea - virtually nobody (other than the author of this stub article) contends the "Chocolate yorkie" is a breed separate from the Yorkshire Terrier. Chocolate merely refers to the off-color. It is like a white Doberman or a Bernese Mountain Dog that lacks the signature white markings. Having a separate article for something that is merely a non-standard-color-Yorkie seems misleading in that it implies the off-color dog is a different breed or in some way significant. The only significance I can find to the Chocolate yorkie is mentioned in the reason for deletion.—Epopp 05:29, 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 redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. I'm deleting the hoax revisions. Grand master ka 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

I tagged this article as unreferenced, hoping that there might be some reliable sources. It looks like the references there now are copied from Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song) since I don't see any mention of "Serious" in them. In fact one of them, SwedishCharts.com, lists the song as only being on the album and doesn't have it as a single. The single cover is also unsourced, so no proof of the single's existence there. ShadowHalo 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failing addition of correct sources, delete and/or redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. -- saberwyn 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect works for me too. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Serious was ever released as a single. Nukleoptra 16:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - I was bot-notified of this AFD for creating this article, but I didn't write it, just moved content that User:Gwenboy had pasted over the then-existing article at Serious (now moved to Serious (Duran Duran song) and replaced with a disambigation page). Gwenboy's a brand new user who needs some tutoring in our guidelines (particularly image policies, going by his talk page). Without evidence that this was a notable single (or even an officially released single), I don't know that this needs its own article. — Catherine\^talk 03:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on recent events, it seems very likely that this is a hoax. Gwenboy (talk · contribs · logs) was indefinitely blocked for what I can only describe as bizarre, often disruptive edits. He started a page for another Gwen Stefani single, "Naughty In The Bed", which was never listed on an album, nobody has heard of, and was apparently certified as a gold single with a music video based on The Simpsons. It included the text "before she took out the single 'Naughty In the Bed' she already had release the singles global so all the music store chucked out the CD's and gave them back to Gwen, which he kept them just incase she wants to release it again." Considering a Youtube search turns up the same one-minute previews of the video but not the video itself, it's probably safe to say that this is a hoax. ShadowHalo 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect - Shrub of power 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It was meant to be a single, but I think "Luxurious" was chosen over it. Some people might look up "Serious (Gwen Stefani song)", and it would be better if it just redirected it to Love. Angel. Music. Baby..

--Andrew4793 ^t _c 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - this was never relased as a single anywhere, Gwen filmed the video for it as a possible future single but her pregnancy prevented her from releasing it. No single was sent out, no promo was sent out. Tracklisting fake and details of video fake. The story of how the song was written alos fake, Gwen has never been hospitilized for a broken arm. The whole concept of video is also wrong, no body knows the details behind it, only rumors, Gwen has never even talked about the video, their has only been a one minute preview from teh choreographer.

Leesamio 02:42, 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, speedy (A3) if that takes your fancy. - Daniel Bryant 08:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Union[edit]

Hoax. Joke. Not notable. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 17#Image:KidsUnion.jpg. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- MarcoTolo 02:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just on a lark, I put "Kids Union" Diligourbs into Google. No hits. LastChanceToBe 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax article. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. WjBscribe 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no context or hoax, take your pick. Realkyhick 05:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no encyclopedic content. So tagged. MER-C 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. JuJube 08:47, 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 delete. (Not very speedy, was it?) Grand master ka 11:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Championship Wrestling[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable backyard wrestling "promotion", fails WP:CORP and WP:A One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7, not even close to notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the article does claim notability (although the claim is BS and not true). TJ Spyke 05:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, and it's borderline speedy delete ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a backyard wrestling fed is reason enough, but it also fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 05:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Can we prove this outfit really even existed? Even if it did, it fails WP:N. Likely a hoax. Realkyhick 05:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Argg!!! its still here.Peter Rehse 07:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — as per all above. — ERcheck (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All reasons above. Nothing notable about a bunch of kids hitting each other with chairs. --Nymetsfan 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. And what the hell is going on in that picture? Wavy G 14:43, 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 redirect to apatheism. Grand master ka 11:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apathetic agnosticism[edit]

I can find no mention of "apathetic agnosticism" aside from the church which the article references, so to say it is a genuine variant of agnosticism is to advance original research and perhaps create a neologism. Alternatively, the article could be moved to Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic, but I doubt that would satisfy our notability guidelines for organizations (see WP:ORG). — Elembis (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it's OR ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's like advertising at times too. The article admits in the first sentence that it's presumably the same as apatheism, so why does this article have to exist? I think it's to promote the church mentioned, but as Elembis already said, that won't pass WP:ORG. --Tractor kings fan 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know, and I don't care. I think I just summed up the whole premise. BTW, it fails WP:ORG, too. Realkyhick 06:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Charlene 06:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there really isn't any difference b/w this and apatheism. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve As co-author of the page, I expressed my own concern at the time (see talk) that it was, perhaps, too much of an 'advert' for the UCTAA (We're not the Moonies, by the way...keep a sense of humour), and invited others to re-write it differently. It would be better if somebody did this, rather than just taking the lazy option of deleting anything that does not correspond with your own internal dogma. Although it's hardly a citation; I know for certain that at least one person (me) genuinely believes in this religious viewpoint, but I am not in the business of telling anybody else what to believe, no more than the UCTAA is.ChrisRed 13:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apatheism Owlofcreamcheese
- I can't find a suitable category for the redirect under the guideline Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?; if it's not a notable topic, it won't be explained within Apatheism (as a redirect with possibilities), and it's not an alternative name or related word, either. — Elembis (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sounds Good On second thoughts, and having read the Apatheism page, I think a redirect would be fine, as there is very little difference between 'Apathetic Agnosticism' and 'Apatheism'. The only difference being that the UCTAA is perhaps a little less prone to pour scorn on other's beliefs. Many UCTAA people admit that they still struggle with the third article of belief, in that we do sometimes 'wonder'; but accept that the existence or otherwise of God is not conditional upon our belief in it/him/her/they. Man cannot 'believe' God into existence, no more than he can 'deny' him into oblivion. Therefore our struggle with the question is futile, rather than irrelevant. What is true is true, and what is false is false. It doesn't actually matter whether there is a Wikipage to describe it or not. We are therefore apathetic :-) I do, however, believe that 'Apathetic Agnosticism' is a more accurate description of the state of mind than 'Apatheism', even at the cost of deleting all mention of the UCTAA from a unified 'Apathetic Agnosticism' page. ChrisRed 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ChrisRed and Owlofcreamcheese. --Tractor kings fan 22:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Sefringle 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Owlofcreamcheese. PierceG 00:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to apatheism. -Sean Curtin 04:02, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five-Minute Funnies (TV pilot)[edit]

There are only about 80 hits on Google for the name of this sketch show, and almost all of them are either this Wikipedia article or copies of it on other sites, or are links to information about other people who use "five minute funnies" as the title for their own unrelated activities. The program On the Lot had tens of thousands of films submitted to it, so that doesn't make this notable. There are no references or claims to notability in the article, and I can't find reliable sources for information about this unsold program. LastChanceToBe 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the series wasn't created for the express purpose of the On The Lot contest. Because the show is an attempt to bring mainstream industry jobs to the Pacific Northwest, it is the first of it's kind and garners mention. The creators of the show submitted one sketch out of 12 final products in an attempt to gather more attention about the show. That is all the competition has in regards to the importance of the show, so it is immaterial to the discussion here. This article was a working and edited part of Wikipedia for eight months preceeeding this nomination, and deserves mention simply because of the unique endeavor being attempted by the creators. --CmdrClow 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that On the Lot doesn't make this sketch show notable isn't the thrust of the argument. The comment is intended to point out that I looked into this, and that being on the On the Lot website isn't an indication of notability. Therefore, this is materially important to point out. LastChanceToBe 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no, it does not deserve mention because it is non notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Give me something besides "it's from the Pacific Northwest". TV pilots aren't notable on their own. Citicat 05:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not notable. --Fredrick day 13:08, 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. Reliable secondary sources that show this person meets WP:MUSIC are key to the article's recreation. And a more encyclopedic tone. Grand master ka 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Foyle[edit]

dispusted PROD for NN-musician. delete Cornell Rockey 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable musician, no primary independent sources. Realkyhick
Delete - unsourced, article reads like promotion, little indication he passes WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:49, 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 keep, although I don't think she's that notable. Article could use some fattening up. :-) Grand master ka 11:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Bass[edit]

Nominated for Delete as reason to quote this She's famous in her own right now and on TV and in magazines a lot. So I created a page for the little slapper. - My reply is, have I seen her on TV yet, NO; have I seen her on magazines, only on naff gossip mags that also features Z-Listers, therefore not notable at all, unless you are one of these people who are fascinated with famous for nothing celebs who didn't have to lift a finger to be famous like what Michelle has done. Also, this page does not provide the evidence for her to deserve a place in this site, all nothing but PR talk. Dr Tobias Funke 03:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Malformed series of AFDs. The Michelle Bass one is clearly notable. Just because you haven't seen her on TV doesn't mean she's non notable. In fact she WAS on TV on Big Brother season 5. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also, according to the article "Bass has recently appeared as a contestant on Celebrity Weakest Link and filmed a small role in the new film I want candy which stars Carmen Electra." ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems to have enough TV and ad work to be notable, at least for now. We may forget who she is in two years, but that is then and this is now, or something like that. Realkyhick 06:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big Brother contestant more notable than whathisface (Cameron?) who won Big Brother 4. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on all, does having a small role or having a celebrity game show sport due to the fact she just came off a reality show make her notable, I say no, even being notable on BB5 now does not make her notable at all nowadays, well I can't see any of the rest have their own pages as well. Dr Tobias Funke 12:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not entirely sure she is more notable than Cameron Stout from BB4. He has a column in a newspaper in Scotland (I think) and has done pantomimes and stuff.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "first couple to have sex live on British television" - That's notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is that a good reason to be notable, I would say absolutely a pathetic reason for notability. As a porn actress, I don't think she deserves a entry unless she has that level of notability like Jenna Jameson, also don't forget, this site is not IMDB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Tobias Funke (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Realkyhick (and especially if the music career stuff is true). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont see any reason for this article to be deleted. It is actually a quite good article.Their is no evidence that proves that she is not notable. She has both appeared on Big Brother UK and have a glamour modelling career.--Matrix17 15:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is fine. If nothing else she wll be forever notorious for being the hated Bunny Boiler of Big Brother 5 which made a huge media impact. And the first for having sex on the show.
Keep Whether or not anyone likes Big Brother or Michelle Bass is irrelevant. She is a notable "celebrity" in the United Kingdom. Google search results: 98,600 matches for "Michelle Bass". 50 pages into that (first 500 results) and still getting direct hits. Clearly she's notable. So Keep. Suriel1981 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What they all said. --Ebyabe 19:17, 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 no consensus here. I note that Now That's What I Call Music!, which several people here have referred to, has an article for every album, and a better template to organize all of them. Now, perhaps that series is more notable than this one (it certainly is) and therefore should have individual album articles while this one doesn't, or maybe that series needs a deletion discussion here as well; I'm not sure, and not one to make that judgement based on what I've seen here. However, if the resulting article isn't too massive, it would be prudent to consider merging most or all of these entries, and perhaps after that, a new deletion discussion may proceed on any leftovers with a smaller focus. Grand master ka 11:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW Hits[edit]

These are all compilation albums, ~~and every article is unsourced. They are likely to remain unsourced,~~ because reliable third party sources don't usually write pieces about compilation albums. The musicians featured are notable people and the albums they create themselves are critically interesting as unique artistic creations; those original albums receive plenty of third party coverage to write an article from. But compilation albums, cobbled together from intellectual property already owned and previously released by the record labels, are not interesting or unique creations, so no one writes about them. Thus the lack of reliable sources. For the same reason that secondary sources don't bother to write about these albums, Wikipedia shouldn't cover them as a tertiary source, lest our coverage devolve into indiscriminate lists.

There are at least nine more of these that are still redlinked, and of course more will be released every year. None of the articles can be sourced for content expansion. Let's nip this in the bud before well meaning editors waste any more time editing these time-sinks.

Delete all. — coel acan — 03:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Violates WP:A. Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and WP:A. Xdenizen 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These seem to fall way short of WP:ATT and in any event Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am unconvinced by the notability of compilation albums in of themselves no matter how notable the songs and artists they feature. WjBscribe 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'mma chargin mah lazer!!! SHOOP DA WOOP!!!!! oh yeah, and WP:A. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except main article. It's a fairly long-running series with a number of notable artists that has had a decent sales record (I guess I need to dig up charting history, huh?), so a single article about the series, possibly with a list of the individual releases, would seem to be in order. The individual releases, however, are not notable and should be dumped. Realkyhick 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all except main article~~ This does seem to have been a successful marketing concept, if nothing else, and a pretty big deal in the Xtian music biz. But we certainly don't need all these articles, at least without evidence that these charted majorly. Brianyoumans 07:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Keep all with a record of charting I see that most of these now have sources showing that they charted. I think those should be kept. Even a compilation album should probably be kept if it charted; that indicates a lot of sales. --Brianyoumans 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this "delete all except" stuff is tempting, but absent third party reliable sources we can't even produce a main article that meets WP:A. Where are these sources to write the main article from? Actually having some on hand might constitute a vote for keeping that one. Without the sources, these keep arguments contradict WP:A policy and must be ignored. — coel acan — 07:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main article: This series is very famous and deserved at least a main article. These compilations contain lots of notable articles and the series is quite big. With your arguments, one could delete about 90% of the 1500 albums of the Category:Compilation albums!! -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 09:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.) But my argument boils down to nothing more than this: WP:A is policy and articles that don't adhere to that policy get deleted. If you can make the main article, WOW Hits, line up with WP:A policy, then that's an argument for keeping. Insisting that it "deserves" an article that nevertheless violates WP:A is not an argument but a plea for exceptions and pardons. — coel acan — 09:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but the main article per Brianyoumans. I suggest doing the same thing with the "Now That's What I Call Music!" articles, no reason for the 50+ articles to exist when they are nothing but compilations of hit songs. TJ Spyke 10:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but the main article per above. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all and boggle at this opposition. These are clearly all notable albums in their own, all having notable artists and songs on them, clearly passing WP:MUSIC. Most if not all albums have been on the billboard charts. If there are WP:A issues, then deal with those separately. AFD is not cleanup. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all- if lack of sources is the problem, the solution is to source them. As per Patstuart's comments, they meet notability by having charted. WP:Music#Albums makes no specifications about compilation albums. The artists on these are still notable, which satisfies the album requirement. Wildyoda 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not notable albums on their own. The artists, who are notable, did not work on these albums. They had nothing to do with their creation. These albums are not their creative endeavors. They are compiled by the companies who already own their previously released works. There's absolutely no limit to how many compilation albums these companies can produce, and it would not surprise me to learn that the artists received no compensation for these. Indeed some of them have probably forgotten that their songs are on these things, if their agents ever forwarded the memo anyway. Can you explain what is notable about a compilation album? Originals are notable for being unique artistic creations, something new that a person brings into the world. What is notable about the fact that record companies combine and rerelease to create the false appearance of something new and grab more money? That's just everyday greed; nothing notable or interesting about it. Nothing about these albums passes WP:MUSIC. The articles about the original songs and albums and the artists themselves pass notability. But a shuffled tracklisting is not further notable on its own. AFD is not cleanup, but the problem here is not only that they are unsourced, but unsourcable. Where is the reliable third party coverage of WOW Worship: Orange that we can expand an article with? There isn't any, because nobody but the record company ever cared to write about it. Musical critics have better things to do than promote rereleases that they already reported on the first time around. Focus your time and attention on the articles about the actual artists and songs, not this shiny repackaging. — coel acan — 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So from what you just said, because we can't get any "sources" on WOW Worship Orange, we should delete them all. Perhaps you too could read WP:ALLORNOTHING. At very least, if the individual albums do not merit inclusion (which they do), then the whole series does (I guarantee it's been written about, though the library's closing soon and I've no time to prove it). Patstuart^talk·edits 20:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:ALLORNOTHING doesn't apply here. I gave WOW Worship Orange as one example; perhaps I should have made that clearer. The status of that particular album obviously doesn't impinge upon the others. But the others have the same problem as that one does. Each of them needs Attribution, and that is policy, non-negotiable. In addition, I believe that all of the separate albums fail the Notability guideline: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." Finally, as a separate matter, I believe the main article, WOW Hits, is non-notable in general because the series is not the creation of the artists that are republished in it, and without new creative material, having articles about compilations is functionally no different than Wikipedia articles about what WDOD 96.5 FM played last Thursday between 9:00 and 10:00 AM. Indulge me for a moment. Here we have a compilation series: 25 Symphony Favorites, 25 Romantic Favorites, 25 Mozart Favorites, 25 Beethoven Favorites. The company that makes these, Vox Cameo Classics, makes many more. By your reasoning, because all the artists and most of the songs on these albums are notable, the compilations themselves are notable and we should have articles about them. And, indeed, since this is a series, we should have a "25 Favorites by Vox Cameo Classics" article for the series. But this is absurd. There's nothing notable about the fact that a record company repackaged a shuffle playlist. There's nothing notable about the fact that they do it all the time under the title "WOW". — coel acan — 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is stated your own personal POV using totally flawed logic. This is nothing at all like having an article about what a radio station played for a certain period of time. It is an actual cd release that people buy in stores, it charted and it is considered a Compilation album and the guidlines for WP:MUSIC apply for all albums reguardless of if it is a compilation or not. If notable artists appear on it then it is worthy of inclusion.--E tac 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the articles It is pretty stupid to delete all these when clearly they exist. The artists didn't "work" on them, but yet artists don't work on soundtracks or other compilations albums that are listed on wikipedia, it would be stupid to delete one series and not delete all the other series. As for the WOW Christmas and Aqua, most of the songs on these albums are not repackaged, they are exclusive to the series and available nowhere else. WOW Hits, sure, those are available on the artists albums, but Worship and and Christmas are not. How can an album not be "notable" even though it's clearly widely available in stores and is a popular series? Keep them all, even the album pages because only WOW Hits has only reused tracks, wikipedia is an information site correct? You can't list the albums but not give information. Might as well not list the albums at all then. It descriminatory to delete just WOW series but no other compilations, such as the Now series.Kevin87 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you need to read WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The mere fact that these exist does not mean we need to write articles about them. The fact that other compilations are not yet or currently up for deletion doesn't mean we shouldn't delete these first. You're not actually making arguments for keeping, you're asking for us to make an exception for these articles and to not apply WP:A policy to them. If the Christmas and Aqua albums have original recordings, that might be an argument for keeping just those, but only if it can be reliably attributed. I don't see that happening yet. — coel acan — 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Bestselling albums. If Now That's What I Call Music! belongs, so do these. Also, a merge wouldn't work, it would be too long. Tim Long 06:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read any of the comments? There is nothing notable about these albums. The record company just slaps a bunch of songs that have already been released together and ship them out (so about 1 days work and like $0.25 to make). TJ Spyke 23:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you get an album that peaks in the 30s of The Billboard 200, I wonder if you'll think it's notable. Tim Long 06:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So because it is a compilation album that makes it non-notable? That seems like pretty flawed logic to me. If that is the case then Now That's What I Call Music! should be deleted as well.--E tac 07:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would say that indeed if an album is a compilation album, it is not automatically notable no matter whose songs are on it. There had better be something else extra darn special on top of all that for a compilation album to stick around. I believe that my proposed "25 Mozart Favorites" and other "Vox Cameo Classics" albums would not be notable, and these WOW albums are no different. If you feel that all the separate Now That's What I Call Music! albums should be deleted you should certainly nominate them for AFD and you can count on my support. But as you already pointed out earlier, WP:ALLORNOTHING doesn't count in discussion of these albums. — coel acan — 04:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No attribution given to assert that these particular compilations are notable. If reliable sources are found I will reverse my decision, but as these articles have been around without any such sourcing for almost two years I am skeptical any will be found. — Krimpet (talk/review) 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to main WOW article, as there's actually a remote possibility that something substantial and/or worthwhile can be said about the series as a whole. a rule of thumb I'd personally have for compilation albums is: "Did any artist 'break it big', or experience a significant change in his or her career, as a direct result of his or her song being included in this compilation/soundtrack/retrospective/whatever". In this case, the answer is "no". Series is notable, series deserves an article. Individual albums are hardly different from each other (if you'll excuse my over-generalization), and will never be anything but stubs. So, merge. If we absolutely must humor the inclusionists further, dump the list to List of albums in the WOW series or some such. If someone really needs to find out a track listening for the heaven-sent WOW Jesus God Aqua 51 Neo, there's All Music. --Action Jackson IV 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job at remaining civil and showing everyone you aren't biased.--E tac 08:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even better job at WP:AGF, champ. Even if I hate the WOW series ("loath" is actually a better word, but I digress), that hardly influences my opinion on the encyclopedic merit of these articles. For example, while new age woo-woo repulses me about as much as the WOW series, check the AfD for Orgone. Thanks! --Action Jackson IV 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Encyclopedic merit? Maybe you should check up on WP:MUSIC as they obviously do merit inclusion based on that policy for albums. I hate to be the one to fill you on this, but albums are what this discussion is about. Maybe if it wasn't the "heaven-sent WOW Jesus God Aqua 51 Neo (whatever that means)" albums your personal point of view on this subject would be different.--E tac 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am on WP:MUSIC right now and see absolutely nothing concerning compilations - unless you take the rather interesting leap of faith whereupon "WOW" is considered the notable artist, and each individual album is considered an album by that artist. But congratulations, your argument has worn me down - I must be completely pig-headed and biased, and part of the vast liberal media conspiracy out to take the Christ out of Christmas. Still voting Delete, though, for the same reasons as I originally outlined. --Action Jackson IV 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to main WOW article per User:Action Jackson IV's rationale. You took the words right out of my mouth! LaMenta3 06:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep How is this compilation not notable? I have seen it advertized on tv and you can buy them at any Target, Walmart, or Best Buy. Couldn't the albums themselves be considered or source, perhaps the listing of them at Amazon.com or something? Also Wikipedia's policy on albums states that if the artists on the album are notable then the album itself should be considered such, it doesn't make exceptions for compilation albums. Why is this simple general consensus rule being ignored? --E tac 07:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to main WOW article. I can think of absolutely no good reason why any of these should have their own article. Ford MF 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are albums that feature notable artists, end of discussion.--E tac 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless someone can find a source that says these compilations are notable in their own right; not just by association. Compilation albums are just a business move - the producer pays for the rights to the songs in hopes of making a profit by putting them together and selling them. How is that notable? --Mus Musculus 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is they are still albums and the feature notable acts so therefore according to WP:MUSIC they are notable. What you said would go for any other greatest hits album by any band as the bands themselves often want no part in them and they are just to make money. So what if an album is a compilation album, if it contains notable artists it is notable. Everyone who has stated reasons here for not having them is merely stating a personal opinion and is clearly disreguarding the policy established by WP:MUSIC which makes no exceptions for greatest hits or compilation albums.--E tac 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what AfD is for - personal opinion and consensus. If there was a clear-cut policy violation, the article would be speedied. My opinion is that compilation albums that do not involve the artists are not notable unless citations prove they are. Greatest hits albums are not the same thing because the artist typically determines what songs appear on them, etc. --Mus Musculus 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if your only argument is that you don't think it is notable without any policy to back it up you really shouldn't bother with this discussion. The albums clearly pass WP:MUSIC so using your personal opinon as reason for it's deletion is rather lame. Yes you are also correct that greatest hits albums are totally compiled by the band and the label has nothing to do with or say about what goes on those because every band wants to release a greatest hits album and have the rest of their work to be overlooked and only their radio hits be heard..... How can you say these didn't involve the artists at all? Do you have a citation for that? Because I am willing to bet at some level they were.--E tac 03:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm and name-calling don't do anything for your credibility. At any rate, the burden is on the article to prove it is notable in its own right. Where are the citations stating that these particular compilations are notable? --Mus Musculus 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling? Where? Acusing me of things I did not do does not do much for your credibility. If you bothered to check the articles youd see that pretty much all of them have charted on a national chart and it is sourced, but you are more worried about replying to me then you are about the issue at hand. If that isn't enough for you then go walk into your local Target store and I am sure you will see several of these albums on the shelves. I suppose having a major retail store carry the album shows nothing, right?--E tac 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, the CD-R I burned for my roommate's girlfriend, featuring such notable artists as Prince, KMFDM, and others, deserves a mention. After all - notable artists. --Action Jackson IV 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from E Tac just above: "...pretty much all of them have charted on a national chart and it is sourced..." If you can meet that same standard of notability, by all means, go ahead. --Ybbor ^T 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, that is called piracy. Try getting the artists permission and then comercially distributing the album in some form, then your album might have some notability. --E tac 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone in the Christian music scene will tell you the WoW albums are one of the main pinnacles of Christian music. Deleting the reference to these would be similar to deleting references to the hugo awards or science fiction publication, or readers digest compact editions of books. They are compilations of notable pieces of art in a certain field.

