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

The result was redirected in parallel AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/++ungood;. --ais523 14:38, 2 April 2007 (U T C)

++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 Larry Wall 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs) 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and cruft.--WaltCip 13:33, 28 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Light Project[edit]

delete Dark Ermac 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most successful aircraft[edit]

A vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no definition of success and the article seems to have an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. As a side note, it was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user and the initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. Dual Freq 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that this is the beginning of a good encyclopedia article, but I think it needs to be expanded beyond a list and moved to title such as Historically successful aircraft. - Richard Cavell 03:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could be improved Crested Penguin 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I neglected to mention that the list is very subjective. For example, the Harrier jump jet is listed as successful while the History Channel also includes it in its Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 6 episode decrying its design flaws.[1] A user on the talk page also questions inclusion of the C-130 based on its accident history. Additionally, due to the lack of a definable, concrete definition of successful, almost every aircraft could probably be considered successful in one respect or another or the aircraft would not have reached production. --Dual Freq 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Inherently subjective list. Pjbflynn 03:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COMPLETELY subjective list. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvageably subjective. --RaiderAspect 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No salvation, inherently POV. /Blaxthos 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mind-bogglingly subjective. Also, if this list is the MOST successful aircraft rather than just VERY successful aircraft, shouldn't it only have one entry? ;) FiggyBee 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective; no attribution for definition of "successful" (do they mean most popular? Safest? Easiest to fly? Cheapest to run? What?) or for inclusion of aircraft. Also extremely biased towards American aircraft. --Charlene 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - incredibly subjective and POV. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvageably POV. --Mmx1 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is inherently subjective and not NPOV. --Kyoko 13:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe a major problem with the current article is that instead of using a single measure of "success" and clearly defining it, it uses varying criteria that seem to have been arbitrarily chosen. The list would be better if it used a single criterion, such as "List of aircraft with the longest production runs" or something like that. Of course, lists like that run the risk of going against the idea that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that's for another time. --Kyoko 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although weakly. Yes, there is a problem with the criteria for "success"; AFAIAC any aircraft that flies is "successful", since man will never fly. Were it moved to a list of aircraft produced in largest numbers I'd be inclined to keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That list already exists, and I don't think anyone has any problems with it. FiggyBee 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. How is this "mind-bogglingly subjective"? There are perfectly good criteria for "success" (albeit several different ones), and some are used here: most ordered and produced commercial airliner sounds successful to me. Clearly in need of cleanup, but a reasonable list. I see no problem at all with having several different criteria used; for example, "most manufactured", "longest in use", and "most profit" could all reasonably be thought of as criteria for success. bikeable (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for insurmountable NPOV and OR issues. No objective definition of "successful" is possible. Otto4711 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename because of the above comment suggest that a type of POV may be perceived in the term "most successfull". I suggest the new list be called: "List of sucessfull and poppular aircrafts". Also, remove any information which is not properly sourced. ie.: If "airplane A is very successful/popular" (which means it is in the list) then there should be a quote/reference to who said so. This avoids a violation of WP:A. If we say, according to, a survey from ABC inc., Airplane A is very popular, then Keep that information. Prior to any deletion the relevant sourced information should be verified and transfered to the new list. Finally, even though popularity is subjective it is less a contreversial theme than successfullness. Nevertheless, popularity is sometimes harder to evaluate and is subjective. Ironically many wikipedians believe popularity is a reason for inclussion or exclussion. Water fuel cell is not that popular but it is an article. Also, sucessfullness and popularity can both be measured and hence are empirical. Empirical data is not subjective. It can be measured by a specific amount and devided by a common denominator to give specific stats. These stats should be utilised if possible in this list. I may be correct to assume that those who vote because they believe the issue is subjectivity that perhaps it was your way of saying "that there is a lack of emperical data or referencing?". --FR Soliloquy 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Objective criteria for inclusion is cited at wikipedia's rules here at WP:A. Properly sourced information should be suficient enough for inclusion. If Howard Stern says "I cut my pubes last night. My hairs were getting longer than my penis."[2] Or the fact that "The world scares me." said Howard. Then I think, considering the good source I provided, it should be included in the appropriate article. Similarly, if the information is well sourced... ie.: Toy's R Us offers or did offer a helicopter and it is documented (note: this link is not a UH-61 helicopter) then it should be included. --CyclePat 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list doesn't need to be all-inclusive to be valid. Claiming it was all-inclusive would be a POV issue, but simply listing proably successful aircraft against various measures seems quite valid. Providing proper references to substantiate claims would make it acceptable. I do agree the title reads as horribly objective, but the claims made can be substantiated. (please note that this comment was unsigned the user who performed the edit can be found by clicking here)
Delete Definition of "successful" seems subjective; numbers built? Best airmiles to accident ratio? Exceeded expectations? I really can't figure out a way to rehabilitate this even by renaming. Pig^man_dialogue 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems that the aircraft in this list are either: In service for many years, or produced in great numbers, or both. Perhaps this could be made into List of aircraft in service for 30 years or more and/or List of aircraft produced in largest numbers --rogerd 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I have no problem with 10 different lists of the form List of most produced aircraft which would focus on other measures of "success". Pascal.Tesson 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too subjective. Metamagician3000 09:35, 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. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Aftermath Entertainment family[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no proof that any real relationship, a side from being signed to the same label, exists to be considred an "extended family". Ted87 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and Delete --Ted87 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to be just that (just what is says it is) so as not to be indiscriminate. Recommend contacting the sole author via his her talk page to justify sourcing. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator said it: indiscriminate collection of information. YechielMan 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand how this is indiscriminate. It very clearly specifies who should be included. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment - Where is the proof that this is such an "extended family" worth mentioning more then any multiple labels signed under one parent comapny? --Ted87 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate for AFD before attempting sourcing, or tagging as such? Navou ^banter / _contribs 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete to the various labels listed in the article; you could, with equal justification, list every bluelink employed by Time Warner. And it's certainly appropriate to file an AfD on an article where the criteria for deletion have little to do with sourcing. RGTraynor 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mean come on. Where is the relationship there between Lil' Murda and Aftermath Entertainment? Lil' Murda is signed to Young Bucks label, who is signed to 50 Cent's label who is signed to Dr. Dre's label (Aftermath). And this is a so called extended family? Nevermind that Dre will probably never meet Lil' Murda (we are never definite about the future), but this article is nothing but a bunch of loose affiliates. No family is ever applied. Why? Because it doesn't exsit. --Ted87 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too fancrufty. There is no point in having an article about "extended Aftermath Entertainment family," or whatever. It's convoluted, serves no real purpose, and has the potential to spiral out of control. If an artist is signed directly to Aftermath, then they can be cited on the Aftermath article. If they aren't signed directly to Aftermath, then there's no point in drawing a correlation simply because they're merely associated with someone who is.Enotiva 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No point of having this article, as Ted87 said, I don't see how guys like C-Bo, Lil' Murda, or Awesome Two are related to Dr. Dre's Aftermath Entertainment label. Maybe we should just add a list of artists who are signed to Aftermath, Shady, and G-Unit, but nothing else, no "Fyre Dapartment" or whatever, and just add that list to the Aftermath, Shady, and G-Unit articles as a section such as "Record labels affiliated with Aftermath". So then only add the artists that are ON Aftermath, such as Eminem, Busta Rhymes, Dr. Dre, etc. Or G-Unit, 50 Cent, Young Buck, Tony Yayo, Lloyd Banks, Olivia, and so on. --- Efil4tselaer 01:37, 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.--Wizardman 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny diko[edit]

New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Possible WP:COI, but I find this doubtful. Dennisthe2 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable per WP:MUSIC. Mwelch 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and also, he is the CEO of non-notable companies. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)**[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. /Blaxthos 06:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dylan 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold texterror have been Corrected. Lenny Diko has released an LP that was fully pressed. And the Violative Cause LP's barcode is 7553100167. He has worked with artists such as LuckyIam, Moka Only, Josh Martinez, DJ Moves, etc.... I think that with the notables up there removed his article is now ok (UTC)

Comment. Is the release on a major record label, as is required per WP:MUSIC? Just getting a record deal with any ol' body isn't sufficient. As for the "worked with" claim, leaving aside the issue of the perhaps dubious notability of at least some of those names themselves, the fact of that matter is that plenty of currently non-notable artists can truthfully claim that they've "worked with" big names. I don't care if he "worked with" Snoop Dogg, Diddy, and Jay-Z all last week. The fact remains that right now he's got nothing released that's notable, and no media coverage that's notable, so right now . . . he is not notable. But I do sincerely wish him the best of luck in changing that situation in the future. Mwelch 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textthere seem be a lot of artists on here that have released on an Independent label? I will forward him your message of luck though thanks!

Comment. No problem. That wish is sincere. However, as far as there being "a lot of artists on here", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mwelch 22:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lex (rapper)[edit]

New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Possible WP:COI, but I find this doubtful. Dennisthe2 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable per WP:MUSIC. If the article has to tell you to "be on the look out" for someone, that's probably a clue right there. Mwelch 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The "be on the look out" comment should be rephrased if it is kept. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Crystal spam, and non-notability of the subject. ◄Zahakiel ► 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion. Non-notable. Come back when you've sold some records. Wavy G 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable, and written a bit like a press release. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, blatant spam about an as of yet non-notable subject. RFerreira 02:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphor (game)[edit]

This game is still in beta and I don't believe it has any reliable sources in order to meet attribution. Google brings up no reliable independent non-trivial sources. Wafulz 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That screen shot is really cool! The text...not quite. :) YechielMan 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, WP:ATT WP:CRYSTAL /Blaxthos 06:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, fails WP:ATT. An indy game in beta for a year just doesn't cut it. RGTraynor 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks pretty cool, but lacking in sources at this time. Wickethewok 21:54, 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 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Violates WP:NOR, and indiscriminate information. Just a list of alleged appearances of a particular helicopter in films, TV, etc. No more significant than having a list of unrelated films that just happen to feature Porsche 928.

If there are any films or video games that are specifically about these helicopters, they can be merged into the helicopters' own articles. Saikokira 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the reasons for deletion, in case anyone is under the impression this article only violates WP:NOR;

Original research, unsourced and mostly unverifiable
Indiscriminate information, just because a film happens to include a type of helicopter is not a significant enough feature to justify listing otherwise unrelated films together.
Non-notable, "films featuring UH-60 Black Hawks" is not a notable enough topic in itself to warrant keeping an article about it.