(my opinion)

[reply]

Keep main article, Christmas, Worship, and Hymns (at least) because I think they deserve the pages and it's descrimination against Christian music when you have others series that are just like it, but not Christian. I can understand not having pages for the WOW Hits albums due to reused songs not exclusive to the albums but the WOW Christmas, WOW Worship, and WOW Hymns pages have exclusive recordings. If you want notability, what does it take? Nearly every artist on the WOW albums are notable, the series is constantly featured in Christian magazines (WOW Hits 2007 had their own bonus magazine with a recent issue of CCM Magazine which included an ad for WOW Hymns), they have television advertisements, in-store advertisements at all major and small chains that sell Christian music, and more. Is that not enough? --Mister Pine 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP all articles. I am puzzled by this AFD. I haven't seen an AFD this far in left field for around a year. They are a cornerstone of WikiProject Contemporary Music. The artists are highly notable. They all have reviews on allmusic.com. Ample reliable sources, including allmusic.com, jesusfreakhideout.com, cmcentral.com, amazon.com, etc. have reviews on the articles. Just because these reliable sources haven't been added to the articles is not reason to delete, but reason to mark them so members of the WikiProject can source them. I see no reason why a compilation CDs or soundtracks should not be included in Wikipedia. Royalbroil^T : C 12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also check the album articles because I have sourced about 90 percent of them.--E tac 12:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that the articles all be placed in my personal sandbox User:Royalbroil/Sandbox if this the result is delete. I don't have a significant amount of time to source them all now, as school takes priority, but I WILL ensure that they will become sourced. Also, ALLORNOTHING is an essay, so it is the opinion of several editors. I don't think that it applies in this case, as they each can be sourced independently. Royalbroil^T : C 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Kepp all articles. This is a crazy deletion page. These cds are the top selling cd's in their genre, CCM, and are very important pages. Unless there are no cd pages that are allowed on wikipedia, these must stay. Casey14 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All (except WOW Number Ones). All except the one have sources indicating that they have reached the billboard top 200, a large majority in the top 100, and a fair amount in the to 50, which would seem to achieve notability. As stated by Wildyoda, WP:MUSIC#Albums states that an "if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." All these albums have notable bands, and no distinction is made about compilation albums. --Ybbor ^T 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all articles - This is a very popular series, and, though the WOW Hits don't have any exclusive songs, the WOW Worships and Christmases (and I think Gospels) do have songs exclusive to those CDs. Jesussaves (talk -- contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the fact that many have sold is enough. Compilations often sell well- they contain famous songs by famous people- but there needs to be something special about the compilations themselves for Wikipedia to need articles about them (and especially for an article about each and every CD). And we need independent reliable sources to confirm that they are in of themselves important. WjBscribe 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #1 for musicians according to WP:MUSIC is "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." The albums are QUITE special to the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) genre. Almost all of the songs from the Green Christmas album were played a lot this past Christmas on my local CCM radio station. I have nearly completed going through the articles and have provided multiple sources including reviews and billboard magazine citations. Royalbroil^T : C 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying that the artists aren't notable enough to have their own articles. I don't see anyone here saying that the songs aren't notable enough to have their own articles either. But the songs were originally on other albums. Those original creations are the ones that are notable because notable artists worked on them. Charting suggests that people are notable because we they are already people; the charting just lets us know that they are sufficiently in the public eye to make an article worthwhile. People, of course, are special. An album, though, isn't inherently so. It might be if it's an original work. But a reprint? — coel acan — 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding WP:MUSIC: It's important not to read too much into this notability page. First of all, it's a guideline, not a policy. We can work around it and completely outside of it, with no adverse consequences. WP:MUSIC also reminds us: "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." The pertinent section, on albums, notes it "is somewhat controversial" (which is to say that it's more controversial than notability in general, which is always controversial). The albums section then says, "if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability" (emphasis mine). That's a particular distinction. The artists here did not make these albums. They weren't involved in the production. Their creative process was already over when these albums were compiled by the marketing divisions of the record company. So all we get out of WP:MUSIC is this: a guideline, which we don't have to follow, which says it doesn't mean the articles must be kept, and says the relevant section is especially controversial, doesn't even apply because the notable artists didn't make these albums. So don't read too much into it. I believe the pertinent question is rather, "why would albums not even created by notable artists be notable on their own?" And I don't believe this has been answered. — coel acan — 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(many edit conflicts later)*1) I realize that WP:MUSIC is a guideline. That doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't use it a debate, in fact can and should be generally used as a starting basis for a debate. I am not convinced that you have proven why it shouldn't apply in this case. If you throw out WP:MUSIC, then all that you have left is people's feelings, which is ILIKEIT or IDISLIKEIT. Wikipedia is not about being a popularity contest.

2) If we use your album option, then I disagree with your interpretation of several words. Let's revisit the key sentence if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability. The term "ensemble": If you look [4] at yahoo's definition, I believe that either definition 1c: "A group of musicians, singers, dancers, or actors who perform together" or 2: "A work for two or more vocalists or instrumentalists." would apply. Either definition state the musicians, not the compilers of the CDs are the ensemble. I disagree with your usage of the word "maker." The maker of an album is the artists that made the each of the individual tracks. The album could not be made without using their tracks. So what if the artists made the tracks earlier and not specifically for this CD? Some of these tracks were actually specifically made for the CD. The guideline doesn't talk about the compilers of the album. Royalbroil^T : C 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we admit that WP:MUSIC has nothing to say here, it's true that we are left with everyone's feelings and various arguments. You act like this is a problem. How do you think guidelines get made in the first place? People bring their opinions to the table and discussion works toward a consensus or at least something resembling a consensus. This is normal and desirable. What people haven't done here is simply state "I don't like it". The arguments for deletion have been argued extensively from several points of view. The argument that only original works matter seems a strong one that Wikipedia carries throughout many other areas, and the fact that you don't agree with this argument does not reduce it to simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your characterization of this argument as WP:AADD is unfounded. Such an argument would play very well on any notability talk page, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be aired here. You're flat wrong about what an ensemble is. An ensemble plays together, in the same room. An ensemble is a band. It is not a bunch of bands playing unrelated tracks in different studios. If this is the first time you've encountered the word, you might be legitimately confused, but it is really not open to the interpretation you are trying to ascribe it. You say "The maker of an album is the artists that made the each of the individual tracks", but no, that's the makers of the songs. Tupac Shakur did not make R U Still Down? (Remember Me), his first (of six so far) posthumous album. The page for the album recognizes this, that the album was created without Tupac's creative input. That's the important distinction. Of course, that album contained new tracks, unlike these. But these albums were created without the involvement of the artists' creative input. You may be unfamiliar with how the recordning industry works. But these albums can be created without the artists even being informed of them, depending on their contracts. In many cases, they do not have to sign off on their work being included here. Those transactions take place entirely over the artists' heads. That's not creative input. I've seen it being said that some tracks were made exclusively for certain particular CDs here, like the green Christmas album. However, this has still not been cited, and absent a reliable citation, that's still lacking WP:ATT and no actual indication of notability. — coel acan — 11:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hopefully these articles will be kept as most of the reasoning I am seeing here against there inclusion would fall under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You are correct that WP:MUSIC does not always have to be followed but normally if the decision is going to be made to remove something that meets the criteria there should be several good reasons why, the same would go for including something that doesn't meet any of the criteria. Your sole argument is that it is a compilation album that feautures previously released songs from different artists. You fail to give any other reasoning at all. I'll play your game and we will just totally forget WP:MUSIC(which these albums clearly meet the criteria of) for a second. You cannot deny the cultural impact of this series. The compilations can be purchased at numerous major retail stores, I am sure any other product that is available in numerous major retail stores such as the The Simpsons DVDs (didn't those already air originally on TV and thus the DVD's are just a compilation of episodes sold just to make money) would be considered culturally signifigant and worthy of inclusion here on Wikipedia. Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that most of these albums have charted in the upper half of Billboard 200 chart and are sourced as such on their pages, how is that for standing on their own? The fact that they did chart so well proves that they would be of interest to many music enthusiats and they would want to read about them. Also these albums show what songs were considered to be the most popular CCM songs for the year of each individual release and are notable in that aspect as well. Do you have anything on these compilations at all that merits deletion except for the fact that you don't feel they are notable because they are compilations. You have stood by that despite evidence produced to the contrary and you haven't really elaborated on why that should disscount them from inclusion, so if possible could you please do so?--E tac 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot there for me to answer. Before I go futher, I have a question. It seems to me that your reading of WP:MUSIC would support having an article for 25 Symphony Favorites. Am I correct? — coel acan — 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if it was determined that any the orchestras that performed the songs were determined to be notable. I am sure many music readers would like to be informed about the different recordings of classical music that are out there. I don't see how it would really be any different than a Tribute album, which there are many that have articles here on wikipedia.--E tac 06:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: considering that the "delete all" !voters, including myself, are in favor of deleting all the articles including the main article, and many other !voters are in favor of deleting (or in some cases merging) all the articles except the main article, it appears there is at least a consensus for the pruning of those articles. A look at the history of WOW Hits shows that Sucrine has managed to make that article summarize these others, but without anything that appears to be copied from those articles. There would be no licensing-based need for redirecting instead of deletion. I may continue to argue for the deletion of WOW Hits as well, but if that is not possible I hope the "middle" option will be considered as well. — coel acan — 11:08, 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 Leelai. Grand master ka 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Oka Idhile[edit]

This film is the Telugu language dubbed version of the Tamil language film Leelai. The exact information from the Leelai has been copied and pasted onto this page. The dubbed version certainly does not deserve a page of its own. I propose the article be deleted. Hariharan91 14:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Alf^Photoman 14:37, 10 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, KrakatoaKatie 03:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leelai, since this is a dubbed version of that film. LastChanceToBe 03:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leelai as this title is included in that article. WjBscribe 03:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — per WjBscribe. Have a happy St. Patty's Day! Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 16:21, 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 Speedy Delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj gutter[edit]

Had put up a speedy tag before I noticed it had been a contested prod. In any case, still looks like a speedy deletion candidate. No claim of notability made. Google finds 158 unique hits, (many related to some guy named D.J. Gutter!) and all I can find are unreliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Even in fighting prod, creator offered no defense of notability. Mwelch 03:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. So tagged. Prod removal by creator does not prevent tagging for speedy deletion (this logically follows from the fact that articles tagged ((hangon)) can still be speedily deleted). WjBscribe 03:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I won't argue the finer points of the deletion policy but a contested prod should not be prodded a second time so it seems to make sense to go for the more radical speedy route. Pascal.Tesson 04:06, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Violets[edit]

Wasn't sure if this qualified for A7. Insufficient evidence of notability. One article found here: Vue Weekly. Can't find evidence for, "Blazing Violet Productions is an independent film company which has competed in numerous film festivals since its inception and won several awards." Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blazing Violet Productions reference removed. Worldonastring

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 03:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. No references or sources. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bandcruft, non-notable, no verification. Realkyhick 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no hits, no CDs on major label, no independent reviews. Fails WP:MUSIC. TerriersFan 16:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Way to kill creativity. If a person wants to check out a band on a major label with top 40 hits, they might as well go to the band's actual homepage to find out about them. How about the thousands of other bands that have articles on here that are just as independent and "unknown"?

Independent review AND a feature article added to increase notability. Worldonastring 19:38, 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 speedy delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tom Monfils[edit]

No claim of notability other than he was killed. Content is a repost from salted article Tom Monfils. Sending this to AFD to hear opinions, and so that we can speedy delete similar pages as repost. or unprotect the original one. ReyBrujo 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Previously deleted article. Mwelch 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- either as a repost or as non-notable biographical content. WjBscribe 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and consider blocking Khenemet (talk · contribs) as a sock of Vinceipierce (talk · contribs). I was involved in original deletion & salting of Tom Monfils, but will defer to other admins for action here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:15, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Monument (Ireland)[edit]

Incomplete nomination by anonymous IP. Article was also de-prodded without discussion. Procedural nomination only, no vote from me. Arkyan 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Possibly add a list of monuments that are classified as National Monuments by the "state" - Ozzykhan 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced and notable, but could do with a list of such monuments as suggested by Ozzykhan. --Canley 10:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- Canley 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tidied this up a few days ago, but as it is it doesn't say very much. The Ministry web-site has an undated note saying that the Record of Sites and Places has been removed from the web-site because of "errors in the locational information" - which sounds as though they are not sure where the monuments are. Perhaps someone has been moving them? They estimate that it will be back in six months from the undated note, which is not helpful. It might be possible to do a better article then. Delete for now.Raggio 20:45, 15 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, KrakatoaKatie 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ozzykhan and Canley ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obviously notable topic despite the agency's computer troubles. Surely there are print sources for monuments designated before the computer era. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs the list and a little cleanup, but easily salvageable and the subject is notable. Realkyhick 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I like the idea of Irish national monuments moving about the countryside (and noting today's date!) I don't really think the government has lost any of them. Clearly notable; needs a fix-up. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate topic, no discernible reason for deletion. Cloachland 14:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthy of getting its own article. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good entry but it should be expand.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:18, 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 keep. Any potential tensions aside, the main concern here appeared to be sourcing through unreliable or extremist sources. This was most certainly a valid concern, however, it appears to have been addressed. Any potential merges are up to editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia[edit]

Delete The article is a very specific, unencyclopedic list, which may have been created with a POV agenda. Links to articles that use explicitly racist language. Augustgrahl 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth can you call a users first (and last) edit an agenda? -- Cat ^chi? 10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this article was created using extremist racist sites as its main sources strongly implies that the article was made with an agenda inappropriate for Wikipedia. Honestly, if an article was written based on sources that said the opposite, that Turks are raised from birth to hate Armenians, or that the United States kisses Turkish ass, you'd probably want it removed. It's no different with TallArmenianTale. The links have to go, regardless of whether this article stays or is deleted. -- Augustgrahl 14:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Also read WP:NPOV, WP:NPA. -- Cat ^chi? 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is encyclopedic and is a list of diplomats killed as a result of ASALA attacks. This list is similar to those serial murder/killing related articles. These individual attacks are notable enough to have articles on them. -- Cat ^chi? 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with the addition that it is a typo, "members" is typoed as "mebers" ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page was renamed right after nomination. -- Cat ^chi? 05:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete horribly cited, tallarmeniantale major hate site etc doesn't deserve a article. Artaxiad 04:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (striking, see below in thread) only one apparently primary source...? Delete unless someone can heavily source this in five days. - Denny 05:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* it comes from ATAA probably one of the most hated by Armenians for there "works". Artaxiad 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a deletion criteria. Wikipedia is not censored based on "hated by Armenians" (whatever that means). -- Cat ^chi? 05:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you setting time tables? The page was started just 7 days ago. You can't possibly expect a featured list in a course of 13 days now, right? -- Cat ^chi? 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
my 5 days comment is based on how long AfDs 'typically' run, is all. I'm looking at the sources you posted and mentioned on my talk page now. - Denny 06:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this source talks about "230 armed attacks, killing 71 innocent people, including 31 Turkish diplomats, and seriously wounding over 520 people". The scope of this list is restricted to attacks by ASALA on turkish diplomatic personnel. -- Cat ^chi? 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from a Turkish site, I can find alot of dirt on other ethnicities if I look up Armenian websites but I don't because its POV, offensive and not a third party not even reliable you can't base it on that site. Artaxiad 06:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from army.mil in other words US Army domain. Nothing Turkish about the site. -- Cat ^chi? 08:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update: Looking at the sources provided now I don't doubt that the article is encyclopediac and valid (i.e. these people were killed), but the sources themselves are extremely... extremist on one side. I am not taking sides, I don't know Armenian history from Turk history. But when one page is quoting Batman Begins to make its point about genocide... I can't take it totally seriously. That said, changing to Keep for the article, not particularly the title. This will need huge clean up and way, way better sourcing than just pro-one side sources. That is, the material is fine (in that the attacks happened), but using just anti-Armenian or anti-Turkish sites would be horribly bad. maybe UN pages, and actual media sources? I think this will be more of a content rather than Afd Issue. - Denny 06:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to find a completely neutral source (I would welcome one however). Non-Turkish entities do not seem to care much about Turkish diplomats. I am certain there are newspaper entries for individual attacks but due to the age of the attacks these entities do not seem to be available online. -- Cat ^chi? 06:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there lots of similiar articles for attacks by x group vs. y group like this? I seem to recall... seeing them. Maybe see how/what they did? I'm not sure, unfortunately (I seriously don't know much about either, and don't think I even know anyone that I know to be of either ethnicity IRL). - Denny 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are few examples I found at random: List of Hamas suicide attacks, List of ETA attacks. Hamas attack article relies on Israeli Government sources. ETA one doesn't have that many sources and the ones it is from Spanish Government. -- Cat ^chi? 08:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no reason to delete a perfectly encyclopaedic article. Where else could these names be listed if not in an article specifically dedicated to them? Parishan 05:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None, if the attacks are so notable they should have articles on the people even, which barely theres only two and the sources are not third party and very POV. Artaxiad 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The external links are very inappropriate, Armenian butt-kissing France comments like that from a site should not be include in a article. Artaxiad 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV is not a verb. Sources are not expected to comply with wikipedias NPOV. Neutral sites are preferred but not required. -- Cat ^chi? 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't matter these are not reliable sources, they are not third party, especially from the ATAA there main page, shows Anti-Armenian context, this article is no where near finished, or deserves a article its self, plus the people who died don't even have articles. Artaxiad 06:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather you like the sites or not is not a part of deletion criteria. Please take it to articles talk page. -- Cat ^chi? 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This material appears to be covered adequately at Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia. Not every attack or name needs to be listed; most of the casualties were minor embassy employees, not ambassadors. Brianyoumans 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame for humanbeings; minor embassy employees?????..Must ^TC 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any attack on any embassy is notable, maybe not notable enough to have a complete article on them. These are diplomatic installations. I intend to reformat the list on a "list of attacks" format in due time. -- Cat ^chi? 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need an additional article? The major attacks are all listed in the ASALA article, and the overall numbers of attacks, casualties, and injuries. This looks like just a POV fork, or an attempt to have just yet another article on the subject. I don't see that this article adds much to our coverage of the issue. At present it doesn't even link back to the other articles. Brianyoumans 07:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is merely a chronological activity of ASALA. Many such lists exist. See: List of Hamas suicide attacks for example. I just started working on it, don't expect a featured article to pop out from a few edits.... -- Cat ^chi? 08:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve I am having a very hard time understanding why this article has to go.--Doktor Gonzo 08:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be obvious, we do not creat articles for the pleasure of creating them. Tell me what justify the existance of this article, when the subject has a main and far from being over 40 Kb. It still can be expended, no one is preventing you to do that. It is not an article, it is just a list, and not a list that can be updated by adding more to it, as the organization does even not exist anymore. Fad (ix) 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a very informative list actually. And I thought Wikipedia was about giving information, not censoring it cause it is 40Kb.--Doktor Gonzo 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Augustgrahl. -- Aivazovsky 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Nothing unencyclopedic about this list. –mysid ☎ 13:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:ATTributed to reliable sources. There's a perfectly good section on attacks in the well-referenced Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia article. POV fork anyone? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are reliable sources. No one is disputing that the people described has died. Multiple sources say the same thing. -- Cat ^chi? 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to disagree. Anything worth saying can be said in the article that doesn't rely on belgenet, ATAA, or TAT. Why you'd want to hide this information away in a trainwreck like this escapes me. I'd have thought you'd want it to be given due prominence in the ASALA piece. I suppose the idea of finding books to use as references, rather than polemical self-published websites, is rather too alien to be considered. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the cited sources are not neutral/reliable you are more than welcome to find better sources and actualy help the article. -- Cat ^chi? 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add the information to the ASALA page. Thats where it belongs. --Vartanm 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what the problem is as long as it's sourced (which it seems to be, albeit not fully, at this moment). Yonatan ^(talk) 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia, Wikipedia is not the place to start creating lists, when there is a main page just about the event which could cover it. Either way, this page was created by a member who just registered an account for the purpouses of creating it. [5] And I suspect that member to be related to the Arbcom case involving Armenia-Azerbaijan and would hope a checkuser on it. Also, I am sorry to say, if any other ethnic group X can accept links to sites to tallXtale or Xmyth.com etc., I would welcome those racist sites to stay, until then those have to go. Also, I have a work published in Israel which gives a good historic of the events, a work which could be qualified as neutral, some in the list are not included in that work, that work could be cited, but again, this goes in the main. Justifying such a page by claiming it shows chronology is bogus, lets creat such lists for every articles on Wikipedia. Shall we? What happened to "Wikipedia is not a list?" Did we lost it, and since when? Fad (ix) 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That rule never existed and will never exist. Lists of events and etc has been on wikipedia for ages. See: Category:Lists and List of military engagements of World War II. WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE. -- Cat ^chi? 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed it, but I don't see anything similair, show me. Relevant cathegories, but I don't see any such article with a name by itself, when the main already covers it and is far from achieving 40kb. Fad (ix) 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recommended action for pages with a size above 32 kilobytes is to break them up for older browsers. This rule was relevant in 2001 when these older browsers were in heavy usage. There was never a rule to require 32 kilobytes from the parent article. ASALA article may be expanded, the point of this list is to simply list ASALA's attacks. There are 4 pages worth of attacks on the MIPT database. I haven't even begun dissecting that source. -- Cat ^chi? 14:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this all right, but this page does not bring anything new, and the term POV Fork does qualify, as some in the list are not included in the work I have, published in Israel. Escaping a sourced article, to created another one with different level of established work is doubtfull. Tell me what in this article is not well covered in the main, if you can not source each events individually, than it is not sourced enough to go on Wikipedia. Fad (ix) 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every incident is sourced individually at the moment. Each of the 7 external links (one being from Turkish Culture Department") agree with each other. The list is incomplete, it currently only features diplomat assassinations. Other activity of ASALA is on MIPT database and takes up about 4 pages of entries (each entry is about a page long). I do not believe there are any views in this article. ASALA also admits killing these people. -- Cat ^chi? 16:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you consider tallarmeniantale, anarmenianmyth and armenianreality as sources which could go anywhere in Wikipedia beside the article about anti-Armenianism is enough for me, at this point I see no point in adding anything at all. I guess you would have kept sites named tallturkishtale, aturkishmyth and turkishreality and consider them worthy of any mention. I had proposed you to add a neutral source published in Israel to expend the main article, I don't care keep the article, won't change the fact that it would bring nothing new, while encyclopedic articles are actually meant to bring something new. Fad (ix) 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
tallturkishtale, aturkishmyth and turkishreality (I do not believe I have used this one in the article/list) and other "hate sites" are not my preferred sources. I merely am referencing them as an external view/site. You would know this had you actually checked the citation. Lists aren't supposed to bring anything new, a list does not contain a lot of information. A list is for organizing data much like a category. -- Cat ^chi? 05:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is unencyclopedic you know it this article should be deleted with accordance to Wikipedia standards and rules, all this nonsense comes from POV, and ethnic hatred websites including all Turkish with no other parties present, it definitely should be deleted as we can see a weak attempt from Cool cat to improve the article nice job but no reliable sources. Artaxiad 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider my edits as a "weak attempt". Here I found a 7th source, [6]. Now thats official Turkish Government publication. -- Cat ^chi? 05:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find thousands of things like this from the Turkish government what do you expect? there not third party nor reliable thus references like this should not stay its still a weak attempt from my view. Artaxiad 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Don't see why listing of facts shall be removed. After all attacks did happen, people did get killed. Why delete the article? Most of these incidents are documented at MIPT Knowledge Base, here is just one example [7]. Atabek 10:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, and there is already an article about it, it is called Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia Fad (ix) 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a general article about ASALA, individual attacks should not be listed there. -- Cat ^chi? 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Fad (ix) 05:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because in article lists are problematic. They occupy too much space. Very rarely do we see in-article lists. -- Cat ^chi? 05:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be presented as a list? Fad (ix) 05:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same reason why we have some 1,600,000 articles. Please see Category:Lists -- Cat ^chi? 05:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should it be presented as a list? Fad (ix)"