Saikokira 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Unsourced, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. YechielMan 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per YechielMan. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These articles are a part of a larger effort of the Rotorcraft Task Force to split off trivia sections from the helicopter articles. As for "unsourced", how is that possible? The film itself is the reference. (I've also noted this nom on the Task Force talk page) Akradecki 02:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, referencing a film violates WP:NOR policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's absurd! Please quote the line that you're referring to. You might want to re-read the very first paragraph in WP:A, which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". Movies are published, and certainly are reliable insofar as what appears in them! So how in the world is stating what's in a movie is OR? Does that mean that plot synopses is OR? Not at all. A movie appearance is completely verifiable. I think you need to re-read the policy, and actually apply it properly. Akradecki 04:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Oh, and you might want to re-check your policies - WP:NOR has been superceded by WP:A, so you really shouldn't be citing it as "policy" anymore.Akradecki 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page called Wikipedia:No original research has been superceded by WP:A, not the policy. WP:NOR is still there: section 2 of WP:A. I find your tone increasingly patronizing and aggressive, and I will not be drawn into an argument with you about clearly defined Wikipedia policy. Saikokira 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOR is not applicable here as there is no "new" interpretation involved. Films are "primary sources", but their use to provide descriptive information does not constitute OR. OR would only be applicable if there was unique and/or personal interpretation of the film, rather than mere description. As for a "patronising tone", your comments at User talk:Otto4711 about those who disagree with your position are not too friendly either. -- Black Falcon 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use WP:NOR as a short-cut to WP:ATT, neverless, I still see this as violating WP:NOR, which states "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts" If somebody is making a claim that they spotted a particular type of helicopter in a particular film, then that claim has to be "attributable to a reliable, published source". A film is not a published source. Saikokira 06:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is a film "not a published source"? Is it because it's a fictional film? Are you saying that any film is not considered a published source? If it were a documentary film, is it still not a published source? You're applying standards that simply aren't in the guidelines. Akradecki 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this imply that no discussion of what occurs in a film can be had unless a major source has a complete synopsis of everything that happened? I think it'd be hard to justify applying this to Star Wars had nobody mentioned anything about lightsabers outside the film, etc. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both articles mentioned were created because the pop culture sections were getting too long in the main articles. As long as Wiki policy prevents repetitive deleting of cruft (WP:3RR]], allows concensus by to determine what stays in an article (when crufters outnumber serious aircraft editors), and admins interfere with efforts to remove the cruft by 3RRing those who take it out, then Wiki in effect approves of cruft. SO if cruft is allowed to exist, then why not in its own article? Makes just as much sense as anything else Wiki does. And while you're on the OR bandwagon, swing on over to every article on every movie or TV show ever made. About 98% of them are totally unsourced. So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here. I'm all for banning unsourced cruft totally (assuming the admins would actually enforce it), but until that happens, this stuff is going to be somewhere. It has just as much right here as in a serious article on an aircraft. - - BillCJ 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here." Articles violating the WP:NOR rule are frequently deleted, as anyone here at AfD will tell you. And it's not an "argument", it's a policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But this doesn't violate NOR. When you refer to something in a movie, or in a book, the movie itself is a reference, and the fact that there's a wikiarticle on the movie shows that it's recognized as a notable reference as well. I also think it's rather ironic that you referred Bill to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the second paragraph in that essay says, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Akradecki 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, it does violate WP:NOR. Films are a primary source and cannot be referenced on Wikipedia. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I couldn't be bothered to go into detail about why someone's argument is redundant, when that section (titled What about article x?) deals with the issue so specifically. No irony at all. Saikokira 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Again, you mis-quote policy (and the outdated one at that). Regarding primary sources, they can be referenced on Wikipedia, the policy WP:A specifically says "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Saying a Black hawk appears in a film can easily be checked by someone watching the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akradecki (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. This is getting ridiculous. Of course this list requires specialist knowledge. It requires a knowledge of what a UH-60 Black Hawk looks like for a start. It also requires somebody to have a copy over EVERY SINGLE film and video game on the list. And don't place your replies in the middle of my comments in this AfD. If you want to reply, add your comment below this previous one, I have just had to fix your previous reply. Saikokira 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another grab bag of "Hey, guess what I saw in a movie/comic book/episode of The Simpsons!" list. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is an example of what we do take out every day from [[WP:AIR} articles. It was added to the F-22 Raptor article, and deleted by another editor:

In the game Command and Conquer Generals, the F-22 can be buyed at the USA Airbase, it weponary is, Four homing Air to Air Misiles or 4 Air to Ground Misiles, In Zero Hour it can carry Countermeasures in case of SAM misiles and can be upgraded with America Laser Misiles and Antibunker Misiles, also if you play as General Ganger, You wil gain the King Raptor, Which had six misiles instead of four,also it has an laser defence divise on its tail which permited misiles exploted on midair and don't reach the target, but it still vulnerable to Quad Canons and Gatlling Cannons.

Earlier today, I removed this from the RAH-66 Comanche article:

In Command And Conquer Generals, RAH-66 Comanche can be buyed at the American Airbase, it weponery is: one machine gun, four Homing Missiles and can be upgraded with rocket pods to get the ability of lunching a barrage of rockets. In Zero Hour, General Ganger can buy the ability to make all of his Comanches become stealth.

The first example was posted at lest 6 hours after I removed the second example. Please notice that there are no paragraphs like this in the UH-60 pop-culture article, because we have removed them (probably while still part of the main article). We do keep the article fairly trim, otherwise there would be many paragraphs detailing all sorts of stuff about the games, movies, etc.

Regarding the "indiscriminate listings" comment, we remove the RAH-66's "Incredible Hulk" appearence about once a month, and there is a lengthy discussion on that talk page regarding why the appearance is non-notable. While I have not personally vetted the list on the UH-60, I have vetted other lists, and it looks as if this list has been vetted too. THe Blackhawk is a popular icon, as has made many appearences. COuld a few onf the ones in that list be removed? Probably, but I've not seen all the movies on that list, so I don't know how significant their apperances are. - BillCJ 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - wikipedia isn't the place for a list of this nature (unencyclopaedic). /Blaxthos 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both per multiple precedents including but not limited to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture (second nomination), and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring Mini cars and many more. A collection of every random sighting of a particular helicopter in any movie, TV show, video game or whatever with no regard as to the importance (or lack of same) of the sighting. Otto4711 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious you guys have a vendetta against pop-culture lists, but you don't care a wit if the same items are listed in the main aircraft articles, even though, according to you, the items themselves are OR and indiscriminate. It bothers you more that there's a list of the items on a separate page than the fact the items exists at all. For whatever reasons, you just don't want pop-culture in list articles. That's fine, but at least admit that's your real issue. Stop PRETENDING the real reason is OR, because it's obvious us to those of us who deal with the issues everday that it's not! If it did bother you, then we'd see you in the edit histories of aircraft pages, fighting the good fight against OR! Meanwhile, serious aircraft editors fight against it every day without your help. A fight that will become even harder if you succeed in taking away the only real compromise we have with the crufters - the only semblance of peace in this never-ending war against cruft. But that doesn't matter to you guys, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. - BillCJ 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people will persist in trying to include extraneous information is not a reason to sanction it. These lists are inherently OR because they require looking at primary sources, in the abscence of anyone REPORTING or STUDYING these things. Another issue is the fact these lists can NEVER be complete, a list of every game, movie, show and book that includes a given aircraft is not only interminable, but utterly useless. The other problem is determining what is, or is not, a reference, a problem I've addressed other places, but one I feel is a serious issue. A quick look through these various lists will turn up the idignation of many editors; either 'that's not a reference!' or 'they missed ...' Nothing will ever convince me these lists are proper encyclopedic material unless they begin to take WP:OR WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection and WP:V seriously. Strong delete Wintermut3 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything on these pages was actually significant (and sourced), then I'd say keep, but it isn't. Then again, anything that was actually significant would be in the main UH-60 article rather than being split off. FiggyBee 08:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this kind of crufty, indiscriminate list is exactly what Wikipedia doesn't need. These things could theoretically go on forever, with no guidelines for what should be included and what shouldn't. In addition, who actually would ever find this useful. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all instances of appearances where the appearance is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event that the work/movie/game could not exist in its entirety without the helicopter in question back into the main article(s). Delete the article and the rest of the references... I believe a mention and a wikilink in its own article is sufficient. -- saberwyn 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wintermut et al. Aside from the numerous other considerations cited, I'm militantly disinterested in the assertion by BillCJ and others that it's necessary to create these crufty, unencyclopedic, unsourced, POV lists because otherwise main articles would be cluttered with the "information." Who says? If you think a series of articles you monitor are being deluged with crap, revert the edits. It's no different from any other WikiProject subject to trivial bombardment of one fashion or another. Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires us to accept every single unsourced hunk of crap triviality. This is the moral equivalent of we over in WP:HOCKEY complaining that we needed to make a List of NHL players wearing CCM brand ice skates just because some folks decided they just had to identify CCM wearers. RGTraynor 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per several of the arguments above. Strongly concur with RGTraynor in saying that "The main article would be too cluttered" is not an explicit reason for the creation of new garbage articles. When your home becomes cluttered with junk, do you build a new room to contain the junk? No, you clean up the mess. The notion that subsections of an article ought to be forked out in to their own articles is valid when the information is encyclopedic in its own right. Just because it is there in the parent article does not mean it belongs in its own article, however, and an otherwise pointless "List of appearences of X in popular culture" have absolutely no encyclopedic value! If any of these "appearances" are somehow significant to the development of X's article then they can be merged back in under a heavily trimmed section, but a laundry list of "Hey I saw it in this movie!" is a waste. Arkyan 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN - I have NO problem deleting genuine cruft from main articles - I do it EVERY day. THe problem is that repeatedly deleitng the same information that a user keeps putting back in leads to revert wars. I don't want ANY pop culture items in ANY aircraft articles at all, on purist grounds, but that does not mean that genuinely notable appearences are not encyclopedic, and should not be mentioned somewhere. But if I keep removing any pop culture items from aircraft articles, eventually some stupid admin with his head up is rear is going to think I'm revert warring, and you morons won't be around to back me up. Yes, the list here is too long; someone dropped the ball in watching it. However, the PROPER soulution is to trim it back as far as possible, and add cite tags. THat is the PROPER way to deal with unsourced material, if thet were GENUINELY what you guys were interested in. But again, you just DO NOT LIKE pop culture list articles, no matter how well-kept they are! Air Force One in popular culture‎ is a vetted, trimmed, well-kept article, but one of you still AfDed it! SO DO NOT GIVE ME THIS GARBAGE ABOUT absolutely no encyclopedic value! - JUST BE MEN AND ADMIT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE LISTS! PERIOD! But please get of your stinking policy high-horse, stop harrassing GENUINE EDITORS who actually want to make decent articles. If the page is OR, TAG IT! But you are WRONG to AfD it without allowing editors a chance to improve the article FIRST. - BillCJ 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to step in at this point, BillCJ, and suggest you read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:CONSENSUS. Challenging the masculinity of other editors, and general incivility is inappropriate behavior that doesn't advance your cause. I also point out that the PROPER solution (to quote you) is the consensus reached by AfD discussion. /Blaxthos 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "men" I meant "adults", as that was my intention. I wansn't challenging there maasculinity, but challenging them to act like adults. SHEESH! - BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume then we are all supposed to kowtow to the editors who revert changes intended to restore an article to meet policy and guidelines? A small subset of editors who persist in adding content that does not belong does not constitute consensus. If you remove material from an article and they put it back, then take it out again. If you're worried about WP:3RR then try to resolve the issue with the "warring" editor. If that doesn't work then bring it up on WP:RFC and try to get a consensus there. If they persist in disrupting the article by adding content in spite of the consensus reached there then escalate the issue further. I don't see how "giving up" and allowing these editors to add content that fails to meet Wikipedia standards is the right answer. Arkyan 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do ALL of that! THese pages are the aftermath of removing material that should not be here already. While the UH-60 page does look like it has not been vetted in awhile, no chance to vett or cite sources has been given. None of you are "assuming good faith" on the creation of these pages. They were not made by the crufters, but by serious aviation editors. But WP:OR is not the real issue here! If it were, then the page would not have been AfDed FIRST - an OR notice would have been added to the page instead. The real issue is that you don't like pop-culture list pages! - BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm confused - first you admit that this is the aftermath of removing material that should not be here yet argue for including it in its own article? Then you accuse us of violating "assume good faith" and then call in to question our motivations? Regardless, none of what you are doing here is helping to make your point. The article either belongs or does not, denigrating the rest of us doesn't change that. Arkyan 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, the aftermath is the good material, we delete the bad. please, give us some credit! this uh-60 page has not been edited in a while, that is apprarent. i didnt even know it was heare till an article i work on got AfDed too, and i saw this was listed also. - BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, you beat me to it, Arkyan. That being said, I'm bemused at the notion that standing up against material we feel violates policy and otherwise does not belong here, as opposed to meekly surrendering to a single rogue user who insists on unencyclopedic edits, is the behavior being characterized as unmasculine. And that being said, BillCJ, do you really think it's constructive to scream at us because you think we don't like pop culture articles, when you admit yourself you don't want pop culture references in the articles about which you yourself care? Never mind WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, if you're creating articles for no better reason than to keep junk out of your own line of sight, that's a WP:POINT violation. Moreover, the policies we cite make no reference as to the credentials of the creators. An unsourced, unreferenced article filled with unencyclopedic cruft isn't alright just because it was created by a so-called "serious aviation editor." Were that the case, we'd certainly be guilty of the caprice of which you accuse us. RGTraynor 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm EMPHASISING, not SCREAMING :) i won't use caps anymore just to be sure i'm not misunderstood again. my point is, if you think it's unsourced, tag it! that's the usual way of handling OR issues on Wiki. but again, that's not the issue here, as you have agenda against pop-culture list articles. i don't mind cited, notable pop-culture references in aircraft articles; i can point you to many such pages. but many of these pages are very long, and when you deal with a popular aircraft, such as the uh-1 or uh-60, those lists begin to overwhlm the rest of the article. we split off other sections that become too long. why should pop-culture lists be handled any differently? should we keep a long pop-culture list in the article just because some people don't like the lists on their own page? that doesn't make sense either.