That summarizes the argument for "Delete" really. Because as Cat pointed out there are hundreds of thousands of them, because it is a very deep list, because every attack has its own story, because it is important, because it is informative.--Doktor Gonzo 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fadix pseudo-arguments don't work well in deletion discussions. Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia explains why we have lists on wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the content is in the cover article already. But copy the references to the it. --Tone 16:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant info is already at main ASALA article. Many of the sources fail WP:RS. --Folantin 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from the big RS problem, as already noted the relevant info is already in ASALA article.--Aldux 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RS? You call "Turkish government" and "MIPT Knowledge Base" an unreliable source? -- Cat ^chi? 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep independently or Merge to Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia. If kept, should be improved. --Ulvi I. 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I agree it forks information from the ASALA article.--Domitius 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Strong Keep if anyone here would revert it when someone adds more(1 to 70) attacks on the ASALA page. There are at least 80 attacks and many of them if not all of them should be important. This list is a good idea, we can also give more details for each attack. It will also be a good reference for Wikipedia visitors. Similar articles exist as well. We still have more than 20 dead (diplomats, their spouses, children and coworkers, etc.), and hundreds of injured not listed on the ASALA page. I am the one who recently added those 'some other attacks', we can maybe add a 1 or 2 more, the rest I am not sure. Wikipedia is not on paper, no need to have a very large main ASALA page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denizz (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Deniz, if we add details to this list, it will be a text on the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, which already has its own article. If you want to add information, the main page is there for you to expend it, this article is needless. Fad (ix) 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. A lot of the insidents not covered in the main ASALA article are to be presented here. There are 4 pages worth of attacks on MIPT database. -- Cat ^chi? 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MIPT is relevent then, delete the rest of the sources and keep that one(MIPT). I don't see why all the attacks can not be presented in the main which is far being too long, but at least now if the community decide to keep, we have a relevent reference to work on. Fad (ix) 05:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Government is a very reputable source on the matter as well. If Kurdistan Workers Party links to pkk.org (a hate site), this should link to that. Believeing or even visiting the external site is upto the reader. I would add an external link ("hate site") in support of ASALA had I found one -- Cat ^chi? 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Turkish government is not a credible source in anything that concerns the Armenians. A list is not like an article, it is a statment of fact, it does not represent positions, it says this happened. For this the source provided should be very credible, in this case the Turkish government does not qualify here. Fad (ix) 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikipedian, I would very much like to have detailed knowledge of every attack by ASALA. This article promises to do that. And please keep your POV concerning Turks to yourself.--Doktor Gonzo 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is going nowhere, Gonzo, please check what all neutral contributors here except one have voted. I agree with you, a detailed desciption of what happened should be writen. This is not where my opposition lies. My opposition is as following: Why can't the main article do that? If we start adding texts and desciptions, it doesn't become a list anymore, but rather more of a detailed article, which the main article is meant to be. This is the reason why I said that the relevent stuff should be merged to the main article. Who prevented you to expend the main article? Fad (ix) 17:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ASALA article can't carry all this, it is a very long list. And I don't want no summary, I want details. These are attacks affiliated with the group, a long list, they can be examined under another article such as this, there are such other examples in Wikipedia.--Doktor Gonzo 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix, this AFD discussion is way too early, we should give time to everyone who wants to expand this list. There are more than 80, possibly more than 200 attacks, we should not put them on the ASALA page, otherwise the ASALA page will become 'lists of attacks by ASALA' page that you guys want to delete. Again, you all know this better than me, Wikipedia is not on paper, there is no reason not to have a relevant page. I don't want to do this right now because of this AFD discussion (not to affect people), but I am planning to use this list as the main article for the some other attacks part on ASALA, people who are interested can just take a look at this list. By the way, by details I did not mean the whole details, just 1-2, maybe 3 lines (the current list is fine). Also Turkish government can be used a source for Armenian related matters, we might not want not choose it as the main source for a general Armenian related thing, but this matter is not just an Armenian matter, it is a Turkish matter as well, the embassies attacked were Turkish embassies, most of the people who died were Turkish diplomats, their family members or coworkers. We are not going to put opinions of the governments here, but the events. It's like using US government's documents for incidents of Iraqi insurgency or Al Qaeda, etc deniz 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but don't you think that the expension should have been done before creating the article, when it was obvious that the article will creat a controversy? You are right about we should not exclude the Turkish government. The problem with a list is that it exploit one weakness with Wikipedia, perhaps I should work on a guideline about that. The problem is that a list will usually make a statment of fact, not position. With a list it is difficult to say:"According to X, but Y does not..." since it will defy the purpouses of it being a list. This is why I always had a problem with lists, we have the same problem with categories, we should be careful with categories, because we will not start footnoting them and justifying their uses. Having said that, for those reasons, it is best to not use the Turkish government as a source, because we are presenting "facts" rather than "positions." But Coolcat has presented another source which is more complete and neutral, which rander the use of the Turkish government source as useless. Had he presented that source a priori, and excluded the biased sources, the result of the votes could have been different. But another problem remains, is that all acts were not perpetrated by the ASALA, and filtering them will creat more controversies, as many other lists will be created. This was also one of the reasons I requested merging, since I found that it would fit better if each acts were discribed in their relevent mainspaces. I guess we have to see what the community decides. Or else, you could start working with the article and improve it, by addressing the issues raised by the critics and see what the reaction will be. Fad (ix) 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the reason of controversies (and most delete votes, possibly some keep votes as well) was the usage of the 'bad sites' as references, now it is fixed (maybe we should inform the voters(delete'rs or keep'ers), they might reconsider, it has a new title as well) Also if you are talking about general articles, they don't start as featured article candidates, they usually start as stubs and get expanded. If you are talking about lists, it would be better if they had a good head start, but I don't think this is necessary for lists either. The problem with lists you mentioned is a general thing, and I don't think it applies here. To have a person in this list, a) that person must be killed/injured in an attack, b) that attack must be claimed by ASALA (it might be co-claimed by other organizations, that is fine). If we are going to use governments as references, we will only take the 'statements' not say opinions of some politicians. Statements of governments are reliable sources, and here we need only statements, a) and b) above. I agree that the usage of Turkish government as reference is so far rather useless, but having multiple references is not a bad thing. Back to 'bad sites' aka Tallarmeniantale (don't know much about others, is ATAA the American Turkish society?), I believe Tallarmeniantale might be worthy of having an article about (similar articles can probably be found on the Armenian side). deniz 06:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is the one Angus McLellan made: how come it was possible to create the main ASALA article using reasonably reliable sources but not this one? As Angus said: "I suppose the idea of finding books to use as references, rather than polemical self-published websites, is rather too alien to be considered". The first source used is a chronology presenting an incredibly one-sided account of Turkish-Armenian relations. It doesn't even mention the initial Turkish invasion of Armenia. So is this a reliable source? No. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to "make the Net not suck", not to bring all the suckier parts of the Net together in one place. It should be perfectly possible to create a list like this, but if people really want it so desperately how about making the effort to go and find some neutral, third-party sources? Until that happens, this page should be deleted without prejudice to recreation. --Folantin 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin, any source for a list can be used as a source for the article was well, so there will be more possible sources for the main page than the list. Also all the references are reliable now, tallarmeniantale and likes are not used, Angus' comments are not that relevant now. And, what do you mean by Turkish invasion of Armenia, what do you mean by 'not even mentioning Turkish invasion of Armenia'? Please don't make me ignore you. Also, a website of a list of attacks don't need to have a thorough analysis of the attackers' motives, and it can be used as a source, it can be very good source indeed. Thorough analyses are usually commercial. Anyway, its almost morning, back to my coffin. deniz 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't reliable. Have you actually looked at the chronology I mentioned which claims to give a complete account of Turkish-Armenian relations since the 11th century, yet doesn't even mention the Seljuk invasion? I'm not even going to go into the many other omissions. Would any reputable historian think this source was trustworthy? It's simply a polemical advocacy site. Getting a bunch of these things off the Web and collating them doesn't add up to reliable sourcing - as I point out below, they even contradict one another. The ASALA did carry out attacks in the 1970s and 1980s. The job of editors here should be to find out factually accurate information about them, ideally using academically respectable books. --Folantin 11:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Must ^TC 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite informative. Grandmaster 08:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unencylopedic and pov.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments First, the list needs pruning because the affiliations of the perpetrators doesn't seem to be limited to the group identified in the title. Second, I assume the good faith of those wanting to keep the list that they would also wish to gladly vote keep for a List of attacks by Turkish terrorists or some such thing that is sourced primarily from Greek, Bulgarian, Arab, Russian, Cypriot, and Armenian sources. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks by X, where X is a terrorist organization consisting of mostly Turkish people, yes, but not list of attacks of Turkish terrorists, and why is this military related? deniz 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlossuarez46, you seem to be the one failing to assume good faith with such a distasteful comment. And yeah, I second deniz, why is this listed under Military-related?--Doktor Gonzo 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the group has "Army" in its title? Good one.--Doktor Gonzo 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doktor Gonzo, I talked with Carom, here is what he said:

" Heh, well, given the relatively small number of military AFD's, I doubt editors will become enraged if they have to scroll past one or two discussion which are only peripherally related to the military. At any rate, Wikipedia in general takes a pretty broad view of the scope of the term "military," so I don't think it's stretching a point too much to include this one. Carom 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) " deniz 17:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions and list of Armenia-related deletions. --deniz 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comment I've just noticed this list doesn't even use its own sources accurately, regardless of how reliable they are. Take the first incident listed. Source 1 says that Mehmet Baydar and Bahadir Demir were assassinated by "Gourgen Yanikian"; yet Source 2 says they were killed by "Migirdic Yanikyan". So which is it? More importantly, what is this incident even doing here? It took place in 1973 but according to Source 2, the ASALA wasn't even founded until 1975. Come on, please, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Factual accuracy is paramount, especially on controversial subjects like this. It's also worth noting that for many of these attacks, several groups apart from the ASALA also claimed responsibility. It's not very encyclopaedic to put them on a "List of attacks by the ASALA" unless a neutral source has determined who was behind them accurately. --Folantin 10:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a fine line between improving an article and getting rid of it.--Doktor

Gonzo 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - This list doesn't even live up to its title. It doesn't provide a list of ASALA attacks. It provides a list of attacks on Turkish diplomats which were actually or allegedly carried out by persons with an Armenian background between 1973 and 1984. We already have a greatly superior article on the ASALA which can be expanded with information from reliable sources. What is this poor duplicate's reason for existence? --Folantin 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not itemize these comments, it would be like voting multiple times. Yanikian, Georgeu (or Gourgen) was born around 1895 in Ottoman Empire, did you stop a while to think that these Georgeu or Gourgen might be his adopted names after he migrated to USA, and Migirdic Yanikian might be his name in Ottoman documents most of which are in the possession of Turkish government now (hence Turkish government might feel obliged to use this name)? We certainly need to look into this, it will be a way to improve the list. All sources say that ASALA was established in 1975. I think we should move the first attack to the introduction, ASALA and JCAG founders were inspired by this attack and founded ASALA, this attack may be the reason why mostly diplomats are targeted, but it is not necessarily part of ASALA attacks. I am going to do that now. Lets improve the list, not delete. deniz 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then Delete. Any relevant information cited by reliable sources, should be merged to the ASALA article. --JavMilos 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you for having 80 maybe 200 attacks listed on the ASALA page? As I said earlier, I think this AFD is too soon, let the people improve it. The reason that this AFD started this soon is probably the fact that back then undesirable references were used, which enraged people; this was apparently the reason of many delete votes back then. Now the sources are reliable, definitely no tallarmeniantale or similar site is used. deniz 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary or desirable to list every single attack. Does an article on a war list every engagement in which a few soldiers died? Does an article on the streets of a city list every street - or just the notable ones? If there were only 10 attacks, we would want to list every one. Since there are dozens or hundreds, we should list those that were more significant or notable and summarize the rest. Just because this whole affair is part of a blood feud between Armenians and Turks, in which they want to obsess over every real or imagined injury, is no reason that we should write bad articles on this subject. Too much niggly detail means that an article is less effective and interesting - no one is going to want to read through a list of 200 attacks. Brianyoumans 18:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, attacks on embassies are certainly notable. If a terrorist organization attacked 200 World Trade centers, we would list all 200 of them and make an article for all 200 of them (in which case a category would be enough). Attacks on embassies are notable, maybe not as notable as something of caliber of attack on World Trade center, so that each would require an article. This is not a bad article on this subject. When we have more than 50 attacks listed, we can reorganize things to make it more easily readable. The current format is good for a shorter list, in my opinion. deniz 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article still links to tallarmeniantale and armenianreality. -- Augustgrahl 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I was checking and referring to the references. I am going to edit that page, move them to a Notes section, make a remark there. If you want to, we can comment out that. deniz 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The attacks took place. Therefore writing about the attacks is neither propaganda, nor POV. Second, the list format is appropriate as in a general article about ASALA there would be no breadth for a list this large. Third, in response to article's citation quality: This should not seriously be considered a valid reason for AfD. The article was created a few days prior to AfD, which really begs the question why the concerned authors are not helping out providing better sources. The article can provide better sources and a little amount of effort should be able to find them - here is one from the Turkish government: "Armenian Issue, Allegations-Facts, Chronology". Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Republic of Turkey. Retrieved 2007-02-21., but asking for deletion of this article so soon after its creation really brings questions of good faith to my mind. --Free smyrnan 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references back then were some websites that were disputed by the (Armenian and maybe other) users for its other content. I think that was the reason for such an early AFD of a list. Keep assuming good faith deniz 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. ASALA is a recognized terrorist organization, and as such, there must be a list of attacks. Especially in an encyclopedia. So as long as the list of attacks is verifiable, it should be part of the record. --adil 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, meets WP:LIST. Matthew 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but find better sources --A.Garnet 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are from a racist website and many of the information is POW. It also forks information from the ASALA article. ROOB323 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe any of that is a part of deletion criteria. -- Cat ^chi? 11:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, referenced (although at least one of the sources may warrant being replaced). Everyking 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tally by nationality (Updated through Penwhale's vote below) For the closing administrator, for general amusement, for anyone who might have thought that people vote based on the merits of the article and not whether they like its political implications: I did a tally by nationality, based mostly on voter's userpages, although in a few cases I classified them based on comments on their talk pages (Armenian Barn Stars, for instance) or by what articles they principally edited. Here is the tally.
- Turks (Cool Cat, A. Garnet, free smyrnan, Parishan, Doktor Gonzo, Atabek, Denizz, Mustafa Akalp, Baristarim) - all voted to keep (9 Keep votes)
- Azeris (Ulvi I. Grandmaster, adil) - all voted to keep (3 Keep votes) (for those who don't follow the region, Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a war recently)
- Armenians (Eupator, ROOB323, Augustgrahl, Aivazovsky, Artaxiad, Vartmm, Fadix) - all voted to delete or merge (6 Delete votes, 1 Merge )
- Greeks (Domitius, Yannismarou) - 2 Delete votes
- All others - 8 Keep, 5 Delete
On the whole, a sad day for Wikipedia. (I had commended Domitius for voting contrary to expectations, but it was a bookkeeping error, and I have revised the totals above appropriately.) Brianyoumans 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am really offended by this, I am a mergist and deletionist by nature. I voted merge and justified my argument. I also answered to Deniz that there was still time for him to convince the community to keep it, by improving the article. I did not only vote, but also provided a descriptive reason for my decision and settled on the middle by voting merge. It isn't bad at all, as you claim 6 keeps and 6 deletes, which place me on the center. Fad (ix) 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I of course am not accusing any particular editor of voting solely on politics. As the "neutral" votes show, opinion is split on this. However, it is certainly against the odds that all Armenians would vote to merge or delete, and all Turks would vote to keep. Brianyoumans 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you and it is really sad, the whole idea of the afd should be reviewed, on the Armenia Azerbaijan RfAr, one of my proposal was to restrict involved sides to vote for a period of 3 months. I have few ideas to prevent abuses of this system, if you are interested we could talk about it in your talkpage. We are at a point that the closing administrator has to view who voted what and what uninvolved parties have voted. Members should reverse the roles in their mind and see if they would have still voted the same thing. Fad (ix) 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Was I just being "accused" of being azerbaijani? -- Cat ^chi? 07:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I was just gonna say you can add that to your list then realized you alread did. Congratulations.--Doktor Gonzo 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you were joking about Domitius[8]--Doktor Gonzo 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er... sorry, bookkeeping error. I'll have to plead the old "I wrote the last bit with an unhappy 6-month old on my knee" excuse. I'll correct my text. Brianyoumans 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brianyoumans, you are not the 'mighty outsider' either. I checked your userpage as well. deniz^T_C 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I guess ou got him. :) Fad (ix) 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I tend to be a "deletionist", but that means that I tend to bring a lot of articles up to AFD; I don't necessarily vote "delete" on other editors' AFDs. As to ethnicity, I qualify as a "white bread American". Brianyoumans 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If being the "Armenian", "Turk", or "Azeri" affects the votes, why not being deletionist? Also, it might have had an effect on your decision to create a 'tally of votes by nationality' here. Do you usually do that when the plurality of votes are 'delete'? No need to kinda 'accuse' Armenians, Turks and Azeris to be the Armenian, the Turk, the Azeri. A better tally of votes would be based on date, in my opinion. This AFD was started and many votes were based on the fact that 'some' websites were used as a reference back then; I hope a lot of people had to a chance to take a look at these again. I am not going to make that tally of votes based on date, as I might be biased. If we want to tally the votes, another option would be a tally of votes based on the nationality and the date. This might be better.deniz^T_C 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I was pointing out was how ethnically political this discussion was, how nationality was in fact a 100% accurate predictor of how someone voted. I don't normally tally votes that way, because I am rarely involved in such discussions. I'm sure there are other ways you could split up the voters, but you aren't going to find any more valid than this. I was kind of saddened, frankly. Brianyoumans 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you had good intentions, but I wanted to say that that we can all be biased. The eye does not see itself (just made up :) ). deniz^T_C 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, people did not say anything about whether they would object adding the gazillion attacks to the ASALA page (which was represented as an alternative of having this list, and yes they are needed), I object that. Also, many thanks to Coolcat (Catchi), the 'Azeri', who has been improving the article a lot lately.deniz^T_C 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the "Azeris" also had Turkish language userboxes and might actually identify as Turks. I don't think this changes my analysis any. I don't personally mind adding some of the info to the ASALA page, if it is missing from the list of attacks there, and if the attack is significant enough to be mentioned. Brianyoumans 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Brian, I think you are violating the WP:AGF massively. I voted Keep because I strongly believe this article can stay and be improved.--Doktor Gonzo 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you did. I'm not accusing any particular editor of anything. I'm just pointing out that all the Turks and Azeris came to the same decision, and all the Armenians and Greeks came to the opposite conclusion. Many of them gave perfectly good arguments for their positions. If you feel that your vote was based on a rational consideration of what is the best way for Wikipedia to present this information (for clearly at least some of it needs to be in Wikipedia somewhere - and much of it is in Wikipedia, in other articles - then you have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. However, let's be reasonable - it is obvious that politics is influencing people's decisions here, and I am just pointing that out. I don't really have a personal axe to grind; breaking the votes out by ethnicity doesn't really help argue for deletion, which is what I recommended. I just thought it was sufficiently remarkable to be interesting to point out, and that it might help people re-examine their decision processes. --Brianyoumans 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes we all should help, no matter what the nationality. There can be very good Armenian sources about these attacks. deniz^T_C 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I nominated this article for deletion, it was entirely referenced to sites like tallarmeniantale and armenianreality, and had a title that wasn't even written in correct English. At that time it was an blatant POV fork. Although the fact that links to those virulently racist sites have been retained is troubling, subsequent work has improved the article vastly. -- Augustgrahl 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you hadn't nominated it, more people would be working on it now. It is generaly the better side of valor to give articles a month to develop before nominating it for deletion. -- Cat ^chi? 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's another point. Why not give articles some time to develop before hurrying towards an AfD, really? Baristarim 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the fact that it began as something referenced to hate sites and not even written in grammatically correct English gave every appearance of a poorly and hastily constructed POV fork. -- Augustgrahl 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could be kept really, if it has potential for expansion. Clean up should be done, but all articles start as a mess, so no surprise there :) I see the logic of Fadix that it could be merged to the main ASALA article, so the question is: Does this article have potential for more expansion as a list that can be mained out from the ASALA article? If not it could be merged. But there are shorter articles so I don't know. If it were kept as a strict list, it shouldn't become a FORK. If analytical stuff is added, then it can become so. So how much potential for expansion does this article have? IBaristarim 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (at least as it is now) and merge any usefl information to ASALA article. Since I see in the ASALA article two sections named "major attacks", and "some other attacks" I fail to understand what this article adds to the subject. It does not fulfill WP:SS (attackes are already listed in the ASALA article, and the prose is longer there), and the list doesn't add anything new. So, why couldn't it be just a template included in the ASALA article? If this article is to be saved, its editors must concentrate their efforts on making it useful and informative enough to stand on its own. As it is now, it doesn't. It looks as a fork, even if this is not your intention.--Yannismarou 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd for keep some info, but this list in its current state needs a cleanup/delink at the minimum. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:05, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles[edit]

All the usual problems with the cultural references/popular culture lists: Mostly unsourced original research consisting of personal observations. The most notable parodies (Adolescent Radioactive Black Belt Hamsters, etc) can be mentioned in the main Ninja Turtles article.

Yet another Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles trivia article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons within Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) - allusions to other series. Saikokira 04:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merge any notable information into TMNT article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SWATjester put it well. Realkyhick 06:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as per SWATjester. Anthony Hit me up... 12:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not backmerge no matter of result, please!!! These leaf articles are created to remove pop-culture references from main articles, to keep them more on topic and better maintainable. For most of the time this works rather well (compared to never ending struggle to maintain these references inside them main body of the text). If you put some references back then the inevitable cycle of their accumulation, offloading into a leaf page and VfD will be only sped up.