all i ask if that you give us the "courtesy" of having a chance to address the issues first. you have the right to AfD an article, but i'm just asking that you "assume good faith" and talk to the editors first, to give us the chance to address the issues. i'm not accusing you all of deceit, but of singlemindedness. you want to get rid of unsourced pop culture cruft. that's great! i do too! but the question is where do we put a long list of notable pop culture references? it seems you want to get rid of those pages too! if you keep challenging thess pages, we'll soon have to have separate articles for the specs, the history, the users, the variants, and all that will be on the main aircraft page will be the intro and the pop-culture list. that doesnt make sense either. again, i'm not ever talking about keeping the bad cruft, but notable items. had a noticed bewen placed on the page, i might have spent yesterday and today addressing those problems, rather than trying to defend the page's existence. - BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not content worthy of an encyclopedia article... any notable information can be inculded in other places -- we don't need a crufty article like this (as this AfD is illustrating) -- WP:ATT/WP:OR are just the finer points (no need debating them when the whole topic is cruft!). /Blaxthos 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RGTraynor, Saberwyn et al. Unencyclopedic information is unencyclopedic information, wherever it comes from. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:A.

Article is automatically sourced by mentionning the films (primary source). (Though this could be improved by adding a reference section and following WP:CITE and using easybiblio maker.

The information is a good collection of information pertaining to the UH-60.

Films using UH-60 is a notable enough subject to have an article. What is interesting is I could probably add a .ogg video conference of a discussion we've had with the one of the producers which answers some of the questions regarding the Cost of renting? How the filming was done? How to rent? You will also notice that the article mentions popular culture. So that includes radio, games, toys (toy manufacturers), shops, etc... --CyclePat 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are presuming, absent any ... well, err, attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. RGTraynor 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a collection of random facts of no encyclopedic importance, fails WP:NOT#IINFO]. Merge whatever is of encyclopedic importance into the main article, but delete this content fork. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosely associated topics also fails WP:ATT and other reasons stated by Blaxthos, Wintermut3, Otto4711, Arkyan, RGTraynor, et al. (and what a lot of discussion over a pointless cruft list!). Croxley 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep This article keeps trivia away from the main helicopter article (just like Talk:0.999.../Arguments keeps objections away from the main talk page (although that page does not contain possible original research and is not an article)). It references movies as sources without interpretation (although people should verify whether the helicopters in the movies are actually UH-60 Black Hawks). Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple listcruft. Any inclusions of the helicopter in popular culture that are notable can be included in the parent article, any non-notable entries are, well, nonnotable and blatent listcruft. -M^ask 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is listcruft, yes, but its role is to move this kind of content out of the main text. On current Wikipedia there are two options: (1) either to have this cruft in the main article or (2) to have it in a leaf article like this. The second solution keeps WP better, not perfect but better. Pavel Vozenilek 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that kindof circular logic? If it's listcruft then by definition it has no place on wikipedia. /Blaxthos 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Option (3) - edit it out of the article. I still await a reason for keeping this article better than "It's too much trouble." RGTraynor 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's a reason: Despite what some call "cruft", the fact that a type of helicopter has an impact on popular culture is significant. The Blackhawk isn't quite the icon that they Huey is, but it's getting there. Face it, how military objects impact society and culture can't be ignored (hey, there's whole sciences, ie "sociology" and "cultural anthropology" about this stuff). Akradecki 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, if this helecopter actually " has an impact on popular culture" there would surely be documentation in sociological journals. The fact of the matter is that this is just a list of pop culture references -- not a demonstration that it has any sort of impact on popular culture (which it does not). /Blaxthos 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree with you, as do, I believe, some other editors. I think the real point is that this should be debated on the article's talk page, not at AfD. Before bringing this to AfD, things should have been discussed there, first. Akradecki 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic--Mmx1 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So many excellent reasons to delete, but none to keep. Masaruemoto 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coooooool discusion, delete wins the day tho --Zedco 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2[edit]