While not ideal, "... in popular culture" articles work around one structural weakness of Wikipedia and until better solution is invented it is better to keep them here. Pavel Vozenilek 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better here than there is a terrible excuse for keeping. The solution to a main article loaded with trivial garbage is to delete the garbage and keep deleting it, not to dump the garbage into another editors' "yard." Otto4711 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#IINFO, these "facts" are just not of encyclopedic importance. Simply take a very harsh line with the inclusion of trivia in the main article. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and do not merge - An indiscriminate collection and directory seeking to capture every time the turtles or a specific turtle is mentioned somewhere else ever. I would also strongly dispute the notion that this "solution" to the problem of garbage in main articles works well most of the time. Most of the time these trash can articles simply collect more and more garbage until they get deleted (or worse, kept on some combination of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:BHTT argument), wasting everyone's time and effort a lot more than simply policing the main article would. This accumulate-split-delete-accumulate-split-delete cycle also does nothing to address the problem that this kind of trivial crap represents. If the presence of this sort of information lowers the quality of the main article in particular and Wikipedia in general, then article after article full of awful "cultural references to..." and "...in popular culture" itms also lowers the general quality of Wikipedia. Well-written articles on cultural representations can be done but keeping this sort of crap around as the dominant example of how such articles exist does not encourage editors to write actual good articles on the topic and contribute to the endless cycle of crap. No one seems to much like these sorts of articles but time after time instead of taking a stand against them people vote to keep them because actually addressing the problem they represent they deem too difficult. The "better solution" that already exists is to delete the articles as they come up and remove the crap from the articles before it accumulates to the point of inspiring a split. Otto4711 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unreferenced trivia. --Mus Musculus 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There should be a "Trivia wiki" for this kind of thing Croxley 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIV. However, this is not OR, which refers to information that is inherently unverifiable. If you want to verify these tidbits, just look at/listen to the relevant film/comic/song. -- Black Falcon 18:36, 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 DELETED as an attack page and highly speculative original research, all wrapped up in one. I've disregarded the nose count on this one, due to the off-wiki vote stumping. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet troll squads[edit]

Original research devised from two tangentially related articles. Essentially an attack page against Putin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<Lengthy comment moved to talk preserving order> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either, so the sources really mean nothing to me. If its not a joke, perhaps Merge with Troll (Internet)Gelston 08:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. -- Pious7 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources are in english Whoops, confused this with a different russian language article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Original research.--Tom 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Except for being hoax, original research, and the term "troll squads" being coined by Biophys - the author of this article, this article was created by him in order to defame and slander me and Alex Bakharev. Please see the evidence here "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" Vlad fedorov 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am creator of this article). First, this is obviously not OR, which is claimed as the reason for deletion. Everything is taken from the sources. Article is based on ~~a single reliable source~~ at least four reliable sources now (see my reply below - "Thank you"), which is perfectly consitent with Wikipedia policies. Second, English translation of main source has been provided in the article. See: [9]. So, could you please read this translation, and then decide if the subject is a "hoax" and notable. As explained on talk page, this is a reliable source. Third, this article say nothing personal about Putin except that FSB workers admire him (which is probably true). So, this is not attack against Putin. Finally, this article has not been created to accuse Wikipedia editors. I planned to create it long time ago, as anyone can see looking at my personal page User:Biophys#Links_and_notes and Talk:Persecution_of_political_bloggers#English_translation_of_Russian_article_about_.22Internet_troll_squads.22 where the same source has been used. Further, I have never made any personal accusations of that kind. If someone else did, this is not my problem. The subject about "FSB trolls in Wikipedia" was opened by an anonymous user in talk page FSB, so I have mostly reacted on that. I also did not want people to discuss accusations not related to me at my talk page. Biophys 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV/OR. FCYTravis 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited as is required. Probable OR. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first of all, if this article was alone, it would probably only just be a weak delete; while there is one source provided, it does not back up any claim this this is either a notable or even realistic problem. Furthermore, this article appears to be some kind of personal vendetta the creator has against another Wikipedian - in my books, that's WP:POINT. --Haemo 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's surely a conspiracy theory. ellol 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply.. If it's surely a conspiracy theory, then you must have some proof that it is right? CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I feel that while it is a good article, it needs more sources to cite for it to be as reliable as people want.CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I take back my delete vote, and now vote keep, as the article cites many more sources, and has been cleaned up greatly since creation. CPTGbr 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition. --Irpen 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The phenomena is real, but the name seems to be ORish. The new name should be Interned disinformation by Russian intelligence agencies or such.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete, WP:CSD G10, WP:BLP. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename and Source //Halibu tt 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The best solution in these circumstances is to expand the article and add sources. Appleseed (Talk) 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the case of disinformation by InoSMI shown in the bottom of the article, I can't help but notice the abundance of impersonation and disinformation attacks against Russian opposition figures. See the statement by Yevgenia Albats who discovered an article published under her name [10], computer translation. The Troll (Internet) article did not mention PhD researchers in its references. I believe the troll squads article is not an original research because it summarizes the referenced exhibits and analysis. If the article's neutrality is disputed, counter-arguments should be added to the article instead of deleting it. ilgiz 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you present the evidence in support of your statements and in support of your linking of these allegations with specifically internet troll squads. Do you have the evidence that Yevgenia Albats was harassed exactly by internet troll squads and why do you have such infromation? Vlad fedorov 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this original research. Let me politely ask our Polish friends to leave Russia-articles to the responsibility of Russian editors. I presume the latter know more about Russia than the former. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<Lengthy discussion moved to talk preserving order> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOR. >Radiant< 12:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as WP:OR and possible attack page. We have enough "conspiracy" pages to deal with already, let's not repeat the same mistakes. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<Another lengthy discussion moved to talk. Mr.Biophys, you won't promote your cause by abusing the voting section guidelines> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator, Pious7, NYC JD and everybody else. --Pan Gerwazy 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus, but widen the scope and develop to WP standards. Not hoax, reflects real phenomena and may be referred to some external links. No exceptional concentration on Russia of course. Ukrained 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Thank you all for your participation and discussion of my article. This helped to improve it a lot. It was nominated for deletion as WP:OR. Now it is not OR and based on multiple sources. This is obvious from the current list of references. No one of this discussion participants challenged the reliability of any specific references on any reasonable grounds. Most of you criticized the title. Great. Then let's rename it as "Internet teams of Russian state security services" (almost as suggested by Pyotrus). I have made the corresponding changes in the text, but I do not want to move the article during AfD discussion. If you disagree with such title, let's mark this article as WP:RM and discuss a better title (wrong title can not be a reason for deletion). Finally, the AfD nominator believed that the article is "an attack page against Putin". Obviously, it is not, since there is only one mention of Putin in this article as a third party.Biophys 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, possibly OR.--Aldux 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I received an unsolicited e-mail apparently from Ukrained, asking me to participate in this. I'm not sure if he only sent this request to me, or to many people. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exclusively to you Mr. Quadell :). By the way, you'd better write nothing if you "don't know": pelase don't litter voting with hardly-relevant comments. Thanks, Ukrained 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a note that the vote might be affected by behind the scenes canvassing is highly relevant both for the vote and for the ethics of some involved. --Irpen 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only if one can prove this. BTW, remember that this is not a referendum, what counts here is argumentation rather than number of votes. Colchicum 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you saying there is no proof of canvassing? --Irpen 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't seem to be OR, well known facts --Monk 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LUCPOL 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very known phenomena in Russian Internet. See also article in Russian Wikipedia ru:Веб-бригады. --Yakudza 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:POINT and WP:OR. --Kuban Cossack 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article lists several trustworthy sources that describe an Internet phenomenon. Andrew Alexander 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is similar to Censorship in China regarding what the government could do.. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is anyone able to translate the foreign language sources? - Denny 07:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and lock, this is a ridiculous attack piece. If it by some chance isn't an outright hoax, there has to be some better name it can hold and it will need rewritten from the ground up regardless. --tjstrf talk 07:09, 23 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 WP:BLP. Xiner (talk, email) 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty In The Bed[edit]

I don't even know what to say about this article. "Before she took out the single "Naughty In the Bed" she already had release the singles global so all the music store chucked out the CD's and gave them back to Gwen, which he kept them just incase she wants to release it again." I'm not quite sure if this is supposed to be vandalism or not, so WP:AGF I suppose. ShadowHalo 04:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does also fail WP:A, since all the references don't actually go to any charts for the song. This article is completly unreliable, and I too don't know if this article was supposted to be vandalism. Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 05:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm still trying to figure it all out. May fall under patent nonsense, or at least borderline. Realkyhick 06:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The image of the single's cover looks like the text has been Photoshopped in. What's more, it misspells the word "naughty". I call shenanigans. —Cel ithemis 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax. –Pomte 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is a hoax, you could have slapped a patent nonsense speedy tag on it and saved us some time. --Edokter (Talk) 13:15, 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 speedy delete G11. - Daniel Bryant 08:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netdimensions[edit]

Article may violate Wikipedia's policy. Article is an advertisement. Article lacks information on notability. Masterpedia 05:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree it's an ad, and fails WP:CORP regardless Citicat 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Spam! Spam! Realkyhick 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam. The link to the company doesn't work either. Gelston 08:43, 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 Speedy deleted by User:ChrisGriswold. Mus Musculus 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newington College Show[edit]

As far as I can tell, if this exists, which is doubtful, it can't be any more that a yearly skit. There are no references to "Newington College Show" anywhere that I can find except on Wikipedia and its mirrors. No references on the Newington College website. Claimed viewer totals supposedly approaching 1 million in Australia, but not ever appearing on any network? The footnotes for the viewership reference Nielsen ratings for the US, and do not mention this supposed "Newington College Show" at all -- they're duplicated footnotes intended to look like they're references for the "data", as long as you don't look at them. The whole thing looks like an elaborate hoax, just more stuff made up in school one day. ArglebargleIV 05:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or non-notable. --Tractor kings fan 05:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable by the article's own admission. Possible hoax. WjBscribe 05:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I was originally inclined toward a keep, and I noticed that the author had neglected to put a reflist to list the cite tags already in the ratings listings. I added it and checked out the links, which turned out to have no mention of this alleged show at all. Kill this hoax. Realkyhick 06:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources for this and none appear to be readily available. As well, the format of a soap opera with students and staff at Newington College supposedly playing fictional characters of the same name smells strongly of a hoax. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. --Bduke 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax, given the above. Lankiveil 08:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Cant believe it lasted this long. DXRAW 07:56, 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. - Daniel Bryant 08:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Markley[edit]

Losing reality television show contestant with no substantial claim to notability after the show ends -- now just another struggling model in a crowded professional field. Bio section is largely unreferenced. Mikeblas 15:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 12 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable reality show contestant. At most should be mentioned an article about the show she was in but does not need stand-alone article. WjBscribe 05:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe should be mentioned in an article about the show, but otherwise, fails Notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrmoocow (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete She has done things to further her modelling career after the show, but we can't list every model in the world on Wikipedia. Maybe she'll do something later to warrant recreation, but there just isn't enough now. Gelston 08:39, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother (USA-Season 8) Houseguests[edit]

It is a page related to a non-major part of a reality show that has not started yet, the title is probably not the best, the article is badly written, as the author is writing what he plans to do with the article. Should wait until the series begins, and then rewrite this article, without all the 'I plan to's. Mrmoocow 05:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps remake when its relevant. Gelston 08:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even when it's relevant, this information will be contained in the main article for the season. Maxamegalon2000 05:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrelevent. --Mus Musculus 16:02, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Thelen[edit]

Non-notable student and basketball coach. All supposed records were done in a rec basketball league. Scarykitty 05:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nomination. Have a happy St. Patty's Day! Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 18:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had this in my watchlist and was getting around to sending it to AFD. Beside that I'm pretty sure it was deleted before.--M8v2 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't appear to have been created before (nothing in the delete log) but non-notable. --Mus Musculus 16:04, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large pathetic galaxy[edit]

Fails WP:N. Original link to CNN report now dead, and link to Hubble site appears to be about a completely different object. Furthermore, google reveals that the name came from a description of the object as a 'large pathetic galaxy', and no suggestion that this should be used as its name has ever been made anywhere apart from on Wikipedia. It was detected via its effect on the Milky Way's disk; if it's considered important then it could be mentioned in the Milky Way article. Chrislintott 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) In case it's not obvious, delete Chrislintott 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The arguments in the previous AFD discussion for this article incorrectly assumed that the object in question was simply "unnamed" and that therefore "Large Pathetic Galaxy" should at least serve as a placeholder name. The object in fact has a number of proposed names in use, and the article that mentions them - Virgo Stellar Stream - existed at the time of the previous AFD. The object istelf passes WP:N with flying colors, however the term "large pathetic galaxy" was never used as a provisional name for the object, but merely a generic descripton of it. A redirect might be cheap but it would be misleading as it would effectively endorse the idea that LPG is an alternative name for this object, when it is not and never has been. Arkyan 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Virgo Stellar Stream. Although Arkyan makes a valid concern about endorsement, I think it does not harm because, if nothing else, it might prevent recreation of a similarly named article down the line. Part of me thinks it'd actually be cool to have a galaxy named this, though. Incidentally the fact the only linked source on this article is no longer active underscores the weakenesses in using online sources that fall behind subscription walls or simply expire. 23skidoo 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To redirect suggests that Large pathetic galaxy is an alternative name for something called the Virgo stellar stream. This isn't the case. Otherwise we could set up redirects for 'big damp city' to Manchester, 'hot red powder' for chilli and every other description possible for anything in the encyclopedia. Chrislintott 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original statement about a "a rather pathetic galaxy" attributed to Robert Lupton is now called the Virgo Overdensity,[11] or Virgo Stellar Stream. So I believe 23skidoo is correct and a redirect would be suitable. However my preference is for delete because I don't expect to see this name being used for lookups. — RJH (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to [BDS2000] 122 - In the last AfD discussion, I found this Astrophysical Journal paper that appears to describe the object that was in the CNN article. The object appeared to correspond to an object listed in the SIMBAD database as "[BDS2003] 122". I therefore suggest moving the article to that new name. Dr. Submillimeter 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look through this paper, and see no evidence that it is the same object that is described in Large peculiar galaxy. Of course, I can't read the CNN article as it has now vanished, but the paper described a cluster of red supergiants with no suggestion that said cluster was ever external to our own galaxy, or disrupted the Milky Way's structure. Chrislintott 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I may have linked the Wikipedia entry to the cited Astrophysical Journal article through names in the CNN article or another mainstream press article. If kept, then the article would need to be revised significantly, so maybe deletion would be appropriate anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the arguments I made in the previous AfD. No need for a redirect as this is not in fact an alternative name, merely a description used on one occasion by researchers. The name is inherently non-notable. WjBscribe 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially useful redirect to Virgo Stellar Stream. Spacepotato 02:54, 9 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, trialsanderrors 06:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisted per request at deletion review, which the initial closer Seraphimblade agreed to. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 06:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in the Reuters link where Lupton says "large pathetic galaxy", he's not using that as a name, so there shouldn't be a redirecting title. A trivial comparison suggests the actual object Lupton is talking about is surely this, and that SDSS release directs the reader to astro-ph/0510589 where the name "Virgo Stellar Stream" is proposed. Identity established, but as others have said, a redirect would be misleading so let's not merge. Instead of using any content from this page, I will write from scratch a blurb that includes "large pathetic galaxy" over at Virgo Stellar Stream. That way the GFDL does not demand the revision history of this page (since I'm not cross-pollinating content), and searchers on google will still be able to find relevant information using a "large pathetic galaxy" search string (which may have entered the public consciousness, if someone used the phrase to start an article here). Anyway, that should resolve everything, and there's no need for a merge, so delete. — coel acan — 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I see the Virgo Stellar Stream article already references the "pathetic galaxy" bit. So there's really nothing left to do except delete now. — coel acan — 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a non-notable phrase made up one day at the observatory. There is absolutely no evidence provided to back up the claim that it's an "informal designation". It looks to have been a description (by an individual), not a designation! At best, it was a very temporary nickname or protologism. Xtifr _tälk 09:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, allow a redirect if it is genuinely thought to eb useful. This is a term made up in an observatory one day and has no significant currency and no obvious reference in the literature. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cogent arguments of WJBScribe and Coelacan. Nuff said. Jeffpw 10:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this was a head-scratcher but Coelacan parsed it very well. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above args. — RJH (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd heard of this discovery, but definitely not as "large pathetic galaxy". If we start having articles for each idiosyncratic utterance of a journalist, we'll end up with He scores!. (oh... no... there is a He Shoots, He Scores) Shenme 07:59, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howells (department store)[edit]

Not notable; it's just a store. Full disclosure: I live near it, I shop at it, I like the place, but I don't see how it's notable. Stlemur 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every city once had at least one major department store; there is certainly nothing here to make one think that this had a particularly interesting or significant story to it. Out. Brianyoumans 07:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non notable stub with no references. Gelston 12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, English cities had these department stores and in at least some cases they had a real impact on the history of the place. Perhaps they are notable. In this case, the article is so bad, I can not tell, but let us not jump to conclusions. I suspect a lot of these major stores are really notable if the information is found. --Bduke 12:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "British", not "English", or even just "cities". --Bduke 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be ~~recreating~~ recreated if something is found that is notable. Otherwise we'd have hundreds of stubs about non notable topics that we don't want to delete, because something might be found one day. We have to draw the line somewhere, and in this article's current state, it really means nothing. Gelston 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major historic store. Cloachland 15:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added that the store was used as a Doctor Who filming location. I still don't think that makes it notable enough to merit an article though. --Stlemur 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added new information about the store history and one of its idiosyncrasies. This store is unique and deserves its own page. If, however, it is to be deleted then perhaps some of the information could be transfered to the main Cardiff article? Sheep21 18:26, 17 March 2007

Comment I'm seeing all these additions, but they need references. Without reliable sources these items could be taken as original research. I don't believe this store deserves anymore of a mention then a regular Food Lion in St. Petersburg, Florida would. Maybe a mention on the article concerning the company that owns it or the city its in. It just doesn't seem to have enough to be its own article. Gelston 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be found for these additions, if you give me time to find the relevant books then I can provide page refs, titles and ISBN numbers.I can assure whats there is fact. Sheep21 19:2, 17 March 2007

Then by all means, thats what Wikipedia is about. If you can create a good article with reliable sources about a notable topic, then more power to you. The article in its current state, however, doesn't present anything notable about this department store. Think of it from my view, its one of literally thousands of department stores. What makes this one stand out? Why does it deserve its own article? Although it may be notable in Wales, is it notable to someone living in Hawaii? Or Texas? Or New South Wales? I wish you the best of luck, but at this current time, I'm going to have to stick to my vote for delete. Gelston 20:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps this article ( Kicks Hawaii ) about a Hawaiian shoe shop should be deleted too, after all, I don't see why it would be notable to people in London, Moscow or Sydney although I don't deny it must be a notable store in Hawaii, much the same as Howells is a notable department store in Cardiff. Do you see my point? Sheep21 20:19, 17th March 2007.

Its not notable, someone beat me to posting an AfD. What I mean by notable to other parts of the world, is that its a place that would be mentioned in a world travel guide. Somewhere you would want to go, specifically, when you go to that location. Gelston 09:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I only commented above. With the new material it is coming along to be notable. This is a store with history that I think has had an important role in the life of Cardiff. That is what makes this one stand out. And no, a store does not have to be notable to someone living in Hawaii. As Sheep21 says, there is virtually nothing in Hawaii that I think is notable, but that does not mean these things and people should not have articles. Keep adding the sources though. --Bduke 23:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the support Bduke. This article has come along way in a short amount of time and I believe in a longer time frame can be expanded further again. I humbly ask that now this article has been improved that it should be reoved from the articles for deletion list. Sheep21 3:10, 18 March 2007

Keep Good job. It looks keepable now. Gelston 09:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could use more citations though, and a switch over to <ref></ref> formatting... Smee 22:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Why not? Keep this one and Kicks Hawaii per Timothy Noah. Just H^{editor review} 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Not to go off topic or anything, but KicksHawaii is a 6 year old stores, as opposed to this one that is over 100 years old. Gelston 05:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of recent expansion & sourcing. --Stlemur 00:03, 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 merge and redirect. Daniel Bryant 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addicting Games[edit]

Only one source cited in the article, a borderline trivial mention. Prod contested. – Þ 07:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info into the article on ~~MTV~~ Atom Entertainment. Gelston 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atom Entertainment. Probably too specific to put in the main MTV article. --Mus Musculus 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gelston 16:35, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn E. Ratcliff[edit]

Individual is not notable. Closet claim to notability would be serving three terms on the town council of a town with fewer than 4,000 people Mwelch 08:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per WP:BIO. Only references to individual provided by the article are his paid obituary from the local paper and the biography from the program for his funeral service. Mwelch 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Mus Musculus 16:12, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Wiggins[edit]