comment to above: The above sub-paragraph is to help divide this AfD for perusal and editing reasons. I couldn't find my comment in this long debate so here is my comment to my previous statement and reply to the above question from RGTraynor. I am not presuming, absent any attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. Those movies are documents in of themself and generally, for those people that stay to the end of a movie at the cinema, you can see the credits. Those credits will indicate what type of vehicles where used in a given movie. Perhaps you are confusing original research a synthesis of because A (image of UH-60) and B(image of UH-60 in movie) then movie has UH-60. I don't know but, according to me such a synthesis would and should be pretty obvious and no different than the commonly accept idea "the sky is blue." Perhaps there is a mix up here on the interpretation of what wikipedia is and is not. A movie is a generally considered a reliable source of information, in fact it is the primary source. Nevertheless here is a link to a secondary source which states which movies use a helicopter. And here is a published comments, which has been peer reviewed, that state that there was a black hawk in this movie. --CyclePat 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CP, besides your misunderstanding about WP:ATTribution and primary vs. secondary sources (which tends to indicate notability), this is simply unencyclopaedic content. If it were truely notable (and actually impacts popular culture) there would be true reliable secondary sources (peer-reviewed sociological journals, in this case) talking about all the impacts of thus-and-so helicopter on popular culture. Obviously there are no such articles because it has no relevance in popular culture -- this is, as most have pointed out, list cruft and is not appropriate for wikipedia. Hope this helps clear this up. /Blaxthos 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are, frankly, a waste of our time. All along the keep-proponents have been pushing the notion that this article is necessary because it lists (in theory, accurately) the movies in which this particular model of helicopter appears. Now your purported attribution is a simple linksearch on IMDB for "helicopter?" This is just painful. RGTraynor 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical list of notable science fiction films[edit]

Violates WP:NOR. Article states the "criteria used for this list are, in order of importance: box office, awards, reference on other "best-of" lists, widely acknowledged influence", etc. That's "in order of importance" according to the opinion User:Avt tor, the creator and only contributor to this list. Avt tor has compiled it based on his own mysterious formula, while referring to such "reliable" sources as IMDb users' ratings.

WP:NOR states that unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... (including) interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication.

Also, a pointless duplication of a topic fairly well covered in List of notable science fiction films. Saikokira 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the list criteria are arbitrary and a better list exists. YechielMan 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A better list exists so this one should be deleted. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chrnonological list is too large, cluttered to the point of not being very readable, includes a lot of not-very-noteworthy films. It's not a substitute for this list. Avt tor 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does a similar page exist, but for an alphabetical list, you're better served with a category. Also, you're better served without the POV/OR. Award winning films, yes. "Notable" ones, no. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; notability in this case is arbitrary. --Mhking 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not to mention List of science fiction films, which contains 1953's "Cat- Women of the Moon". Wikipedia has covered the field pretty well. Noroton 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (corrected that title Noroton 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete POV, original research, and fan taste. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 02:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's that "notable" POV qualfier again. In fact List of notable science fiction films should be renamed. Anyway, the article under discussion here duplicates this information, so it can go. 23skidoo 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV WP:ATT /Blaxthos 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per comments above, and all my previous comments on AfDs of this type. These lists are inherently OR and subjective. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be, and most likely already is, a category. -- saberwyn 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a category is not necessarily a substitute for a list (the latter can have redlinks for expansion and can have references or provide some color, like year of release or receipts in the case of films). Carlossuarez46 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this or similar contextual or "expansion" data was present, I would be more inclined to support the article in some way. It isn't, and unless someone with an interest in maintaining the article comes along and adds such data, I don't see how this list is superior to a category. -- saberwyn 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability and inclusion is subjective. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no use for an article like this. Acalamari 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Criteria are specified in the article. This article is a necessary introduction to the subject of science fiction on films. There is a category, which is unqualified, therefore much too large to be useful as an introduction. This article is an essential component of the article on science fiction, separated only to keep the parent article shorter. An article of this kind is needed. If someone has suggestions for more authoritative criteria, those can be discussed. There's no POV, OR, or "taste" here. This isn't a subjective list, just a compilation of cited research. Avt tor 20:16, 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 in popular culture, to borrow a familiar line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranean Monsters in popular culture[edit]

Indiscriminate information. It's not immediately clear what this article is specifically about. It seems to be 4 seperate articles about 4 unrelated species, from 4 different and unrelated films: The Descent, The Cave, an unspecifified film featuring "The Grue" (the Riddick films), and the Mimic films. Article needs to sent back to Subterranea. Saikokira 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the articles for their appropriate movies, split into separate articles, or delete if they don't fit in the main articles and aren't notable enough on their own. Right now, they're four completely unrelated topics. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as unencyclopaedic fictional topic. /Blaxthos 06:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pious7 hits the nail on the head. These are four completely unrelated topics, and should be treated as such. No matter the result, this title needs to go awat... far away. -- saberwyn 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bury under a pile of monster corpses, fails WP:NOR. OMFG, where to start. I'm really coming around to the view that a title of "X in popular culture" is a sure harbinger that the article is crap. RGTraynor 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable non-OR information to the appropriate film and delete per Pious. Arbitrary mishmash of species at least one of which doesn't even qualify as truly subterranean. Otto4711 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There do seem to be a lot of "$x in popular culture" articles in AFD. Subjective by nature, just kind of silly. Not notable. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created the article following advice from Geoff B and I would like to point out its original title was List of Fictional subterranean creatures. Perhaps a renaming e.g. Subterranean monsters in fiction--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 12:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa shark[edit]

I prodded this, but quickly discovered it had already been prodded. Anyway, I think it's unencyclopedic and has little potential for improvement. It is also an orphan, with no pages at all linking to it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it's basically an extension of a quote from Clerks. --Wafulz 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's notable and if it is, it needs links and more info. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete per nom. /Blaxthos 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i was going to say WP:NFT... but per Wafulz it appears to be a reference to the movie clerks. I haven't seen the movie, and i think most people who haven't would also agree that the article does little to establish notability of the topic. THE KING 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Throwaway line from a movie. I think it pretty much proves Wikipedia has already covered everything when people resort to writing about things like this. Wavy G 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it was a "resort" so much as a casual user simply thinking the line was funny and that, therefore, it should be written about. But whatever. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clerks (movie) - Richard Cavell 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, I don't see the point of making sure that anyone that searches salsa shark gets clerks either. Lotusduck 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and do not redirect to Clerks or anywhere else. RFerreira 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely This really has no place whatsoever on an encyclopaedia. Suriel1981 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this for heavenssake, honestly now. Burntsauce 17:01, 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 Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media and Development Communication[edit]

Only a couple of Bangladeshi private universities of dubious academic credibility offer the course, and only a couple of books written by non-notable Bangladeshi authors are available on the subject. Not good enough for a Wikipedia entry. Aditya Kabir 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How do you know that couple of Universities in Bangladesh, offer the course? And How do you know it's only written by Bnagladeshi authors? It's not the topic of some authors. It's related to Mass media and Mass communication as well as other media related topic. --NAHID 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Attacking me does not increase any value of the article entry. Anything written on any media related subject doesn't increase its value either. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs of substance - no evidence of notability NBeale 07:31, 16 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, Ezeu 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs more info, but it notable enough and it salvageable. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN, fails WP:ATT. A directed Google search (minus Wiki mirrors and the single university in Bangladesh offering this as a major) shows exactly 39 hits. Despite Nahid's assertion, it is not up to us to prove that the article isn't notable or to provide sources. It's up to the creator and interested editors to prove that it is. RGTraynor 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even reputable academic institutions make up vogue department or major names, and only few of them become standard. This is not yet one of them.DGG 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah ... I bet it looks a lot cooler on the letterhead to be a "Professor of Media and Development Communication Sciences" than a mere journalism professor. RGTraynor 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha ha! That was a good one. Aditya Kabir 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Three references (from UK, US, and Bangladesh); fair number google hits. Not a super important article, but it meets the criteria for inclusion. A fine stub. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you try searching for my name with Google? "Aditya Kabir" (quote included) returns 1,010 finds, as opposed to 109 finds for "Media and Development Communication". And, I am cited on Websites from US, UK, Australia, India and Bangladesh (not including the hits returned from Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia or mirror sites), and that excludes the sites in vernacular scripts (i.e. Bengali and Hindi scripts). So, what would you suggest? May be I am notable enough have my own Wikipedia stub. Or, may be you shall rethink that an academic discipline worth an encyclopedic entry would have more presence in this world. The subject is question is hardly a discipline, but a rather fancy name for a journalism or media course. Not worth the entry. Aditya Kabir 07:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astranimu[edit]

Seems to be OR and NEO, only ghits are article creators forum posts, no references killing sparrows 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even on the content itself, it's not good, and without ghits for notability, it's very bad. YechielMan 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATT /Blaxthos 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under a fallen star. Fails WP:ATT, WP:NOR, dicdef. There are no Google hits that aren't from a bulletin board or Wiki mirrors, and there are only 39 of those. Ravenswing 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only is this gibberish, but it appears to be total OR. --Haemo 05:34, 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 without redirect per Starblind. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Model United Nations[edit]

This is a non-notable Model United Nations of around only 300 students. There are dozens of Model UNs listed at Regional organizers and events of Model United Nations, some with thousands of participants for many decades, and none with an article. Delete worst case, redirect, best case. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Model United Nations. Merge content if it's useful. YechielMan 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Model United Nations, individual model-UN student groups aren't notable. While I don't object to a redirect, I also don't see the point, as the main article won't have any info on this particular one, and it's only one of many. So redirect as distant second choice only. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable Model United Nations. Wooyi 04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Andrew Lenahan, I don't really think a redirect is appropriate. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not think notability is an issue with SIMUN. Notability is different from the number of actual participants. The host (French School of Singapore) tries to keep the SIMUN professional by giving out strict criteria in choosing the delegates and the chairpersons are all hand-picked plus voted. That's why it only has around 350 delegates. Please note that there are not many inter-school MUNs in Singapore, and almost all private, independent and international schools on this island-state are participating in the Singapore Model United Nations. For high school students of Singapore it is an honor to join SIMUN and the notability is across all schools and many notable media, as stated in the article. Also, many Model United Nations conferences that do not have an article does not mean that this article shouldn't exist. --Jingshen 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or as a remote second choice redirect to Model United Nations. This is a Model United Nations that happens to be held in Singapore; the general article about MUN is sufficient to cover this topic. --Metropolitan90 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Model UNs, model legislatures, model city councils, they all proliferate like weeds and none have any real notability. We don't have articles for other minor LARPs, although there are many LARPs with many more players and which meet far more often. RGTraynor 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIagree that models of organisations do not have impact on the world but they are notable and should be respected. There are reliable secondary sources as said in article. With all the respect and my inexperience with Wikipedia egnlish, I do not really know what LARPS are, but I believe meeting often does not automatically qualify for notability. Singapore Model United Nations should exist by itself because of its uniqueness in location/venue, the participants, organisation, and the audience. It is significant as I have said many times in SIMUN publications that Singapore is an inward looking nation. It is important, especially for teenagers who are the future of our world, to understand what is going on outside. Singaporeans esp the young have only theoritical knowledge about UN and all educators want them to have practical knowledge and that's why schools recommend SIMUN and that's why SIMUN is so notable and highly regarded. SIMUN, being the only inter-school conference coordinated by Singapore gives the valuable chance for schools to work together. singapore has many difference educational systems such as GCSE and IB, etc. Students of SIMUN learn interactively with these people from different systems. The SIMUN discusses wider issues and more issues in depth than many more of them with thousands of participants. And more current issues are well. The issues for THIMUN and other big MUNs are usually set a year ago. SIMUN is more up-to-date with problems to debate such as Iran and the day-to-day management of the real UN such as the 2007 resolution of the UN charter. SIMUN is definitely unique and has its own value. The general MUN article certainly cannot cover that. Therefore I should urge Wikipedia to keep this article. There are not many articles about Singapore and none about MUNs in Singapore. Wikipedia, as an International encyclopedia, should include general issues as well as those that fit both international and locally, such as SIMUN. This article will do all good and no harm. If I were to make a big encyclopedia I would definitely include it. Strongly Keep. excuse my spelling mistakes svp I am not English native speaker. Dr. Cornu --Francois Cornu 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've made an eloquent case for why this program is important to Singapore high school students. You have yet to make an argument for how this article meets Wikipedia guidelines and policy for the inclusion of articles. We do not dispute -- nor is it our place to do so -- whether there is a need for Singapore's youth to understand the greater world around them. What we dispute is that this program meets Wikipedia's standards for an article listing. RGTraynor 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Dr Cornu had made very much of a point here. He answered why this program is notable; why SIMUN is unique and the article should exist by itself - why Model United Nations cannot cover the topic; and why this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Please list any other guidelines and policies that this article does NOT comply with and we will see. --Jingshen 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you asked. Take a look at WP:ORG. First off, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." All the sources given in the article come from the organization itself. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." RGTraynor 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hellio as the coordinator of Singapore Model United Nations, I say this is an organzation, nor a company, product, etc. It is notable annual event with significant meanings as it combines the locality of Singapore with International schools and international concepts (i.e. the UN) to achieve alternative learning through experience and nationwide communication of international matters.--Francois Cornu 12:20, 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. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C. Strickland[edit]