Individual does not appear to be notable. Mwelch 08:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability per WP:BIO. Mwelch 08:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is an obituary apparently copied over to wikipedia. He was clearly not outstanding or commented on in his Army or academic careers. Seems to fail the notability requirements of WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 10:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Mus Musculus 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider keeping. 7 medals from two wars, Army major, Ph.D. from Syracuse, prominent in African-American community, head of university department. Is there no policy on Bronze Star and DFC winners? He had three Bronze stars. But if Preston Dunn does not qualify, I don't think Dr. Wiggins would either.

```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. No, there is currently nothing written into the guidelines for military medal winners. If you think such a policy would be a good idea, might I suggest you bring it up on the the talk page of WP:BIO and see if there is a consensus among editors which would agree with you? That would be a bit more community-friendly way to go about this, than to just keep churning out these articles in defiance of current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please note that if you search the archives of that discussion page, you will see that the issue of military medal winners has been discussed before and the general feeling is that while something like the Medal of Honor would definitely qualify, lesser medals like Bronze Star would not. However, I don't think there has been any extensive debate on the issue. So if you would care to make a case for why something like the Bronze Star should be reconsidered with regard to notability, the talk page of WP:BIO would probably be a more effective place to do that than just bringing it up in individual AFD article debates. Mwelch 22:09, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Yeomans[edit]

I have no idea how this has survived since July 2006, but regardless...

This page is a non-notable biography (in my opinion), which verges on an attack page (CSD G10) and nearly meets CSD A7. There is some form of notability in the two end paragraphs, and I was reluctant to speedy it for this and for the length at which it has been around. Regardless, in my opinion, delete. Daniel Bryant 08:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was the version immediately after being nominated for AfD. Daniel Bryant 08:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though it doesn't look much like an attack page to me. However, the notability assertion here is very, very weak, and there aren't any sources attesting to it or anything else that could be considered notability outside that assertion. --Core desat 09:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just took a first crack at cleaning up the article and improving the sources. I'm sure it could stand more work, but I think it's salvageable. Mwelch 09:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless her case led to drastic changes in policy it doesn't seem notable. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets standards for notability. Not importasnt, but that is not required. No harm in keeping. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are clearly present. N is weak, but there--BBC & AP coverage is surely sufficient. On who is this page supposed to be an attack--if the aggressors were named it would be another matter. DGG 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of reputable secondary sources, though should be moved to citation formatting. Smee 22:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Seems to be sourced well. As long as things like this cause a media bonanza, their subject will be notable here since they meet WP:BIO.--Mus Musculus 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 23:34, 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 Keep. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC) --Asgar arshad (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)--Asgar arshad (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)===Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri===[reply]

Exactly three Google hits for the page title, all derived from the Wikipedia page, which is less than I would expect for a "great" saint. (May be due to variations in spelling.) Unsourced, and tone gives me the impression of being a hoax. (May simply be problem with writing style.) No improvements in four months since being tagged for notability concerns. I am unsure if the person was real or notable, so I am putting it up for discussion. Saligron 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Saligron 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources or proof of notability.--Sefringle 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Asgar arshad (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC) == strongly keep == anyone want any information regarding the article i can provide them.thanks.i have some links [12][13] [14][15]and inshallah ill try to add more information.[reply]

Delete unless someone can come along and back up the claims. --Selket ^Talk 07:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable and, given the lack of GHits, may be fictional. Incidentally, is it not true that The Prophet is never referred to, at least by a devout Muslim, by his bare name alone, but always with an honorific?--Anthony.bradbury 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced now of his reality; his notability I leave to the community.--Anthony.bradbury 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless someone can fix the conflict with WP:A by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, sources denoting notability have been added in the last few days. It would be necessary to format and wikify the article and see if some problems with the cut and paste situation can be solved Alf^Photoman 11:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No source, no web results, no editors have improved since a notability tag was placed 5 months ago. If the person is indeed notable, then a better article could be created in the future with sources. Nenyedi ^NenyediContribs_@ 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced, references are required, no reason for us to think this is notable or even exists until sources are provided. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is indeed a problem with spelling and denomination, as well as an author who was not fully Wikipedia educated. For a recent article on Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri, see "Badshah Quadri ‘urs’ to begin at Halkatta today" in the Deccan Herald of 13 Feb. 2006. There he is called Mohammed Badshah Quadri Chisty Yamani Quadeer. Another is at Patel, Aakar (11 June 2000)"Celebrating death and union in Wadi" Chowk.com, a reviewed South Asian forum reporting that 5000 people celebrated the 22nd anniversary of his death. See also: "Saint of the Day February 13 2005" Mary the Mother of Jesus.com Apparently the user who authored this piece, Shk feroz has not been on Wikipedia since Nov. 2006. I do not have a copy of either Haeri, Muneera (2000) The Chishtis: a living light Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, ISBN 0195793277, nor Ernst, Carl W. and Lawrence, Bruce B. (2002) Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond Palgrave Macmillan, New York, ISBN 1403960267 however it would be reasonable to check them before deleting this article. Is anybody near a large university library? --Bejnar 04:37, 17 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, Quarl ^(talk) 09:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep: per User:Bejnar ~~still I think the article is likely a WP:COPYVIO~~. (→Netscott) 09:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Struck the weak and copyvio part of my view per the fact that the article has been heavily updated and improved. (→Netscott) 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite Bejnar, I think that it does not definitively refer to the same person as the links provided. And even so, unsourced and if Bejnar is right, it's the wrong article title. Bejnar, I live near Florida State University library, I'll try and get to doing a quick search by the end of this AFD (no guarantees though) has now been cleaned up, changing to KEEP⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to check the hard copy, unfortunately neither book is at FSU; in Florida copies are at UofF, UofCF, and UofWF even has one, see WordlCat. The problem with his name is that honorifics are stacked at the front, and descriptors are stacked behind. His base name is "Mohammed Badesha Qadri" or "Mohammad Badeshah Quadri" and varients inbetween. He is the same person, Sufi saint, born 1903, active in Karnataka state, Chisti order. --Bejnar 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable, but the article is terrible. Needs POV and cleanup work. --Kevin Murray 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete As above identification is at best questionable. Perhaps not unsalvageable, but has not been salvaged. Springnuts 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above for ID info. --Bejnar 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After this AfD, I suggest renaming the article to Mohammad Badshah Qadri or something similar. --Bejnar 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have totally rewritten the article. When interlibrary loan provides additional data, I will update it. --Bejnar 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep rewritten article. Springnuts 00:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Bejnar re: hard copy I checked through WebLUIS and the integrated State University Library System for Florida, and found nothing under Mohammed Badesha Qadri, Mohammad Badeshah Quadri, and every permutation of the two different spellings I could think of. I'm not saying it's not in there somewhere, but that tends to imply to me that it's not THAT important of a topic. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep cleaned up version demonstrates notability and is policy compliant ((WP:ATT, WP:POV, etc). Eluchil404 01:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now reads, i don;t think it would have been nom. DGG 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep per Eluchil404. But it still needs work. semper fictilis 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, article has improved since nominated for AfD and it stands to reason that problems with WP:A can be resolved Alf^Photoman 14:21, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flipper Nation[edit]

nn website Meakswerf 06:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7, as the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject"; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article links to Businessweek and The New York Post, which both have articles on this, implying some notability if these publications have featured the subject of the article. Expand and keep. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 22:12, 13 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, Quarl ^(talk) 09:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both the businessweek and NYP links are not to articles but seem to be blogs by contributors. No google news hits at all and fails all 3 major criteria of website notability - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, the references fail the triviality test. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above. Springnuts 20:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 16:34, 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 keep the article, avoid crappy auto-translators. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Club Champion Football[edit]

This is a directory entry on a game, lacking any independent sources or any evidence of importance. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The topic is notable, and it's an innovative game, but I can't find any reliable sources talking about it other than a handful of blog entries. -- TedFrank 12:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two external links are enough for me (the official website and the fansite) Oskar 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Oskar. The links are enough to determine verifiability. Eugène van der Pijll 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiight. So an official site and a fansite constitutes evidence of encyclopaedic notability? Better go and rewrite WP:N then. Guy (Help!)

Keep. A bit of background is probably apropos here - until a few days ago, this article had been a mass of auto-translated gibberish, apparently from the Japanese Wikipedia; this had been in place for well over a year. After it was posted to wikien-l, I decided to rewrite it as a sensible stub. Given that there is a rather extensive Japanese article on the subject, the article is probably worth keeping - it just needs some love from someone who actually knows something about the topic, unlike myself. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the links in the article when it was nominated are already sufficient IMO. Taking a look at the actual text at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory, I can't see how it remotely applies here. Bryan Derksen 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- verifiable, encyclopedic. -- The Anome 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An official website and a fan website fail WP:V. Corvus cornix 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- benefit of the doubt. This is an extensive article with extensive history by multiple Japanese wikipedians who are not part of this discussion. At a minimum I would like to have some sense what they were thinking before deleting. Wouldn't you? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Agnostic[edit]

This appears to be original research; the article has no reliable sources, and a Google search suggests that the term's only appearance outside of blogs was in the title of Leslie Weatherhead's 1965 book The Christian Agnostic. This article doesn't mention the book at all, so while an article on the book might be appropriate, this article is not it. — Elembis (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR per nom. The pairing of these terms is a fairly obvious option and it's been done more than once but there doesn't seem to be anything like a notable movement or coherent philosophy. Synthesis, to wit.-- Dhartung | Talk 10:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. Clear OR issues, no secondary sources. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. WLU 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --pIrish 17:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, needs references. Possibly redirect to Agnostic theism. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:04, 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, per reasons stated in AFD. Rlevse 11:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annunciation of St. Paul's[edit]

Allegedly the first articulation of African heterodox beliefs in an indigenous context. Suspected self-promotion. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that under this title it's deletable as nonsense. The alleged Viceroy of the Royal House of Magumba proclaimed it, but I see no evidence of a 'Royal House'. The link is to Magumba which contains gems such as "Magumba represents the fusion of this electro-symptomatic cosmology to the material circumstances of the Bermuda islands which are now being reimagined as the global epicentre of the risk quantification and reinsurance industries." This and linked articles are going to need some very convincing sources to survive. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:08, 10 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, Chaser - T 09:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ATT, exhaustive googling turns up nothing, candidate cited took fewest votes in the election, barely notable anyway. Looks like nonsense to me. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Grove Crimson and Osseo Orioles rivalry[edit]

No sources given, the only "notability" suggested is that the schools have had some notable games against one another, but no sources given to support this assertion. It would be more notable if two adjacent or competing schools had no rivalry. Tt 225 10:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great observation there at the end. I find it highly unlikely that there is any attribution in reliable sources for such rivalry and see no easy way to check ourselves here for citations not provided for this local subject.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All schools worldwide have rivalries; no attribution provided showing that this rivalry even exists, let alone that it's notable. Also, I wonder what "Northwest suburban area" they're talking about - Xian? Mombasa? Inuvik? --Charlene 11:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced original research, unnotable, err, whatelse? --Tom 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Infrogmation 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also relates to a purported high school rivalry with no evidence of notability:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mockney[edit]

unsourced, possible attack, possible OR Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See prior AfD results: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockney

Keep I had no clue what this term meant, but now I do. And even if my new understanding is slightly unsourced, I think it's better than what I knew before. (yeah, hopefully I'm not screwing anything up. And I don't know how to sign this.)
Keep and send to cleanup. Mockney is a common term for mock-Cockney, as attributed by The Daily Telegraph [16], the London Review of Books (although the article online has expired)[17], the BBC [18], etc. 49,000 Ghits excluding Wikipedia and mirrors. It also appears to be a sociological phenomenon as well as an accent, so the topic is encyclopedic and not just a dicdef. --Charlene 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. The Daily Telegraph ref link leads to an opinion section. Gelston 12:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as above. Isn't just a neologism, wide sociological interest. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, this term can, I think, be sourced. It has been used in numerous TV, radio and other media productions, satirising certain forms of music and fake culture, a bit like Plastic Paddy. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Plastic Paddy was deleted for the same reason as this article's current AfD. Gelston 13:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we currently have a small but decent article on it. I got the capitalisation wrong. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the lowercase version was deleted for the above reasons. I'm going to withdraw my vote though, but I still urge that more, reliable references are added to the article. The Daily Telegraph reference is an opinions piece and E2 is like Wikipedia, able to be editted by anyone. Gelston 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that better sourcing is needed. If it's still not improved in a month I will be advocating deletion. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would prefer to see better sourcing, but the topic is clearly notable. --Kevin Murray 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. -- Infrogmation 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though sourced citations should be added in a references section. Smee 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Commonly used term worthy of an entry although more sources would be preferable. 13:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep 10 years ago it would have been a neologism but has become widespread now Croxley 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fairly well-known word for a widespread phenomenum.GordyB 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes a salient point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.184.218 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - frequently used term, although in need of a cleanup. Laïka 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. fails notability--Sefringle 04:23, 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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matball[edit]

Speedy deletion (CSD A7) overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 11, with a consensus to list here. Procedural nomination stemming from the DRV close, so I abstain. Daniel Bryant 11:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly with cleanup, I don't know if we need all the rules but the game itself can certainly be sourced. I've added some sources to the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that this is anything other than a local variant name for a generic form of gymnasium game. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One reference is from Syracuse, the other is from Welligton, Ohio. Sancho (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it is now sourced, though marginally. I would feel stronger about it if it were more than two regional newspaper articles,( though from different regions)DGG 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Here's some research that I posted at DRV: (i) Baldrige, Susan. (May 25, 2001) Lancaster New Era Game over Worried about kids' safety and self-esteem, schools shunning dodge ball and other playground favorites. Page 1. (writing, " "The kickball we play is not exactly kickball," explained Jerry McDonald, phys ed instructor at Warwick's John Bonfield Elementary. "It's matball. They run around four mats to score. It's for safety. If they slide into a base, someone could fall down. The ball we use is made out of blue rubber, and they are only allowed to throw at the legs." "We play kickball by softball rules, where you can't throw at a person," Ruth explained.") (ii) The Post-Standard (September 21, 2006) Pupils in grades 7 to 9 invited to play matball. Section: Local; Page B1. -- Jreferee 05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We played this game when I was in middle school but we called it "Big Base", so it is not just something local as it was in Minnesota. It should be included, mabye possibly be merged into kickball.--E tac 09:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like there's enough to sustain an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable game, WP:NOT a game guide —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs) 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Really then what do you make of Kickball, Hockey, Four square, American football, Baseball, Cricket, Croquet etc... The article should be kept or at the very least be merged. --E tac 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge-and-redirect. I also do not see enough source material to support an independent article. The evidence so far shows this as a minor variation. Rossami (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Badlydrawnjeff. FireSpike 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matball was also played at Depew High School in Depew, NY. Notable game -- as is evident by its use in schools across the country. Molmdaw 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)molmdaw[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sha Money XL Project (album)[edit]

Highly speculative. Google has zero (!) results except for Wikipedia. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and low notability. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yall always want to delete something rap or hip hopTru Soulja 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been plenty of time for an editor to find and add even a single source indicating that this project is actually forthcoming. Fails WP:V. janejellyroll 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We always want to delete something with no sources and no evidence of notability. --Geniac 14:57, 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. Daniel Bryant 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houses at Scotch College, Perth[edit]

Non-notable, unattributable, unencyclopedic, and spawning more such by people who say "Scotch has an article on their house system, why can't I create one on mine?!". Hesperian 12:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nominator. Hesperian 12:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Satu Suro 12:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything that can usefully be said about this can be said in the article on Scotch College. The rest is the job of their student union website. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic - small information on something that has a very very small notability within the encyclopedia. SMBarnZy 13:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The houses should be mentioned in the artcile on the School. --Bduke 00:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly you have researched well - they are.Ga rr ie 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anyone looking for information on this would look up the article on Scotch College, Perth. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly you have researched well - they are.This is the kind of detail that would detract from that article.Ga rr ie 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:N Orderinchaos78 02:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need consistency with Guildford Grammar School. Fails Notability policy. Seventy ... dot ... 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet of blocked user. Hesperian 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when did one school become the style guide for school articles?Ga rr ie 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopædic outside the article on the school itself. Lankiveil 08:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
comment - only reason why I created this article is because people complained about the "prose" of the main article with a list of houses in it during a FAC.----Hamedog_Talk|^@ 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the assumption I reached even without reading your comment. It is best kept seperate. I am guessing it was this comment [[19]] which was a peer reviewGa rr ie 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was clearly spawned into a seperate article so the coverage of the House System in the parent article could remain in prose format. Detail is best left in a seperate article - if this was a book, this article would be an appendix.Ga rr ie 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think everyone who is !voting here needs to look at Talk:Scotch College, Perth - Scotch College, Perth is clearly an excellent article regarding schools. Discussion at it's talk page indicated this material was making the article worse, not better and taking it right out of wikipedia would result in later contributors adding it back in for completeness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GarrieIrons (talk • contribs)
Comment The nomination for this deletion is on the issue of precedence - if one metropolitan Perth school has a separate article on an internal structure issue - then all would be justified in creating similar list/ articles - and in the case of Perth, W.A. - that would involve the creation of a series of articles that would by the terms of WP:N be highly suspect. This nomination was not made on the merits or otherwise of the school article. If someone did the formatting a more concisely, the list in all likelihood could return to the original article. SatuSuro 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. Question: What is the predominant colour of the tartan of the Cameron House of Scotch College in Perth? Answer: Who cares? This material shouldn't have been in the Scotch College article in the first place, so there is certainly no need to roll it out into a daughter article. It should be merged back into Scotch College, Perth as "There are ten houses: Alexander, Anderson, Brisbane, Cameron, Ferguson, Keys, Ross, St Andrews, Shearer and Stuart." Hesperian 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Moondyne 03:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it really notable to name the ten house at the school individually? i think that would be more for booklet to new students. Would it seriously detract from the article to omit that the school has ten houses, and their names are:Alexander, Anderson, Brisbane, Cameron, Ferguson, Keys, Ross, St Andrews, Shearer and Stuart? i think the answer is no. Removing this will make no difference to the quality of the main article. SMBarnZy 07:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally agree with comment by Hesperian above. One sentence in the School article. That's it. --Bduke 10:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom The Bitter End 09:01, 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 nomination withdrawn. MER-C 01:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ghabisiyya[edit]

Village of 690 people at its peak that apparently no longer exists; ~~unsourced article asserts no reason for its notability~~. Is perhaps POV-pushing, given this article, which links to articles about another couple of dozen similarly non-notable villages. TedFrank 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reason it no longer exists (if indeed it doesn't) is the very fact of its notability - it was seized by Israel in the 1948 war. Also, I don't see any POV in the related article, unless the nom can point out inaccuracies?EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not trying to comment on the notability of this town I can't fail to notice that this article has no secondary sources. Without them it blatantly fails WP:A. If this article is to be kept it should be sourced and referenced Alf^Photoman 13:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is easily sourced. Moreover, there is an interesting story of what happened there during 1948-1950 which is not mentioned on the page at the moment. I can add this with a good source in the next few days. --Zero^talk 13:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good source given, though I agree it is POV-pushing; never hard to do with such a topic. Springnuts 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You could equally argue that deleting the nominated article is also POV pushing, though - as you say it is a difficult subject. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly the notability is in why it no longer exists. Would not be opposed to a redirect to a article of similar villages if that is a preferred approach. --Kevin Murray 18:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it had a population of 690, then that's 690 reasons to keep this article. Would be opposed to a redirect to a article of similar villages if that is a preferred approach. Punkmorten 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Punkmorten Alf^Photoman 23:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that WP:A has been satisfied, I withdraw the nomination, though I question whether every village in the main list merits a Wikipedia entry. -- TedFrank 00:23, 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 Speedy delete WP:CSD#G1, patent nonsense. Incomprehensible. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kulture King[edit]

Almost empty page, no idea what the page is about. Not written in an encyclopedic way. Robinson weijman 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I have no idea either. So tagged. MER-C 12:41, 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 speedy delete, fails to assert notability, is clearly written as original research. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information Products[edit]

This article is original research, NPOV, and a guide how to make money. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no assertion of notability Alf^Photoman 13:11, 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 speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A1. – riana_dzasta 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shit stabber[edit]

Neologism, dictdef and unreferenced. Marasmusine 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and no sources. Delete as per WP:NOT and WP:SOURCE. You might be able to speedy it. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What as, db-empty? Marasmusine 12:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Try A1: Very short article without context. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, added the tag, thanks! Marasmusine 13:11, 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 to Kongshaug High School of Music. As a merge has been performed, history must not be deleted in order to comply with the GFDL. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kongshaug Magazine[edit]

Non-notable high school magazine Jvhertum 13:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~and redirect~~ to Kongshaug High School of Music. Springnuts 14:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patstuart is quite right - it would be an unnecessary redirect. Springnuts 20:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (merge content into high school article, but do not redirect - it's unnecessary and confusing). I also notice there's Oddvar Inge Rotvik, another non-notable figure from this high school. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a merge without a redirect is usually a violation of the GDFL. If you want to keep the content, you have to keep the edit history, and a redirect is far and away the easiest way to do that. Anyway, it's not necessarily an unlikely search term. Xtifr _tälk 01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the section within the Kongshaug High School of Music article that will contain the merged material. It is possible that someone will search, and if not finding what they want may well attempt to recreate the article. It has been done once, it can be done again. SilkTork 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and merged the text into Kongshaug High School of Music, so please close the AfD and delete or redirect. - Jvhertum 10:16, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda in popular culture[edit]

Thoroughly unsourced trivia article, with no pretentions of being an article. We already have Garuda (disambiguation). This is a list of very minor trivia, mostly from video games, manga and the like, and most entries having little or nothing to do with Garuda apart from the name... a questionable connection seeing as Garuda is from Indian mythology, being presented in Japanese forms translated into English. No need to merge this back to Garuda, it was forked off from there in the first place, so the items still exist in the history. This article is effectively abandoned, and is a cruft-magnet, and needs to go. Beyond that, I honestly don't think that Garuda is sufficiently important to popular culture that we should have this article: any good version of this article would probably be original research. Mango juice^talk 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in popular culture The solution to oversized "in popular culture" sections is to prune them, not to fork them into "articles" which are entirely made up of vaguely associated trivia. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of articles gets created because no one is willing to take up maintenance of pop-culture references in the main articles (it is very time consuming and hopeless struggle). If you have better solution working under current limitations of Wikipedia many, including me, would be very glad to know. (Just deleting the "... in popular culture" leaf page results in people inserting the references to the main article, starting the cycle again). Pavel Vozenilek 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Trivia, lots of ideas on the subject. Mango juice^talk 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced WP:OR. I have no problem with the fork. It is just unreferenced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, unattributable. There really, really needs to be some uniform, and enforced, standards for what constitutes a "Popular Culture Reference". Something sharing the same name, or similar features, or even a physical resemblance and a name should not count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete with no merge - per nom. Otto4711 17:52, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kahrn[edit]

This is a hoax. Or if it is not a hoax I hope that one of you can find a reference in the next 5 days. Note that some of the text is cut and pasted from the 'See also' page listed, that the author has only ever created this page, and that the other 6 editors have just added tags and similar. Obina 13:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - hoax? Copy/pasted from Bodo people#The Bodo People with minor wording changes. No ghits for the adjectival form "Kahrnic" outside Wikipedia and a bizarre fun-house mirror; no related ghits for "Kahrn". Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent hoax here since October. No google hits for Kahrn + Brahmaputra outside Wikipedia and mirrors. -- Infrogmation 16:44, 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 merge and redirect to Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squealer[edit]

Unreferenced article about a song that was, as far as the article makes out, never released as a single. No evidence this is independently significant. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - I would support deletion, but there is currently an article for every song on that CD. Deleting just one song makes an unnecessary gap; we should delete the other nn songs from this album too. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So procedurally delete all of them. Especially those which, like this, make no claim to notability and have no sources. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. :) Just afd all of them at once. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [Animal_Farm#Pigs]]. 76.97.207.71 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with the origional album, With a band as noteable as ACDC, it deserves a mention. Wiki ian 08:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap. As it stands the article says little more than that it is a song from the album. If material on the song becomes large enough it can then be broken out to form its own article. SilkTork 10:10, 23 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zadako[edit]

Can't make heads or tails of this. No Google references found. Jvhertum 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe Wikipedia has an article on the main comic. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax and as per Patstuart. Springnuts 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Like Springnuts said, it's a possible hoax. Have a happy St. Patty's Day! Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as possible hoax and nonsense regardless. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete This has to be a hoax. Suriel1981 14:04, 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Roots to Fruits[edit]

Per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From the Roots to Fruits (the almost identically titled but different article on the same album). Entire article is unsourced and unverified speculation. There is no indication from my brief search of the Black Eyed peas at this time that there is another album coming out at all, let alone one of this title (or similar - see previous AFD). Recommend delete and lock until sourced, externally verifiable information proving the album is in production and named. -- saberwyn 08:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources I've found with a 30-second Google search include pages on play.com [20], Rolling Stone's official blog [21], rateyourmusic.com [22], a cover contest on the Black Eyed Peas own website [23] ... heck, here's buzz on a track list coming from their site: [24]. If this is a con job, plainly a lot of people believe it. RGTraynor 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rolling Stone blog acknowledges and hopes that the title is a rumour. The two results from the BlackEyedPeas website are forum postings... that is not an official cover contest, and every group of musicians who may be releasing another album will have speculation as to the album's contents. There are no afficial news items on the BEP website regarding the release of any album, let alone one by this title. The other two results you provided are online store catalogues (or so I believe from my brief look, I may be wrong). At this point in time, I believe that none of the content in the article can be reliably WP:Attributed. I've got no problems with this article restarting the second there is an official announcement regarding the title and/or release of this album, but until that time, it is unverifiable by use of reliable sources and should be deleted. -- saberwyn 23:27, 12 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, Whispering 13:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystal Ballery. --Action Jackson IV 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Confirmed in a chatroom" is not a reliable source. Wavy G 15:20, 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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cycles[edit]

This list is an incongruent mix of topics from all corners of the Wikipedia and constitutes original research. At least no source is given, and I can't imagine one, that relates Electroencephalography, Sustainable industries, Double-slit experiment, and then some.

Please also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory.

Pjacobi 13:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems excessive to delete an entire list because of a disagreement with the inclusion of individual articles on the list. If someone wishes to make a study of cycles this is an excellent resource, and is exactly the sort of thing that Wiki provides so well. This complements List of calendars, List of dynamical systems and differential equations topics, and List of timelines. Such lists, by their nature, flirt with original research. It is useful to have read this Wikipedia:List guideline. The claim of original research in this case is dubious, as cyles is the research topic of The Foundation for the Study of Cycles, an organisation which has existed since 1941 and has been subject to articles in Science (journal), a reliable source, in 1994; and Ecology (journal), another reliable source, in 1943 - enough to justify notability according to current Wikipedia criteria. I would suggest that contentious items in the list are debated rather than this attempt to break a butterfly upon a wheel. SilkTork 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can take any random pair of articles from this list and have an overwhelming probability no research exists about their connection (modulo already neighbouring topics, which arent neighbours by their cycleness). The The Foundation for the Study of Cycles was also deleted (merged into the Edward R. Dewey article) and rightly so. It's one person's theory and undue weight all over the entire nest of cycle articles, most of which we already got rid of. --Pjacobi 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Pjacobi's lack of ability to imagine something is not noteworthy. Here's something that can relate such things: the fact that two different cycles are both cycles may make it possible to apply the same mathematical techniques of time series analysis to both. For cycles that don't fit that pattern, other mathematical points of view may be shared in common by two cycles that may have nothing non-mathematical in common. Michael Hardy 23:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can prove my lack of ability by providing the missing references. --Pjacobi 12:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as inherently confused. Every optical or electrical article could in the sense mentioned above involve cycles. Given that the Schroedinger equation also involves wave phenomena, every material object in the universe would also be included. it's in the same class as would be a List of objects affected by Gravitation. DGG 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a clear (and uncontroversial) inclusion ~~criteria~~ criterion is given for this list and which does not make it redundant with Category:Waves and Category:Periodic phenomena. —Ruud 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please. You must have meant "a clear (and uncontroversial) inclusion criterion. Michael Hardy 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in the list means that things are considered periodic in time. Waves are generally from a point of view of being periodic in space. Of course they will be overlap, and so the two should be linked. The periodic phenomena category is not well formed. It includes disasters that are not at all periodic and that category would be better replaced with another. I was attempting to set up a better category and that led to this attack on cycles material to try and keep me busy so that I could not do that. Also I would argue that a list may be more comprehensive than a category because it is not intrusive to articles. Ray Tomes 05:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ...and it seems obscene to suggest a list could be redundant with a category. Categories are a woefully inferior alternative to lists. Michael Hardy 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I couldn't agree more when we would have been talking about, for example, List of Anuran families. I don't see what makes this particular list superior over a category (hierarchy). —Ruud 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there can be an advantage in having a list and a category. The category intrudes into articles and so should be kept to strictly related material. The list can include a wider set of material than the category. However I do agree with several comments here that there are some items that do not belong here. That is not a good reason to delete, but to remove those items. Ray Tomes 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as virtually potentially infinite, completely unsourced - WP:ATT is policy - and in the absence of sources this constitutes original research. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This objection seems silly. By these creteria, we would have to delete the list of mathematics articles. That one is "potentially infinite" if this one is, and is "unsourced" if you mean the sources have to appear on the list page rather than on the many pages to which it links. Michael Hardy 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of mathematics articles seems to be in the wrong namespace, should be moved tp Portal: or Wikipedia: --Pjacobi 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry Michael, but this list contains topics which are totally unrelated except from the fact that that they may have anything to do with cycles. Also, for some of the things in there, like Belgian Congo, Organic farming, Secularity, Age of the Earth, Soundproofing, the connection with cycles is not even clear (yes, sound is a wave, which may be thought of as a cycle, but is soundproofing cyclical?). If this list survives, it should be greatly trimmed to topics very related to cycles, but even then, I doubt it would be useful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the whole object of a list to include things that are related by a certain criteria? Wouldn't a list of anything have that same quality? Ray Tomes 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is cleaned up so that only the most relevant things are kept (not even everything related to cycles, rather only things which are very related, and justifiably related to cycles), then I may consider changing my opinion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a few items that should be removed as noted on the talk page. However that does not justify removal of the whole list. There is an established field of the study of cycles (not withstanding attempts by some people to stop that being known), and there is a good report by Edward R. Dewey about the fields in which cycles have been found. I recommend this paper [25] for anyone wanting to know about that. Ray Tomes 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Taking Ruud's comment, which seems to be at the heart of this discussion, that if an agreeable inclusion criterion can be written, would people's votes be changed to keep? SilkTork 08:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wikipedias coverage of cyclic phenomena is woeful. After the last AfD on the topic wikipedia no longer has normal article on the topic, so we are reduced to this list. These things have a long cultural history of study. It is something that man has studied from day one. The entire hindu meta-physics is based around cycles in cycles, see Yuga. In China the I Ching is strongly linked to cycles. Cycles of sun and moon define our calendar and gave rise to likes of Stonehenge. This tradition has led to cycles being being a key part in early attempts to understand our world such as astrology, which in turn I suspect being part of the motivation of hard scientist to remove. It is a complete misrepresentation to link study of cycles to just Dewey, many other have studied cyclic phenomena for instance Lyall Watson devoted a most intriguing chapter of supernature to the diverse natural phenomena which follow the cycles of the sun and moon. And yes there is a good reason for Organic farming (actually Biodynamic agriculture might be more appropriate) to appear, as one of its key principals is planting in time with the moon. --Salix alba (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with keeping the Organic farming in, or perhaps even Biodynamic agriculture. If Biodynamic agriculture is allowed, then one should explain at that entry why it is in. In other words, if kept, this list should make the case for its existence at each entry, so that the list is actually informative rather than appearing to be an indiscriminate collection of unrelated information I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when maintaining the list, one should not include all and everything related to cycles, but only the most relevant things. That is, one should pick and choose. So, tides and moon phases should be in, while Biodynamic agriculture should be out I think, as it is too unrelated. And for example, woman should be out, even though a woman has a monthly cycle. In short, adding things which have something to do with cycles, but not a lot, hurts the readability and information value of the whole thing I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm willing to take a chance that researchers may be hindered by not finding Belgian Congo, Mars Polar Lander and Sperm Whale all in one place. All these have been included since the creation of this list in August 2004, so obviously no one has cared about having this be a reasonable list ever. Yes, I know the common rationale that just because an article has always been crap doesn't mean it might not become ~~crap~~ a good entry someday, and therefore embarrassing trash should always be kept, but I disagree. Of course Organic farming belongs here. My research and interests make me wonder why Tooth decay, Taxes, and Da capo haven't been included yet. None of them are are types of bicycles either, so there's no reason to leave them out. Good grief... Tim Shuba 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pom 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: It has been suggested that this article is original research. I will post two lists below to show that this is not so. Ray Tomes 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cycles in Humans and Nature: An Annotated Bibliography, by John T Burns, Magill Bibliographies, 1994 ISBN 0-8108-2831-6. This is a list of approximately 500-600 bibliographical references to cycles reports. Most of these reports are in the period 1970-1992 and are listed in some ~100 minor categories and 10 major ones, these being: Astrophysics, Atmospheric science, Biology, Botany, Economics, Geoscience, Medicine, Social Science, Zoology, Interdisciplinary. Ray Tomes 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Case for Cycles by Edward R. Dewey contains this list of subjects in which cycles have been found:

Table 1: DATA HAVING CYCLES NATURAL SCIENCE ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS Auroras, comets, meteor showers Planets, satellites, asteroids Rotation of galaxies Sunspots and other solar phenomena Variable stars BIOLOGY Bacteriology Abundance and activity of bacteria in human beings Botany Abundance of crops, plants, seeds, and algae Assimilation and photosynthesis Concentration of growth substances Electrical conductivity of sap Electrical excitability of mimosa Electrical potential of trees Fiber and individual organ growth Nectar production and sugar content Photoperiodicity Thickness of tree rings Entomology Abundance and activity of insects Feeding, hatching, and migration Pigment changes of certain insects Herpetology Abundance of snakes and amphibians Activity of lizards and salamanders Pigment changes in salamanders Ichthyology and Limnology Abundance of algae, plankton, and fish Egg cycle of various fish Migrations Invertebrate Zoology Abundance of various invertebrates Body temperature and metabolic rate Contraction waves in worms Germ cell maturation Light production and photic responses Migration of various invertebrates Surface color and pigment changes Mammalogy Abundance and activity of various mammals Fur production Physical cycles and activity-rest periods Variations in milk production Ornithology Abundance of various birds Metabolic activity Migration Wing beats of various birds CLIMATOLOGY Air movements and wind direction Barometric pressure and temperature Glacial movements Ozone content of the atmosphere Precipitation, including abnormalities Storm tracts GEOLOGY Earthquakes, geysers, volcanic eruptions Encrustations of archaeological artifacts Geologic epochs and periods Sedimentary deposits, varves, seiches Soil erosion Thickness of rock strata GEOPHYSICS (also see Climatology) Radio propagation quality Terrestrial magnetism HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGRAPHY Lake, river, and sea levels Ocean currents, temperature, and waves River flow and run-off Tides MEDICINE Abundance of disease organisms and parasitic worms Births and mortalities Blood pressure and blood-sugar content Body temperature and metabolism Electrical skin resistance Emotions and mental activity Endocrine and glandular secretions Epidemics and pandemics Fevers and after-shock Incidence of diseases and disorders Muscular, nervous, and sexual activity Plasma chemistry variations Psychiatric abnormalities Respiration and visceral activities Teeth sensitivity Veterinary diseases PHYSICS Activity of electrons and molecular vibrations Electromagnetic waves and flux Radio and sound waves SOCIAL SCIENCE ECONOMICS Advertising efficiency Agricultural production Building and real estate activity Commodity prices Financial data General business activity Imports, exports, trade activity Production, consumption, sales Purchasing power Transportation Wage earner activity SOCIOLOGY Civil and international war battles Creativity and inventiveness Crime Cultures and civilizations Fashion Human ability, excitability, output Insanity Intellectual interest Liberalism versus conservatism Marriages and births Military-political activity Periods of emotional excitement Population Religious and scientific activity Strikes and unemployment (list posted by Ray Tomes 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete -- It's a random assortment of things that only broadly can be considered "cycles." Kearnsdm 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was surprised when I took a look to see that the list actually is organized and not a complete disaster. My primary objection would be that topic is too ill-defined and would accumulate everything under the sun (including potentially woman as Oleg points out). My own answer to this would be to tighten up the introduction to the list to eliminate the kinds of things not currently listed. Further trimming is also highly recommended. As for the OR complaints... Lists have always felt slightly OR-ish to me (e.g. List of sexually active popes or List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_height_order). Is this list more OR-ish than that? In my opinion, no. --C S (Talk) 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking at the "what links here", there seems to be no article that requires this list, and its generality seriously compromises keeping it for its own sake. As DGG points out, some of the looser inclusion arguments could lead to any number of items being added to the list. Inclusion criteria which would prevent this would seem to leave little need for this list, although sections might turn out to be useful somewhere. - David Oberst 08:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate collection of information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. As the concern with the list itself is mainly that it is "indiscriminate", and as this discussion is not simply a majority vote, but a means to discover a solution, as indicated by Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion - would it be appropriate for us to be looking for a solution, such as the criterion mentioned above, for how best to compose this list? SilkTork 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most contentious section of the List appears to be the Physics cycles section, followed by the Organic cycles section. Leaving those two sections aside, what other items on the list do people object to? SilkTork 14:15, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Alvarez Brownson[edit]

No indication of notability: [26]. Was tempted to tag it db-bio, but it's been around for a while, so I am WP:AGFing and seeing if more evidence comes up. Patstuart^talk·edits 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:Bio - subject might become notable if book is produced, and has an interesting family, but is not currently notable in Wiki terms. Nothing, or next to nothing, on Google. Springnuts 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per Springnuts. Have a happy St. Patty's Day! Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 16:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete unfortunately. If she were just a little more N in her own right I might be tempted to say IAR.DGG 04:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, seems not to have been professionally engaged in any of the fields mentioned. Johnbod 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid the subject doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:N and there's nothing in the article that makes a special case. Tyrenius 23:58, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Colleges in Texas[edit]

Fails ~~WP:Bio~~ the primary notability criterion[[27]]: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject".- topic is not notable - as compared with, say, the Big Ten (movie studios) where the ten largest of something is in wiki terms notable. Springnuts 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comparison is inaccurate, because the "Big Ten movie studios" were never identified as such outside Wikipedia. See Talk:Major film studios. --Metropolitan90 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BIO applies specifically to people, of which this article does not concern. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO is somewhat wider than just people, but I take the point - have amended comment above. Perhaps I should have tagged it "cat=I Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic". I am happy to withdraw and re-nominate, or amend the category, if the community wishes. Springnuts 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you could just change the category and rephrase the nomination. You don't need to withdraw anything. Despite my comment above, I don't support keeping this article, but I'm not submitting a formal recommendation yet. --Metropolitan90 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Metropolitan90 - I have changed (I hope) the cat; also rephrased the nomination. Springnuts 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a subjective list without clear guidelines. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete if changed to , e.g. 10 largest ... it wouldn't be subjective, but it would be equally unnotable. DGG 04:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Niffweed's comments. Suriel1981 11:51, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stallings (model)[edit]

PRODded as "Not notable; fails WP:BIO.", deprodded with no fix, I think by a vandal, but whatever, let's get this resolved. I concur, not notable. DMacks 14:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity spam --Kevin Murray 18:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BIO as a television personality involved with well known television productions, specifically Manhunt and two seasons of The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency. The article is not "vanity spam" as there appears to be no involvement by the subject in the creating or editing of the article, and even if there were that would not in and of itself constitute grounds for deletion. Otto4711 18:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent source. Another independent source. Otto4711 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. (I was the original prodder.) This guy is just another struggling model with no claim to fame; he's not offered the industry anything special and isn't prolific. His status as a "television personality" was appearing on a few episodes of a reality television show; he didn't establish a dramatic character. -- Mikeblas 19:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the section of WP:BIO that requires that the subject "offer the industry anything special" or "establish a dramatic character"? Because all the WP:BIO that I read said was that they had to have "appeared in well-known ... television productions." Stallings was not just in "a few episodes of a reality television series." He was a featured cast member of two different shows (three, if one counts the Christmas with the Dickinsons special as a separate show but still two regardless) including appearing in almost every episode of two seasons of one show. So he meets the specific notability guideline for entertainers. He has also been "the subject of ... multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject" (two of which are linked in this discussion and also in his article) so he meets the general notability guideline. I'm unclear as to why you would think that an article whose subject passes both WP:BIO and WP:NOTE should be deleted, but since your prod was specifically addressing WP:BIO and he passes it, there is no valid basis offered for deletion. Otto4711 21:02, 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 merge. I'm not too sure what exactly to merge - there's a lot of info. The content will stay in the page history, so could an editor who is familiar with this topic please merge in the relevant information? Thanks. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eau Rouge corner[edit]

Is notable, but a corner on the Formula One calendar doesn't deserve it's own article, even if it's one of the fastest. Davnel03 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean that it's not notable? What do you mean by deserve? Sancho (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and probably edit down) content to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. Keep a redirect that goes from Eau Rouge to the circuit article. Eau Rouge is probably the best recognised corner in European racing circles, and often used to be quoted at the most challenging corner in F1 (not so much these days, too much downforce available). Not that it's all that scientific, but google gave me 224,000 hits for "Eau Rouge". I can't imagine there ever being a book on it, but a magazine article in say, Motorsport or Autosport is quite conceivable. Again, please notify at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One. Cheers. 4u1e 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. Reasons as per 4u1e above. Pyrope 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. John Anderson 10:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eau Rouge is one of the most demanding corners in Auto Racing history. It definetly deserves its own article. Moreover, it is cool, which makes it great. It's like turkey. You gotta have it once a year.
The above comment should not be consisdered, seeing as it is not signed and it's mainly slang. Davnel03 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. There's no reason to delete the article, as merging is the best solution.--KaragouniS 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article defines its own notability by the amount of information on it, including long and detailed quotes from notable drivers. The sources are there in the article. Merging it to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps would put too much material into that article about one corner and would unbalance the article. As things stand the one long paragraph in Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps is appropriate, linking to this main article which then goes into detail. SilkTork 10:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and there's obviously a lot of relevant and important content on it. The fact that it's a corner does not mean it doesn't 'deserve' an article. Keeping this in addition to the article on the circuit means that Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps can maintain its focus. (And Raidillon should be merged into this article.) --David Edgar 11:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree that the subject is notable, per my original comment, but only in the context of the circuit, surely? Both articles look to be well under the suggested cap, so I don't think the length of a merged article would be an issue. Note also that one para (the first under 'Trivia') concerns only the circuit anyway, not the corner. I don't think there would be a loss of focus either, but that's a more subjective judgement. 4u1e 23 March 2007, 12:40

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. After reading the two articles, there was actually a little bit more content in the parent article than in this one. I've placed the images on the talk page. --Wafulz 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raidillon[edit]

I came accross this page by accident from Eau Rouge corner, and I'm really shocked it has a page. What, the corner isn't anything special, I can't see any other corners have any articles, can you? Davnel03 15:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, Eau Rouge corner does! :) I'm inclined to agree on this one, though. Move any relevant material to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps before deletion though. Please list these at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One to get a wider range of views on the notability or otherwise of the corners. 4u1e 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd also like to suggest Blanchimont and Tamburello (corner) for deletion also. Readro 16:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So that's four corners with articles! How many others are lurking out there? 4u1e 16:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what, I've nominated the two for deletion. Davnel03 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This deserves one line in the main circuit article, no more. Pyrope 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. John Anderson 10:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eau Rouge corner. Astonishing as it sounds, the Eau Rouge corner is one of the most notable corners in F1. Perhaps, arguably, the most notable. This article deals with a section of the complex. That there are two articles on the same complex indicates the interest. And the sources quoted within the Eau Rouge article verifies the corner's notability. SilkTork 10:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eau Rouge corner for the reasons given by SilkTork. --David Edgar 11:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirectto Eau Rouge corner + a mention in Formula 1. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#Eau Rouge as a subsection. -- Black Falcon 20:00, 23 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?)} 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chebign'o[edit]

This article is nominated for deletion due to lack of verifiability. It does not return any google hits. The only source mentioning Chebign'o is found here. I would expect at least few discrete sources, but even school or coordinate directories refuse to recognise it. Thereafter, it remains doubtful whether a village called "Chebign'o" exists in reality. Julius Sahara 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions it: A Kenyan XC Legend - William Segei. He's the person that the Chebign'o article mentions. Sancho (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you already knew about that article... disregard. Sancho (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be a misspelling in the IAAF article. Punkmorten 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then try to find out its correct spelling. Misspelled articles do not make Wikipedia more reliable. Julius Sahara 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A village called Chebunge might match, at least it is located near Kapsimotwo [28]. Kapsimotwo is a sub-location, which is the smallest defined administrative unit in Kenya. According to the abovementioned IAAF article, Sigei was born in Kapsimotwo, and that's already a quite precise notation. I think the article, if not deleted, should be renamed to Kapsimotwo. But bear in mind there is place called Kapsimotwo in Nandi District too... Julius Sahara 16:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in an e-mail conversation with the editorial manager for the IAAF, who has sent a confirming e-mail to their Kenyan correspondent that wrote this story to verify the spelling. Please don't close this debate just yet (unless this issue doesn't matter), I suspect I will have some information by tomorrow. Sancho (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling correction. The author of the referenced IAAF article confirmed it was a spelling error and has updated the article with the correct spelling: Chebeing'o. However, I can't find any information about the village under the new spelling either haha... so maybe this was irrelevant to the discussion after-all.
Delete because this was a misspelled article and the correct spelling has no encyclopedic information available other than the district that it exists in. We can leave the correctly spelled village name in the article on William Sigei, but without the wikilink. Sancho (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no information from which to build an article. SilkTork 10:41, 23 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Android Love[edit]

Part of the Robot Wars cleanup. Reaching No.72 in the charts isn't notable. Nor is being a favourite on YouTube. No references. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles, the song actually got to number 51, not 72, but that's still pretty non-notable, so delete. It was also actually entitled "Robot Wars (Android Love)" so the page title's wrong anyway.... ChrisTheDude 09:12, 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 KEEP. Agent 86 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cellador[edit]

This article on a band has been speedily deleted seven times, mostly under WP:CSD#A7. More information was brought to light at deletion review that may be enough to merit inclusion. Note that there are two "l"s in the name; there is a TV production company with only one "l" that is totally unrelated. Please read the article and the nomination at deletion review before opining. This is a procedural nomination; I have no opinion. GRBerry 16:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT Funny... it seems like somebody really wants this out of here.......Omaha residents I assume..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talkingtable (talk • contribs) 08:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep If there isn't any sufficent material for this page, then why don't you go ahead and delete some of the other band pages that has had either nothing done to them or shorter than this. I agree with the below poster with what they're doing. KEEP. -- Faded 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The band is on a major label, Metal Blade.[29] They have been on a national tour with other notable acts as stated on the website for MTV.[30] They have a lengthy write up on All Music Guide and it can be seen on the VH1 website.[31] Just doing a search on them at Blabbermouth.net brings up over 2 pages of news reports that mention them.[32] --E tac 23:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about Cellador (all I found were notices of the bands appearances). Please note that Cellador is not Celador, which might be come up in a Google search. -- Jreferee 05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever, Cellador easily passes several of the listed critera on WP:BAND (which by the way also makes it clear that this article should never have been speedy deleted in the first place contrary to what several users said on the deletion review page). If you have a problem with the current article it merely needs to be listed as a stub and given an unreferenced tag, as the article obviously is genuine and features a notable subject. So rather than quoting policy pages on which I can't find anything that specifically relates to this article, prove that Cellador in no way passes WP:BAND which is the established guidline for musical artists. Also I googled "Cellador" and got 121,000 results, so I take it you have went through all of those and determined that there is not sufficient information?--E tac 07:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like E tac said if there are things that need to be worked out then the can. But as it is I don't see why it should be taken away. Truemetalfan 18, 2007— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.83.180 (talk • contribs)

Keep For the resons stated so eloquently by E tac. The quality of the artcile already in place should have no role in determining the subject's notability. Radagast1983 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per e-tac ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:56, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Kanagasingam[edit]

the article is an advertisement, majority of it is written by the subject or one of his socks which violate WP:COI and the article doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements of notability ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was once nominated for deletion, the result of that discussion can be accessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam/Archive ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE

One of the reasons for the previous AFD failure was immense canvassing conducted by the Rajkumar Kanagasingam himself..And he has not disappointed us again this time.He has made messages at Ccsott, Freedom_skies,Seraphimblade,SiobhanHansa, Wackymacs, Tarinth, Bakasuprman, and many other talk pages,pleading them to help him..He didn't even spare Jimbo Wales from his spamming campaign.And I have already seen one of them cast his vote in favour of him, just like the last time.I have never seen such disgraceful canvassing by anyone in Wikipedia, especially to save his own article..This alone should disqualify him from having his BIO at our beautiful Wikipedia.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your own understanding what am doing is disgraceful of your group's another AFD Scam. But read this about what an editor said on this canvassing here.[33][34].Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you have learned something from that..Now I know, why you have decided to increase spamming to 10+ talk pages. Makes perfect sense. ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have learnt something from that.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete almost all the references are self authored or self published, or the results of the subjects own PR work. including the main one "Kanagasingam is writing a book titled German Memories in Asia. The book is due to be released by the US print-on-demand publisher AuthorHouse.[1]" By all author bio standards this is non-notable. The prev. Afd was noted for its lack of critical thinking. DGG 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A heavy aroma of CoI hangs over this article, and its claims are either minor or not independently verified. -- Hoary 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per DGG. Article just reads as an advertisement. - KNM ^Talk 05:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable. He is the founder of a notable organisation, Princess Diana Institute of Peace. Independent sources on him include mentions in: an article [35] in Sri Lanka Daily News, an article [36] in the Colombo Daily Mirror, an article [37] on Daily News Online, A Sri Lankan website. For what its worth, his name gets 4,640 ghits [38]. I am also concerned about a potential WP:POINT violation in bringing this debate, as the nominator is presently in dispute with the subject on an unrelated matter. WjBscribe 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator might have brought this article to deletion because of a dispute, but that doesn't make Rajkumar notable. All the links given by you are trivial, and mention him just once. The large number of Google hits is thanks to Wikipedia mirrors and his articles on PR sites where anybody can submit an article by registering an account[39][40][41][42]. utcursch | talk 09:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ezines and on-line PR firms where I have published my articles and PR releases also having editorial policy. If you refer their policy you will come to know. Most of the other Blogs and Ezines only picked those articles from those Ezines.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nominator :o) do not have anything against Rajkumar Kanagasingam, I have not even for a second assumed bad faith on him without proper reasoning. Princess Diana Institute of Peace is another scam of this editor, if you do a google search for this only hits you get is the wikipedia article, I come from Sri Lanka and I have never heard of it here. If one examines the image included in the wikipedia article, it clearly says its a limited liability company thats allowed to use the name "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" without the word Limited. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete For very simple reason, He is absolutely not notable and unheard in My country.Most of the sources are in fact written by himself and contain false information, such as calling himself a columnist when he has only 4 article for a certain newspaper!!!. Does anyone know how many Sri Lankans write articles or columns to local news papers ?? I guess it could be thousands, and do we need articles for every single person who write something to news papers ? And there are several hundreds of NGO in Sri Lanka and anyone, even I ,can start a new one..So I am not sure how that would make someone notable. And for the google hits, both rajkumar and Kanagasingam are extremely popular names among Tamils and I am rather surprised that there were ONLY 4000+ hits. Please do tell us how many of those hits are actually belong to the author himself..finally, this person has nothing to do with India hence this debate should not be included in the india-related deletions..ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 06:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For your comments in the last AFD a few Editors have already answered here.[43][44][45][46][47]Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply: I am sorry ,none of them have answered.Means, your notability is not yet confirmed or established !!.In fact most of them came to vote as a result of your pathetic vote canvassing, and glad to see that you are doing the same this time .Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their reply stands forever, they should not repeat once again for you pre-planned AFD. See the details here.[48][49][50][51]Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where ?? Could you please stop accusing me with fairytale stories in which my name doesn't even appear.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean based this, you are working as a group of wikipedians against me.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make your self more clear ? Are we debating about Rajkumar Kanagasingam or Rajkumar Kanagasingam ? If it is the latter, don't you think you are in the wrong place ? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can take the revenge something for other, don't you?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 05:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As a Tamil and a Hindu, I am related to India Tag. Mere political jurisdiction can't single out a person from his cultural and language boundaries. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 07:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know you are a tamil, but how that would make you an indian ?? Are you a tamil of indian origin ?Can you prove that here ? From what I gather from your BIO,You are a Sri Lankan and have nothing to do with india..Please refrain from adding unnecessary Tags.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a India - related Tag, that doesn't require someone to qualify that he should be a Indian-origin nationality or an Indian. The same culture, religion and language also qualifies one for that tag. Why you are so interested to delete that tag?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it, if you read Wikipedia policies instead of wasting our time hereIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which wikipedia policy are you talking about? It is good enough if you could furnish that before you delete the Tag. Your interest to delete the Tag only shows - I am more related to that Tag than unrelated. All are originated from Africa some 2000 generation ago, but the close ethnic, religious and cultural identification qualifys for the Tag.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, as nn --Ragib 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my per previous vote. None of the references establish notability, and consist of articles written by himself. As Ccscott mentions below, there are multiple references, but these are not non-trivial -- see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. utcursch | talk 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As decided by the community less than three months ago, this subject is notable as he is discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references (see here and here) thus meeting the primary notability criteron of WP:N. I do not understand what has changed to necessitate another AfD so soon after the last one resulted in a Keep consensus. Ccscott 08:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment: I see a small number of short, competent but unremarkable newspaper articles by him. I don't see him discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references. Which are they? Incidentally, I'm surprised that anybody worth an article in WP would be so involved in the effort to retain that article: wouldn't he or she be too busy to be interested in, and above, such humdrum recognition? -- Hoary 08:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the deletion process is highly biased and had some ulterior motive, I don't feel anything wrong a subject is taking interst for his article or image(you can interprete as you want). If you take some interest you will come to know the real motive of the nominator rather than accussing the subject.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: These references were already discussed before at the previous Article for deletion debate that resulted in a Keep decision. I suggest that all editors review the Afd guidlines, in particlular Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates. I am concerned this re-nomination was brought forth for non-policy reasons as the nominator has recently been in a dispute with the subject of this article. Ccscott 10:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any of the references were actually discussed at the previous AfD, which featured sockpuppet votes by Rajsingam. The references are multiple, but not non-trivial. utcursch | talk 10:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the references are non-trivial or not is an editorial decision, but in my opinion (and that of the majority of editors commenting in the first AfD) it is clear that this article and this article both have the subject as the main focus of the article and are non-trivial. This is enough to satisfy WP:N. Remember, notability is not subjective. The article still needs much work, and Mr. Kanagasingam's behaviour has not helped things, but the article should not be deleted on the basis of non-notability. Ccscott 14:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace medals ??!! Hundreds of them were given to students during 1994-1996 period by then Government..As a Sri Lankan I find it amusing that someone consider him to be notable just because he was given a medal, just like hundreds of other Students..Sorry, he won't become notable, just by getting an odd medal.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable because he has won a peace medal. He is notable because there are multiple, independent media reports on the subject in reliable sources (see here) and therefore this article satisfies the primary notability criterion of WP:N. Aside from the argument of utcursch who believes that the many newspaper articles discussing the subject are not non-trivial (I disagree), there have been no policy-based reasons put forth to delete this article by any of the editors commenting. All the pro-deletion agruments I see are based on "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him", cite the apparent COI issues that surround this article or are just the lazy "per nom" (please see: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). None of these are valid reasons for deleteing an article according to Wikipedia deletion policy. Ccscott 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccscott says: He is notable because there are multiple, independent media reports on the subject in reliable sources (see here). Pardon me for repeating myself, but: I went there and saw a small number of short, competent but unremarkable newspaper articles by him. I don't see him discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent published references. Which are they? I still haven't seen an answer to that. Ccscott says: All the pro-deletion agruments I see are based on "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him", cite the apparent COI issues that surround this article or are just the lazy "per nom". Yes, I cited the apparent COI issues. But that wasn't all I wrote. True, I hadn't heard of him, but I'm very willing to concede that I haven't heard of most noteworthy people. (Example: I haven't heard of a single skateboarder, but I'm reliably informed that they can be noteworthy for skateboarding alone, let alone for their other achievements.) And I don't know why I should have to make such a banal declaration, but I neither like nor dislike Rajkumar Kanagasingam. Reason, I think, for deletion (from the very page Ccscott cites): Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth), of which the important member is WP:BIO. But perhaps I'm wrong and he does meet WP:BIO. If so, how? -- Hoary 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not addressing this directly but I have provided the link several time to the off-line articles, written independent of him, that discuss the subject directly. Again, the list can be found on the talk page for this article. Specifically: [52], [53], [54] are published newspaper articles completely independent of the subject which are primarily focused on the subject (and are therefore non-trivial). There are also numerous more marginal published articles (a few are: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] and more here ) which discuss the subject in a more trivial fashion. This amount of news coverage is sufficient to pass WP:BIO and WP:N easily in my opinion and that of the editors participating in the first AfD. Ccscott 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the peace medal nor handing out an unknown report make this person notable..I don't see anything but pure propaganda in those pictures..In case you don't know, It is not a big deal to have your photo on a newspaper..Some people when they get married put an add on the papers, some when they passed an exam do the same, some others prefer to notify the whole Sri Lanka when they win a medal or competition(in most cases just to boast) by having their picture on the papers..So, just because one has some photos on a newspaper he/she won't automatically become notable , kinda common sense. And, no one here saying things like i don't like him and bla bla..People have come up with very good points and I would kindly ask you to read them instead of dragging this into a different direction.Oh,,You can always shed some light on this by showing us anything written of him in media BY others..So far i have failed to see a single article or anything reported in local media OF him, quite strange for such a notable person, isn't it? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sockpuuppet vote is only one, not several. But read these comments by another editor on AFD.[60][61].Rajkumar Kanagasingam 10:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar, The number of votes that you stacked doesn't matter here. If it's 1 or 1000, still you have violated the policy. You directly or indirectly violated number of policies. You know you are lucky to be here until this moment. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though he has had his name in the news, none of his accomplishments seem noteworth enough for an article. Also the comment above highlights the glaring conflict of interest concerns. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest is based on some unrelated issues as a wikipedian developed from the Sri Lanka Conflict and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 08:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no the conflict of interest stems from the fact that you are writing your own articles and citing yourself. A bit circular, no? —Ocatecir ^Talk 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That starts from here. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 09:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and the shenanigans surrounding it make me even more willing to see it disappear. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete This article is written predominantly by Rajkumar Kanagasingam himself or sock puppets and as such fails WP:BLP completely and should be speedily deleted. Its sources are exlcusively articles written by [[User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam|] himself and as such their genuiness and reliability can be questioned. Rajkumar's claim to be notable is based on articles written by himself. Wikipedia is for notable individuals only.Kerr avon 12:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is on my watchlist, and most of it was actually written by myself and RaveenS (talk · contribs). Lahiru k, Netmonger, etc has been found guilty of sockpuppetry (Iwazaki is clean though) as well, so those in glass houses should not throw stones at others. He's been noted and wrote for many prominent Sri Lankan newspapers.Baka man 16:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentFirst, please refrain from bringing irrelevant things to this debate.And remember you too in the glass house and should not throw any thing(even a dust) at others. Second, please tell us what are those, many newspapers, all we know is, he wrote 4 articles(1 or 2 kowtowing of a political leader) for Daily news and 1 article for some other..Mainly to promote his NGO work and him self!! Could you please bring us one or two articles written of him(by others) in the main stream news papers ? Since he is notable even in India , hope this won't be a big problem for you. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reply - I have only edited sporadically in Sri Lankan/Tamil articles, a little bit in Anton Balasingham, and a few random historical Hindu figures in Sri Lanka. Just because I am Tamil does not automatically mean I am from India or that I support a ragtag bunch of terrorists. Noting this, I fail to see the glass houses you talk about. I noted above that I know you have not engaged in peculiar behavior unlike lahiru k and netmonger. As for notability, the sources on the talk page (kanagasingam's ) seem to assert notability.Baka man 02:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to bakaPlease stick to the point, this is not about those ragtag LTTe terrorist(even though Mr Rajkumar is an adamant supporter of them). This is about a unheard,not-notable person using wikipedia to boast himself..So, all we do is asking you to shed some light on this issue by giving us reliable sources about his achievements. Not blogs, Not School character certificates, Not self boasting articles, Not some clueless photos..If he is so notable, why can't you provide us anything written OF him?? ?

I didn't even know you were tamil ,and sorry if I have made a mistake about your nationality.All i know is that you are a trustworthy friend of this person and even shared wiki-passwords with him ,and came to vote here immediately after his SOS. And about the glass house, I was speaking of the same glass house which you mentioned earlier.So if you don't see it now, neither do I Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I say this as an outsider (I'm an American who's never been within ten thousand miles of Sri Lanka): Will everybody involved in this argument please calm down. The vicious fights surrounding articles on Sri Lanka and the Indian subcontinent are really starting to get out of hand. We are making an encyclopedia here, we are not creating a place where people can continue their real-world fights in cyberspace. And, before anyone uses this comment as a club against anyone else: I am talking to both sides, here. Please stop. --LastChanceToBe 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bakasuprman's allegations of sockpuppetry is mere speculation, I dont quite understand how he arrived at this theory of sockpuppeting by me and Lahiru_k and Iwazaki is clean!!!.. This only amounts to a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith on fellow editors. And these things are not something to be discussed here. This discussion is about whether to keep an article or not, so please adhere to the topic. As LastChanceToBe says lets not bring our real world fights to cyberspace. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although Rajkumar Kanagasingam is alleged to have written for many prominent news papers in Sri Lanka, he is not notable, nobody seems to know him at all in my home country of Sri Lanka. He is not a notable media personality, nor a prominent journalist so i fail to see what his claim to be notable is about.Kerr avon 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Sarvagnya 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per nomination. I also believe this fails WP:BLP and that there are startling WP:COIissues. Xdenizen 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nomination. Dutugemunu 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, the fact that contradictory to what someone said above he has just 170 unique google hits[62] (my username incidentally has 103 Ghits [63] :) and the fact that his book is been published by a print-on-demand publisher (ie they print a copy only when one is requested and don't pay the author anything - in fact the author initially has to pay the publisher a certain amount) --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete COI issues aside (I personally don't feel COI should lead to deletion unless the article is in such a poor form it's best to start over), it's not clear if this article establishes notability. I thought the peace medal might be something but [64] suggests it's nothing that special. Nothing else clearly established notability to me. Also there appears to be bad behaviour own both side. It is inappropriate to spam people about an AFD, especially if it's an article about you & those people are ones who have previously supported you. However it does appear the nominator is involved in a dispute with the editor with some controversy. Editors involve in disputes should not nominate articles for deletion about the person they're involved in the dispute with. Even if the editor genuinely feel it should be delete, this raises COI issues and just looks bad. Rather, you should bring the matter to the attention of other people, e.g. via the village pump or perhaps COI notice board and mention you are involved in an unrelated dispute and don't want to cloud the issue by nominating it. Nil Einne 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --vi5in ^[talk] 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost all the references to newspaper articles are those written by him. I fail to see how this is notable in the least. Seems to be more of a vanity article than anything else. --vi5in ^[talk] 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't seem notable enough and per nomShindo9 Hikaru 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable. Everyking 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable RaveenS 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable; plenty of sources are given--Sefringle 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, weak sources (all from daily news articles or posts on internet forums written by the subject), article written by the subject and his socks (See WP:COI), he is unheard of in his country of birth (I am from Sri Lanka), he has written ONLY 4 ARTICLES TO THE DAILY NEWS if this is noteworthy and deserves a wikipedia article we would be disgracing the journalist community. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 07:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As nominator, you're automatically taken to be advocating deletion. Thus, I've struck out the "Delete" part of your post there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI know that as the nominator I am automatically advocating the deletion, and any admin would be wise not to count me twice, I just wanted to further emphasize the facts. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you're welcome to make a comment further emphasising those facts. It's just that in an AfD like this one, with people talking over each other every which way and accusations flying, it probably makes sense for those who've already expressed an opinion about keeping or deleting the article to be a bit more careful about writing either word in bold. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have written articles for local newspapers and given lectures and talks. By this standard pretty much everyone who has held any lectureship at even a university would be able to put up bios. Even teachers. I'm afraid the encyclopaedic noteworthyness of this article is 0 at best.Pubuman 18:14, 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 merged into Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. --Wafulz 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchimont[edit]

I'm really shocked this corner has a page. What, the corner isn't anything special, I can't see any other corners have any articles, can you? Davnel03 16:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not especially notable. Could do a re-direct to the circuit page, I suppose. Just out of curiosity, why do you keep asking whether any other corners have articles, when so far you've foud four? 4u1e 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and redirect to main page. Pyrope 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose would redirection to the main page serve? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would of course help people who might search for information on Blanchimont. John Anderson 10:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. John Anderson 10:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps as above. Readro 11:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. Currently there appears to be no information on this corner in the main Spa article. SilkTork 10:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. There are details on this page which are valuable and should be kept, but on its own, I don't think this corner is notable enough to have its own article. --David Edgar 11:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, perhaps also mention it in the Formula 1 article. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#The track as a separate section. The corner is not notable in its own right, but it does seem to deserve note in the main article. -- Black Falcon 19:59, 23 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 suggested by trialsanderrors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamburello (corner)[edit]

I'm really shocked this corner has a page. What, just because Ayrton Senna died at that bend, it makes it notable? Davnel03 16:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari and move Tamburello (sport) to Tamburello with a dab header. ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above (Senna's death and Berger's earlier accident do give it a certain amount of notability, albeit not enough for its own article). 4u1e 17:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. John Anderson 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Readro 02:19, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental fundamentalism[edit]

This page, posted by an anonymous user, is far from NPOV and is written like an essay. I looked to try and edit it, even down to a stub, but I'm not sure if anything can/should be saved. There is a place for an article on this relatively recently developed concept, but I think deleting this would not preclude that happening. Madmedea 16:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAP. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently POV.--Sefringle 07:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I considered leaving a copy of this as an essay in the anon's user space, but it isn't even helpful as a potential commentary on the environmental articles that the author may be concerned about--it does not address WP concerns in a useful way. It's interesteing, but it doesn't belong here.--Hjal 23:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pious7 and Niffweed17. --pIrish 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. --Folantin 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SOAP. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:08, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lockport Mall[edit]

No real assertion of actual notability. WP:BIO. Yanksox 16:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being abandoned does not constitute notability. —dgies^t_c 00:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regular shopping mall which does not appear to have any major or serious impact on the community. (Scratching my head a bit on why WP:BIO is being used as a rationale for deletion though...) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to pick and borrow from all aspects from policy and see similarities to make assertions for other articles. This mall has not done anything to make it eqivilently notable if it were, say, a socialite. Yanksox 11:26, 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. WP:NOT is most certainly a grounds for deletion. Daniel Bryant 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gaming crossovers[edit]

Was going to merge to Gaming crossovers but I guess a full debate might help in cementing that choice. Seems to me like the list is trivial and pretty close to indiscriminate information, not to mention original research. Of course, one problem with the merge is that the list is bound to reappear as part of the gaming crossover article... Pascal.Tesson 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Pascal.Tesson 17:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Pascal.Tesson 17:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Companies do this all the time. This list could never be maintainable, and it's unlikely reliable sources can be found for most of them (especially since they're often Easter eggs meaning they may not be covered in the manual or other official publications). Garrett^Talk 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can see how it is difficult to maintain, but this is not grounds for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from being unmaintainable, the list is simply a collection of insignificant game trivia and easter eggs, which goes against WP:NOT. --Scottie_theNerd 09:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on the list is anything more than trivial. The only "true" Gaming Crossovers are Kingdom Hearts and Smash Brothers, and those two alone are not reason enough to maintain this list. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft/listcruft. RobJ1981 05:50, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to Damocles[edit]

This list is pretty much one of these "in popular culture" lists with a different name. In any case, this is a potentially infinite list: references to the sword of Damocles are made routinely in so many books, speeches, films and whatnot that the list is an entirely indiscriminate collection of trivia. Pascal.Tesson 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is just a list of information which is irrelevant, it also fails Wikipedia is not a directory.Telly addict 17:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the entries here, the asteroid Damocles and the 1920 short film The Sword of Damocles...these might be worth preserving elsewhere. But some of the others aren't references at all. Delete as unsourced/unverified as references to Damocles or the Sword of Damocles. -- saberwyn 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damocles partially duplicates this list. If this list is kept (and linked from the main article) then the main text would get more stable and maintainable. That's the reason for all the "... in popular culture" articles. Pavel Vozenilek 11:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Croxley 21:43, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free vending[edit]

Seems like the article is a guide to receiving free vends on a vending machine. Aidepikiwym 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violation of WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT, could be seen as nonsense.Telly addict 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO (instruction manual). — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:OR guide to cheating merchants out of payment for their merchandice. — ERcheck (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:OR. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:21, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart 500[edit]

Obvious WP:NFT material. Prod removed by an anonymous editor after six days without comment. ~Matticus ^T_C 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsensical, unencyclopedic, unsourced, etc. Yanksox 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense with no sources--SUIT^양복 19:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. - PoliticalJunkie 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source it or delete it. Something made up by a couple of punks does not a Wikipedia article create, though I would be willing to reconsider if several news articles about the event at this title can be provided. As for extreme trouble-making events, it seems right up there with McDonald's Drive-Thru Putt-Putt, an old favourite of mine. -- saberwyn 21:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in the sporting goods aisle one day. — Krimpet (talk/review) 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I might have speedied it as advertising.DGG 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up trivia. Hawkestone 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into WP:BJAODN Matchups 01:03, 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 as original research. Guy (Help!) 02:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific value[edit]

A WP:POV WP:OR, essay totally disconnected from mainstream philosophical work on the same topic. Notability of this POV is not established. While there are a handful of links to external sources, the article is a barrage of unsourced, but highly debatable, assertions (e.g.:

"By definition, all new material scientific discoveries must derive from the scientific method.",
"The Materialistic view of 'value' in the material sciences will ultimately lead back to the Periodic Table,"
"... each impact of a scientific discovery upon an affected CoP is a reflection of the quality & the completeness of the intentions of the scientist-observer(s) that brought the discovery into being."

Other sentences are indecipherably close to WP:nonsense, e.g.:

"the scientific Intentionality view will tend to focus upon the reproducibility of the specific intentionality of the scientist-observer(s) that brings the scientific discovery into being."

This article is part of a series of problematic articles and edits by User:Stevenson-Perez, see User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions, Community_of_practice#Communities_of_practice_.28scientific_perspective.29, DIKW, Meaning (scientific), Talk:Purpose#Essay_removal, Talk:Wisdom#Scientific_perspective, advancing what is essentially the same POV essay in a number of articles. Pete.Hurd 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my discussion here. Thanks to Pete.Hurd for pursuing this. DIKW and Community of practice will need some severe scrubbing down the line, and it may be time to pursue an RFC with Stevenson_Perez, who has rebuffed attempts to edit collaboratively. -- TedFrank 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think Community of practice can be saved (per my vote at the AfD), but I think DIKW might deserve an AfD. Pete.Hurd 01:30, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Myers[edit]

Nearly all original research. There are a couple of sentences taken from Halloween, but the rest appears to be unsourced fanfiction. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: There are some elements taken from the other films too, but really... The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts that can be referenced and are relevant should be merged into Halloween (film). - PoliticalJunkie 21:57, 10 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, Bobet 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT. Only notable-in-the-real-world characters should have articles. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was onscreen long enough to be killed, so where did all this biographical info come from? Looks like OR, if not, it is unsourced (for a good laugh, see comment on talk page about some of the more blatant OR removed). Besides, do we need an article on every slasher victim that was stabbed while taking a shower/having sex in the cabin/skinnydipping in the lake? Wavy G 16:15, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unrecorded operas[edit]

First, the purpose of this list is not clear. Will it be used by record-company executives looking for operas to record? I think not. Second, thousands of operas have been created since 1600, and most of them have been forgotten. A comprehensive list of unrecorded operas is therefore a) difficult to achieve and b) likely to be very long indeed. Third, few editors have added operas to this list, and discussion at the WP Opera Project has not revealed much, if any, enthusiasm for perpetuating the list, especially as there is still much to do elsewhere. GuillaumeTell 18:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are so many possible candidates for this list that it fails WP:NOT ("not an indiscriminate collection of information"). The vast majority of operas in existence have never been recorded. As it is, the list is a bare catalogue of random names. Unmaintainable and a cruft magnet. --Folantin 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmaintainable and almost potentially infinite. Perhaps only 1 per cent - if that - of thousands of operas written throughout history have ever been recorded, and as it is the list doesn't come even close to being halfway complete. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per comments above. Kleinzach 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an almost nonsensical subject. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as an unmaintainable list. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 11:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. DrGeoduck 02:59, 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 unperson'd.--Wizardman 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

++ungood;[edit]

A dictdef for a geek joke. This has no real potential for expansion (a bunch of sources have been added that supposedly show notability, but they're just pictures of notable people or fansites), and no real hope for an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nomination. Springnuts 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN geekcruft. Doubleplusungood (the Orwell version) is a redirect, but I don't think this one merits even that. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable neologism with no acceptable sources. The fact that it was coined to put on a T-shirt underscores this further. — Krimpet (talk/review) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable joke. Can only ever be a dicdef. WjBscribe 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete a dicdef at best. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the C++/Newspeak connection has already been discussed to adequate detail (with sources and all) in C++#The name "C++". I don't think we need to explain all possible variations of it... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, naturally. ManinBlack, I see this delete proposal stems from a comment on your talk page citing ++ungood; and newbie as examples of dictionary definition pages, and citing apparent inconsistency in enforcement of dictdef policy. Since you haven't proposed newbie for deletion despite that obviously being a dictdef page, I tend to agree with the sentiment of that comment. Or does the ++ungood; page simply lack a stub footer? Lack of potential for expansion should not be a cause for deletion - otherwise, we should delete the entry on Shakespeare because he's dead and potential for article growth has been limited by his demise. There are a lot of articles that fall under the dictdef definition - Orange (word) springs to mind, as does much of the rest of the Words category, which should probably be removed. On T-shirts: I suspect that there are rather more people (including the notable Guido van Rossum [65] and the rather less notable Danny O'Brien and Aaron Swartz) wearing ++ungood; on a T-shirt than there are wearing Wikipedia. Krimpet - Neologism, yes. No acceptable sources? Hardly. The history of the term is well-documented, and the provenance of the sources is good. Speaking of provenance of sources, Wwwwwolf, I've fixed the inaccurate citation on the C++ page. You're very welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs)
Newbie could probably be cleaned up. This obscure joke-only term really can't, due to a lack of references we can use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a dicdef. -- Whpq 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel that since this article includes one of the words used in the following book, it might/should be redirected to 1984...? --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, Lloyd Wood, please sign your posts. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, this article was created because I discovered a redirect from ++ungood to Newspeak already existed and built on that. On signing posts - the history log already holds that information. I don't see the value in signing posts when you're anonymous. Is newbie a dictdef, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs)
    - Newbie is not a dicdef, as it is used very much in popular culture, in gaming, among others. However, the article in itself needs some major cleaning up. Nobody actually looks for ++ungood; it should just redirect to Newspeak. SIGN YOUR POSTS! It makes it easier to know who wrote what. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 23:51, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kuper[edit]

Article is an apparent vanity page created by (possible) relative of subject. Only real assertion of notability made is that she was the first woman to graduate from Northwestern University's Sound Design program, information that may be more appropriate in an article about the school or program (if it exists) as there is, at this time, nothing else particularly notable about this individual. Article has been orphaned since Nov. 2006. Very few relevant hits on Google (most are spam pages unrelated to subject). External links make no further assertions to or suggestions of notability. LaMenta3 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, being the first woman to graduate from a sound design program is not enough of a feminist achievement to warrant inclusion. Good for her, though Oskar 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is in her 20s so still has time to potentially become a notable encyclopedia subject , but no evidence that she is at present. -- Infrogmation 16:59, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season synopses of Friends[edit]

Per WP:NOT#IINFO: Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. This article is crufty, unreferenced since August 2006 (does not look like anyone is going to do that anytime soon based on the history), and a collection of blatant plot summaries that isn't a part of a larger topic. The article is also quite redundant with episode articles and List_of_Friends_episodes. -- Wikipedical 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and or redirect to List of Friends episodes. Material is not referenced, either in relation to the episodes themselves (so beyond the season, you don't know what happens when), or in relation to external commentaries. Material also covered in similar form at the redir-target. -- saberwyn 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and/or redirect to List of Friends episodes I am ambivalent about this, because it seems that a description of each season is more encyclopedic than just a straight-forward listing of episodes. However, the article isn't very good at all, and I can't imagine how it could become better. At least the episode listing is a decent listing. Therefore, I say, redirect! Oskar 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into List of Friends episodes. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:56, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tailies[edit]

This has been deleted 3 times under A7. The article lacks multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore fails to meet WP:V or WP:Notability. Are unsigned and therefore unlikely to meet WP:Music. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparantly the second AFD on this band but as the previous was closed after one edit in favour of a speedy, I'm keeping at AFD so that any future reincarnations can be speedy deleted. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no sources to verify notability in the article- and indeed no assertion of notability in the article that I can find. Googling "The Tailies" brings up mostly "Lost" fan pages, but adding the name of the members still doesn't reveal any useful sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per past AfD and Speedy. This page also needs to be protected from re-creation. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there aren't many sources yet i am planning to start creating internet links first, i started with wikipedia, (be honoured ;]) and if you read the messages on the talk page then you may understand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wilko2205 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- No, no, no. It goes the other way around. First you release multiple albums commercially, and play gigs on national-level tours. Then, you get famous and written about in newspapers, magazines, etc. Finally, the externally verifiable, sourced information can be used to construct an article on Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously fails WP:MUSIC, author concedes (on the talk page) that the band is not notable but says there have been "numerous requests from fans asking for both a myspace site and a wikipedia page." These fans clearly do not understand the purpose, scope, or goals of Wikipedia, so their requests are irrelevant. The author also asks for a special exception from the notability requirements for no particular reason, except, "I don’t see the harm". The harm, of course, is that it would be patently unfair to tens of thousands of other non-notable garage bands around the world who aren't also granted a special exception. Xtifr _tälk 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles don't make the cut just because "...our fans have asked for it". Pjbflynn 03:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and verifiability, plus there is a conflict of interest issue as members of the band seem to be the only ones editing the page. ― El Cid ∴∵ 20:44, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Institute of Management Science and Technology (PIMSAT)[edit]

Created by Zafar ul islam (talk · contribs) in support of Preston University. Recently, Preston had to move locations because of laws that deter diploma mills from operating.[66] No WP:RS to show notablity, legality, or that this place is real. Delete and possible redirect to Preston University. Arbustoo 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero references except a place on a list. Quite apart from other concerns, we do not usually include parts of universities unless very notable, and this is about as far under that mark as it could possibly be. DGG 04:38, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Rapper Angel[edit]

NN, fails WP:MUSIC ccwaters 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (Cuban Artist) is a copy of article. nominate as the same. ccwaters 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom (though claim that the subject is "the the first artist to release a CD dedicated to licking pretty women toes" is almost good enough for WP:BJAODN). Remember to delete the 3 images in the article at the same time. -- Infrogmation 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Delete per nom; are these articles even real? Betaeleven 13:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. —Ocatecir ^Talk 05:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I took care of deleting the images and "Angel (Cuban Artist)", which had not been deleted as they should have been when the AfD was closed. -- Infrogmation 16:52, 24 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. Many of these people are alive, and those names which are "sourced" at all cite inappropriate "references" (mostly other wikis or an anonymous online "anarchist's encyclopedia.") WP:BLP is not negotiable, nor is WP:V. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchists[edit]

Delete We have categories for things like this. Overwhelmingly unsourced. Previously nomination failed because people kept saying "well it just needs to be cleaned up", six months later still a mess. AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like the qualifier at the bottom "these people did not qualify themselves as anarchists". Which would I suppose be fine if we identified who did qualify them as anarchists, but of course this is just a list so we don't. AlistairMcMillan 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anarchists AlistairMcMillan 20:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the entirety of the article is sourced or removed, NOW. Failing that, delete, with a categorisation or any entries that are sourced into the appropriate category, and merge the sourced info into the persons' articles. -- saberwyn 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a textbook case for categories. As being an anarchist doesn't make a subject notable, there's no reason for redlinks in this list, and there's no annotation in the list which would make it any more useful than a category. Categorize all the entries that are verifiably anarchists, and delete the list. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable and uncertain inclusion criteria Alf^Photoman 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - a category is a better substitute. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete especially in light of the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communists. This list is much longer than the communists one, and also contains much less information. Hence, all the objections in the communists AFD apply even more strongly to this list. Stebbins 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above . Manik Raina 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm currently, very slowly, working on a version with sources and information here. If this article was deleted, would a sourced, informative recreation also be deleted out of process? I'm just wondering. The list of atheists is the example from which to work, in my opinion, for all lists of poeple-by-ideology-or-belief, and that's what I would like to see. I also agree with the point raised on the list of communists AfD that sourcing is much easier in a list than a category. This isn't sourced yet, but it can be. Such souring also lends itself better to people like Max Stirner and Leo Tolstoy, who refused the label of anarchist for personal reasons, but were major anarchist thinkers. I do agree with removing the red links, as people are rarely notable solely for being anarchists. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep at this stage very useful for redlinks. the sources shld be in articles, perhaps only needs verification? ⇒ bsnowball 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such list, if allowed, should be structured by country or period, not sorted by name. That would allow to add some context, unlike the current list. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fascists for a precedent (and that list was much better structured). Pavel Vozenilek 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bsnowball comment above. -- Infrogmation 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To bsnowball and infrogmation: please keep Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in mind. All the red links that don't have reliable sources beside them should be removed from the article immediately. At least with the blue links there is a chance that the linked article is sourced. For the red links we can see that a large proportion of them are unsourced. They can't just stay there unsourced indefinitely until someone gets around to writing an article. AlistairMcMillan 17:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blp is irrelevant: as 'anarchist' isn't a straight down the line criticism (the only thing which blp says needs to be gotten rid of 'straight away', & then only if the subject is still living) NB this fact is also the relevant difference with pavel's 'list of fascists' precedent, so that precedent does not apply here. ⇒ bsnowball 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP doesn't just talk about criticism. It talks about "contentious material - whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable". How can you even judge if the material is contentious, when all there is here is a name? BLP does apply. AlistairMcMillan 08:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs referencing, not deletion. Owen 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what people said six months ago... nothing happened. AlistairMcMillan 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being impatient with an article's progress is not grounds for deletion. I added a number of external links for red links a while ago, and wouldn't mind going through the rest. This article is an important one to have, and is useful in its current state. If the problem with the article is the lack of citations, then we need to warn readers of this fact through tags. Owen 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge, there are a few citations in my sandboxed recreation if needed. Personally I don't think there is a problem with listing Bakunin or similar without citation for the time being, but it always helps. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's looking very good. I agree that we don't need references for the obvious, I just want to make sure that people who don't have articles are at least referenced. I think your categorization helps with that. Still, it might be problematic since it's sometimes hard to say just where people belong. For instance, Zinn would just as well fit as an educator. Overall though I think that's a good direction for the article. Owen 08:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous similar categories. This clearly would be an encyclopediac list if it became sourced--Sefringle 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Goes with Category:Anarchists and it should include those anarchists without articles written for them. --FateClub 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If a notable anarchist doesn't have an article, then write a stub on them and add it to the category. Much more useful in the long run: stubs attract improvement, whereas redlinks on a list don't get the same sort of attention. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we have an article that lists even those with red links we can keep track of who does not have an article and then other can write articles on them, they may be notable for other reasons than being anarchists. --FateClub 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the names are not cited, then how do we know if they belong on the list? AlistairMcMillan 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly half of them are, and all of them should be. --FateClub 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Usedup 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Impatience is not a reason to delete articles that are not flawed in principle. If anyone is impatient that the list is not sourced, they can source it themselves. At least this list, unlike a category, can be referenced. The idea to structure the list differently (i.e., by time period, country, etc.) is a good one, and should be brought up on the article's talk page (assuming it is kept). -- Black Falcon 19:56, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trotskyists[edit]

Delete More unsourced list cruft. We have categories that do the same. AlistairMcMillan 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unmaintainable Alf^Photoman 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is it "unmaintainable"? --Richard 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no qualified criteria for inclusion. If I only remember how many people called themselves Trotskyst in my student days you should better get another 100 names on the list Alf^Photoman 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alf. Then there is a point of all those who belonged to this category but did not speak up for the fear of being shot by Beria's men. :-) Manik Raina 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Should be a category. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'I have listed this AfD on the discussion page for Leon Trotsky. DGG 04:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, and red links indicate where work has to be done. Bertilvidet 07:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I agree that it's useful to have a directory of Trotskyists, but not in the format of a page. This should be a category and not a list. --Duncan 11:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current form does not allow to add much of the context information. Being structured by country or period would make a difference. Pavel Vozenilek 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not encylopedia material, there is no explanation, its an eclectic selection, and in contrast with Stalinism, its not the individual but the ideas...Andysoh 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information needs to be sourced. Unless someone is willing to provide a source for each entry, the article must go. Nick Graves 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel Vozenilek Usedup 05:15, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Martin Awards[edit]

Made up. Zero Google hits. De-prodded w/o comment. Pan Dan 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as almost certain hoax. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looked through the history and restored introductory paragraphs deleted by author possibly in error when removing prod nomination. So probably not imo a hoax, just non-notable. hence ....
... delete Springnuts 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, either a hoax, or just really non-notable Oskar 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no objection to Speedy delete. Either total hoax or totally non notable. -- Infrogmation 17:10, 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 Merge with Digital clock to Digital clock#Digital-analogue clock. anthony^[cfc] 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital-analog clock[edit]

Orphaned page, contains no useful information and would appear to be impossible to expand into anything useful Iridescenti 20:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content to digital clock under a "variants" section - it's not an obscure timepiece by any means. Any original research and patently untrue stuff needs to be removed though - I had a watch like this once and it certainly wasn't a "more expensive" model - it cost me all of £2. No redirect, as there doesn't seem to be a standard name for this kind of clock/watch, and could equally apply to a timepiece which has both an analogue dial and a digital display together (which are, if anything, far more common than this kind of timepiece). ~Matticus ^T_C 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to merge, you need the redirect in order to preserve the edit history. FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 18 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, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Digital clock. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:42, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Via the wire[edit]

Unreferenced, unlikely that this simple combination of words was uniquely coined by this person. Non-encyclopedic. "Via" and "wire" are common terms. — ERcheck (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Google shows phrase dates to at least 1922[67] Iridescenti 21:09, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. –Llama man^talk_contribs 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Brewer[edit]

Joke article, possible speedy deletion candidate. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete patent nonsense Iridescenti 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been speedied on sight - attack page, patent nonsense, no notability asserted. So tagged. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:43, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Patrick's Science College[edit]

Article doesn't seem notable. Its been like this since 5 May 2006. Delete, but allow for recreation if sources are obtained. My concern is the long history of fraudulent institutions claiming to be from Pakistan.[68] Arbustoo 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find a single result on google except for wikipedia-related stuff. You'd think that a university/college would have something, like at least on some dude somewhere claiming to have been there on his resumé. Or something. Seems like a fraud, delete but allow for recreation with sources Oskar 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete how can it possibly be kept when the article contains no encyclopedic information whatsoever?DGG 03:31, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Binoria[edit]

Article doesn't seem notable. Its been like this since November 2005. Delete, but allow for recreation if sources are obtained. My concern is the long history of fraudulent institutions claiming to be from Pakistan.[69] Arbustoo 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the issue is that it might be fraudulent, some quick googling will tell you that it's not. In addition to the homepage (which is linked in the article) i found two bbc stories that discuss it, one of them quite thoroughly. There were a number of other results, as well. The article isn't very good and there are not nearly enough sources, but I have no doubt of its notability or factuality. Oskar 23:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics notified. Pavel Vozenilek 11:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've fixed the link for the school to www.binoria.org (this site is in English, the previous one was in Urdu). It looks like the school does exist and as Oskar pointed out there are a number of results (including the BBC ones) that assert its notability. Its just a matter of adding it into the article! - Ozzykhan 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've re-written the article. It has got some refs and sources now. utcursch | talk 06:06, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child Pornography: Model Legislation & Global Review[edit]

Appears to be advertising for a particular (non notable) publication. I notice that all the creator's edits have been to create entries relating to this organisation's activities and publications Iridescenti 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obscure technical writing at its best. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and basically vanity. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete highly esoteric and contains no useful information. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above . Manik Raina 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Jessica Derder. Most of the information is already available there, so a merger would be more appropriate. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:06, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Bible[edit]

Non-notable project, the article cites no reliable secondary sources, only the project's own website. Thus, delete as unattributable material. Beit Or 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I pretty much consider myself an atheist, but this subject is utterly non-notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to American Atheists, the sponsoring organization, where ti deserves a mention (and the primary sources rule applies). -- Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, not notable. Also, being an atheist myself, it's always kinda disappointing when my people are really mean :( For some reason, we tend to be that (not really relevant, just thought it needed to be said) Oskar 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the delete idea, but also because the comments between the sources are so blatantly not following the NPOV policy. I added the NPOV template, but still ... I'm going with delete. --Theunicyclegirl 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I am not an atheist, but I think that if endless harping about historical anti-semitism in Islam is permitted on lots of pages, backed with quotations from Qur'an, then I think some other texts from long, long ago should also be permitted, to present another side of Jewish history. Long before Islam existed, yes, but the point is that the God of the "chosen people" also commanded that a great many horrible things be done in His name. An alternative would be to have a page dedicated to "God-ordained atrocities in the Old Testament/Torah." I'm not particularly fond of the American Atheists, but they did a good job in gathering this material. Why hold Islam strictly to the text of long ago when other foundational texts from ancient days are only presented now as lovely, heartwarming, inspirational stories, when really they are filled with evil, vicious incidents, committed by Jews, that are now celebrated as righteous and heroic actions. --Joybucket 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the material is currently unsourced, doesn't mean it can't be sourced. A google serach reveals such a concept is notable [70]. Bless sins 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a textbook example of how not to use google. First of all, you need to use quotes otherwise it pops up any page with the word "evil" and "bible" in them, quite a few I would imagine. And even if you do that, there is no way to know how many sites refer to this thing specifically. "evil" and "bible" are just to generic Oskar 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, kids, try this one or one like it. Atheism is not the main concern; in fact, atheism is irrelevant. The point is that vicious, genocidal acts were commanded or sanctioned by God in many parts of the Old Testament. It is entirely notable, and to focus only on the lollipops, cotton-candy and merry-go-rounds of the Old Testament, while meticulously documenting the pre-PC bias and cruelties of other sacred texts, is intellectually dishonest. --Joybucket 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be misunderstanding what this process is all about. I agree with you that the bible is pretty darn horrible at places. I am also an atheist I have no bias in favour of christianity in any way, shape or form. But the question isn't whether criticism of the bible should be in wikipedia, the question is should this, specifically this, example of bible-critique be included. What sets this critique apart from the thousands of others? Has it been written about in magazine articles? Is it in any other way notable? For general criticism of the ethical conduct of the divine in the old and new testament, see Ethics in the Bible Oskar 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It would seem that both keep votes above are meant as misdirected revenge for grievances on Islam and antisemitism.Proabivouac 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs to be improved, but judging by a Google search, the project is both notable and verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and WP:POINT. meshach 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep assuming refs. will be found. In the interim I removed the somewhat intrusive section of biblical quotes on "Rape in the Bible", leaving just the citations. DGG 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best place to include this into Wikipedia would be as a link in the "External Links" section at the bottom of the American Atheists page. Delete per nom, Proabivouac and Meschach. --ProtectWomen 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Immediately (strikethrough of my own statement per 6SJ7) Delete per nom, Proabivouac, Meschach and MPerel --ProtectWomen 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is just a web site and apparently not connected with American Atheists. It says right on the front page of evilbible.com, "EvilBible.com is not affiliated with American Atheists." I just edited the article accordingly, figuring that in its last few days it should at least be accurate, although the edit makes even clearer than before that the "organization" in question is not notable and the article should obviously be deleted. 6SJ7 19:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unattributable and non-notable. ElinorD (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article is not moral deficiencies in the Bible, it is a particular website, and that website is not notable. -- Schaefer (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability Avi 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, and a whois shows it is anonymously registered. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Personal website being used to promote a POV. Zazaban 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, fine, delete. All of you are completely missing the point. The Atheist crap is irrelevant. I'm just going to make a page called Warfare and Violence of Ancient Israel and Judah. --Joybucket 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very strong delete this was put here to promote an anti bible website and doesn't explain why it is notable even when compared to other anti bible websites. Irate velociraptor 05:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable site. --FateClub 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn WP:WEB failure lacking in assertion of notability. Tewfik^Talk 22:28, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enos Foote[edit]

Zero coherent hits on Google argues non-notability Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above . Manik Raina 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible copyvio, "this image and actual original diploma is owned by the author of this document". - PoliticalJunkie 15:56, 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 speedy delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owais_Qadri[edit]

No content really and more of an advertisement than anything else ZaydHammoudeh 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting into unique discussion page. Article previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owais Qadri - result deletion. No stance at this time. -- saberwyn 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no context. --Sigma 7 14:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though unnecessary, as article has already been deleted.--Sefringle 04:45, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer programs by Operating System[edit]

Unclear to me that this has any encyclopedic value. The article looks more like something you'd find in operating systems for dummies and is pretty much original research, despite the fact that entries are verifiable (note however that the list is woefully incomplete). Also unclear how to maintain this page in the future: should we remove an item from the list once the program has become largely obsolete? Pascal.Tesson 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Impossibly open ended list. Artw 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If software is notable, then it'll appear in a category. We don't need a category duplicated here. AlistairMcMillan 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Should be a category, not a list. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as an entirely unmaintainable list. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. — Krimpet (talk/review) 04:11, 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 - right now, it is inherently speculative. Let a proper article be written at the appropriate time. Metamagician3000 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 16th episode of Lost season 3[edit]

Episode title isn't confirmed yet. This thing has been moved already 2 times, and it's likely it'll be moved another 2 times before it airs. I'm taking this to AFD, because this is just pollution of wikipedia history. It's something else to create articles for episodes for which at least the name is known, but to create articles and move them around endlessly is just stupid. If this AFD succeeds, i'll hope it will be a precedent for any new articles on episodes, that at least a NAME should be known, and the fact that the episode will actually air at one time should be verifiable. Episode articles are deemed questionable among a large group of editors already, if we start allowing these kinds of things, it will only get worse and those editors are right in deeming these articles questionable in encyclopedic nature. If people want to write something about such an episode, they can do so on the Talk page of the series. The infobox of the last "officially confirmed" episode can point people there. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I do not question the contents of the article itself, I question the fact that we don't speedy delete anything that is so far into the future that we cannot name it properly yet and spawns a new article like that every week the thing is on the air. When a name of a television ep is confirmed, creating the article is no problem. Before that time all such episode articles should be deleted.

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If you don't know the name of an episode, there shouldn't be an article on it. Period. PTO 23:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may not have a name, but the episode is still scheduled and planned and all that. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not anything new, actually, in regards to have articles for unnamed episodes (some shows don't have titles), there is a consensus to improve these articles, not delete (WP:EPISODE). Also airs soon, seems a waste to delete to be recreated. Matthew
- The fact that this has never been PROMINENT enough for anyone to care is logical. That doesn't mean it's a good practice that we should start advertising. Also, WP:EPISODE says nothing about articles for which a name is not known, that was never the spirit of that debate. That debate was at a point where it was still very questionable to create episode articles at all. The fact that people would start creating them for episodes we know jack about (no pun intended), wasn't even phantomed at that time. To quote WP:EPISODE here is just not relevant. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Since we know this is going to air pretty soon, is it really speculation? I really don't see any strong reason to delete it, just improve the article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep crystal ball doesn't apply, this article says nothing that can't be confirmed. Except, I'd like to see a ref for the "Juliet Centric" part. I don't see a problem with the article's name being moved, and that process will not be endless. As far as polluting WP's history, I think it's the opposite, we should purposefully be saving the history. Also, talk pages are not a substitute for articles, that sounds like fan site stuff. I do think EPISODE is relevant, if we're ever going to have a page on this (which EPISODE speaks to), we should save this version's history. Maybe you could have redirected it towards the LOE, but now that's kind of out of our hands with this AfD. - Peregrine Fisher 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per similar situation with Not in Portland AfDs (I'll have to dig up links). We have a Lost guideline about this kind of stuff, and there's no content to the article. I'm very surprised to see many familiar names suddenly supporting keep when they've so passionately have fought off this kind of pre-mature article and topic stuff in the past. How is this different from all those other times? Delete this nothing of a page that only encourages fan speculation and lets create a clean article once it airs, even if it's soon. There's no reason whatsoever to set such a bad example when we bust our asses to prevent these kinds of things. Nothing of value to keep, at all. I also find it wildly ironic that people are citing WP:EPISODE, which discourages individual episode articles unless that specific episode is notable. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, many of the keeps seem to think this is an AfD attacking individual episode articles rather than being an AfD for an unaired, unnamed, and no content topic. I'm not sure we're all on the same page here. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The only reason i moved it instead of AFDing it was the sourced statement about the "Charlie problem" (normally I'd want unsourced articles deleted). Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 11:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It will be moved to its true title on Monday when ABC releases an episode desciption. --thedemonhog 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this page when Carlton Cuse confirmed the episode title and some plot detail. Now the producers have moved this episode to later in the series, it is confusing and unconfirmed. SergeantBolt (t,c) 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on the merit of this article, but, should the discussion here be merged with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 17th episode of Lost season 3 ? I don't seen anything particularly special about either article which warrants a separate discussion. Neier 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware this article was AfD as well yet. I thought i'd stick to one of them for now and see how that would go, but apparently someone else thought differently --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:09, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Systems Electronics[edit]

Article is Spam by User:Parvezht - see [71] and is non-notable. Also see user's current Userpage: [72] in which he (inappropriately) lists his resume where is mentionned that he worked for the company. Clearly self-promotion. Sfacets 23:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Crested Penguin 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think WP:CORP has become too weak. My opinion of the policy isn't relevant, so we're left looking for third-party coverage of the company. It isn't hard to find: [73] and [74] for example. I figure they're the Newegg of the middle east. -- Mikeblas 15:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources I see are essentially company press releases. I do not see anything that clearly constitutes independent coverage; though it might help if I read Arabic. Given the COI issue, I feel compelled to support deletion unless better sources emerge.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 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. There's no agreement on whether or not this should be mentioned in SimCity 4, so that's left up to editors on that article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SimCity 5 (second nomination)[edit]

(1st AfD)

I have decided to suggest deletion of this article again. First, this article was deleted before, little has changed since then. Second, most of the information in this article can easily be placed in the "Future Updates" section of the existing SimCity 4 article. Third, very little is still confirmed of the next SimCity including the title of the game, so this article can not go very far at the moment. Camaron1 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! Let us remember that they are currently occupied with Spore right now and making the game the best it can be. The game has gone 3 main sequels and they'll probably go on for four considering the popularity of the game. Just give it time and wait for Spore to be released. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.104.147.99 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Even with the sources, this article is a little too crystal ballsy for me. One of the references is some obscure russian website that had supposedly had a launch date once, but it isn't there now. In another one Will Wright was asked what direction the game was going he answered "We haven't figured out what it is." That's enough to delete for me Oskar 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - verges to close for comfort on WP:CRYSTAL for me. Merge to SimCity 4#Future updates. anthonycfc ^[talk] 23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Anthony_cfc Crested Penguin 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Anthony. Nothing wrong with indicating SC5 is in development but until an actual release is announced, it's too much Crystal Ball. Just because a game is in development doesn't mean its release is a guarantee. See Duke Nukem Forever (which, granted, has an article but that's because it's an unusually notable case. You won't find an article of the 1995 Playstation One Aeon Flux game which was even advertised on TV but was never actually released.) 23skidoo 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Protect: First of all, although SimCity 5 was confirmed in 2004, little has changed. In fact, the "proof" that SimCity 5 was being developed is all crystalballery, it only said "a new SimCity game". That could mean a number of things. Also, SimCity may or may not be developed by Maxis, it could be done by another of EA's lackeys. There is just little that can be placed here. TheListUpdater 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Classic application of WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia ia a reality-based encyclopedia, not a vapor-based one. --Shirahadasha 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, especially given the report for Sim City 5 was from 2004. Duke Nukem Forever has been "in development" longer, true, but there are reasonable updates regarding the development of the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lankybugger (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. EA said that a new SimCity game is in development. EA makes the game. It's reliable. TRKtv (da aaa ah!) 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously some people have not paid attention to the sources LAST year it was confirmed in the fiscal outlook for 2007. Not 2004 so it has reliable information behind it. Please pay more attention. - Mike Beckham 11:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the comment made for a SimCity being in development in the 2007 outlook was very ambiguous. The reference was very brief and it is not clear if the reference was to SimCity 5, and not SimCity DS. Also, while I respect your views, I would appreciate it if everyone kept a cool head while commenting. Camaron1 | Chris 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have kept a coo, head, I was merely pointing out the facts. - Mike Beckham 01:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of confirmation that the game is actually in development. The sources given only indicate that the game is in 'early planning' or 'in the pipeline'. I haven't seen any evidence that a single line of code has been written. There is basically zero actual information on the game. I also oppose merge, as the existence of a SimCity 5 would not constitute an 'update' to SimCity 4. They are games in and of themselves. Updates to SimCity 4 would be things like patches, expansion packs, downloadable add-ons, etc. --SubSeven 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. WP:CRYSTAL applies. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the game is going to be released, there is no need to keep the article as there is no specific information about the actual contents of the game itself. Much of the article is speculation, it can be recreated when the time is necessary. - PoliticalJunkie 21:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Vague speculation from fairly reliable sources is worth a couple sentences, just not a whole article. Wickethewok 21:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verified by multiple reliable sources, no prediction of content beyond that which is verified by said sources, I don't honestly see what's wrong with this article. If your only complaint is that the game hasn't been released yet then sorry, that isn't part of the deletion criteria (see Halo 3, Mercenaries 2, etc.) Cynical 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between the notability of Halo 3 and Mercenaries 2 than that of SimCity 5. While the development of these games are clear, as shown by the articles, that can not be said with SimCity 5. Though some sources have stated that the game is in development, they are not clear and I would argue that most are not necessarily reliable. Camaron1 | Chris 23:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be any substantial evidence this game is in serious development. Delete it until there is. FredOrAlive 00:39, 24 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue Vista Clock[edit]

The article's subject is non-notable clock shareware for Vista; contributor has few edits not directly related. Tysto 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree Oskar 23:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion made as to why this software is notable. WjBscribe 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable self-promotion. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep not self-promotion; article is written objectively and clearly states features that assert the notability of the product as it differs from many other clocks, even though the differentiating features are admittedly pretty lame. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Translucency is not a novel feature and is used by at least one other clock utility. Pavel Vozenilek 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more to add, just bin it! |?|3lit3man 16:03, 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.