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject seems to have two primary claims to notability. Firstly, he ran for Congress as a Republican nominee in 1972. However, he did so in a distict in which it didn't even matter who the Republican nominee was, because the district was drawn so strongly in favor of the Democrat. The Democrat won with almost 70%. Not only did Strickland not win, but he didn't even come in second. So seems to fall short of the politician guidelines in WP:BIO. Secondly, there is this article in BusinessWeek about him. Definitely a quality secondary source. But per WP:BIO, if coverage in a single secondary source is not "substantial", then multiple secondary sources are required. Does the coverage in this article meet the standard of "substantial"? (Note: Strickland is quoted extensively in the Wikipedia entry, but judging by the listed sources, those quotes may simply be from personal e-mail exchanges between Strickland and the creator of the article.) Mwelch 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject has only a marginal claim to notability and fails WP:BIO. This article is another production of Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), who cites himself as a source in the article[3], creating a conflict of interest. The editor has created numerous articles on persons of local notability and some have been deleted, others taken to AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO /Blaxthos 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs more than running a business and failing to get into Congress to meet WP:BIO. FiggyBee 09:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is one of the premier places where a lot of people go for elections data and to learn about political figures. Even if this guy didn't win, this was still an important step when talking about how the Republican Party performed in Louisiana and specifically in this seat which would go for the Republican candidate a few years later. Also, the larger page for Gillis Long doesn't include all of the information about his challengers, something which would appear to be very useful to anybody who wanted to know about his actions during campaigning, given that he was a major politial figure in Louisiana's history. [[User:Tommyduva|Tommyduva]

Comment. Even if the article is kept, wouldn't most of the info it provides about his actions during campaigning need to be removed as original research? There is no published source for his quotes, just the article creator saying "He said this to me in e-mail." Mwelch 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Mr. Strickland was an early pioneer in the Louisiana GOP resurgence though he later moved to Texas. The article is well-written and has political information about the 1972 congressional election.It shows how Republicans did poorly in many of those races even though Nixon was winning 49 states at the top of the ballot.

````` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep It has been generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N. This may sometimes been problematic in the case of nations with multi-party systems, but in the US it is clear that there are two generally accepted ones. (Whether candidates from other parties are N might depend on the votes). That makes only about 500 defeated candidates every two years (actually fewer, many people run more than once) ; it also means that the people who do get that far are among the 1,000 most prominent politicians in the country. I think that is clear and undoubtable notability. Quibbling about the details of a career or how many votes someone got is irrelevant/That's for the election campaign, not for use. WP is indeed one of the places people go to for general information, and this includes politics--certainly it includes national politics. DGG 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If that line of reasoning (WP:N is satisfied by being a major party candidate for national legislature) is going to be followed — and, at first consideration, I actually would not have a huge problem with that idea — then the politician guidelines laid out in WP:BIO should reflect that. It shouldn't have to be a matter of you (nor me nor anyone else) in a delete discussion claiming that it's "generally accepted". It should be in the guidelines. I'll see how this debate comes out and if that argument is accepted, I'll bring up the issue on the WP:BIO talk page for a possible change there. Mwelch 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In researching the archives of the WP:BIO talk page I found three different occasions on which the issue of whether a losing candidate should automatically qualify for notability was discussed. Two of those three times, it being specifically identified as the losing candidate in a congressional election. All three times, the sentiment expressed was that the losing candidate should not automatically be considered notable. So I'd challenge your assertion that it's "generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N". That statement does not appear to be true at all. If anything, it appears to be "generally accepted" that if the only claim to notability is being the losing candidate in a congressional election, then they are not N. See also the current deletion nominations of Doug Roulstone and Richard Wright. Mwelch 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, to be discussed. and there is better, for we don't need this particular criterion here. DGG 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just asked for input on a possible guideline change there. Mwelch 06:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Tommyduva Kzq9599 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with this article is that the sourcing could be better, but there is no doubt that multiple reliable non-trivial sources exist for the runner-up in a major election. Dhaluza 10:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If such sources are found and cited, then fine. But no one has done so (besides the BusinessWeek article, which isn't even about his congressional election) to this point, and I'm not sure I believe there is "no doubt" that multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources (something about Roy C. Strickland, not just something that shows there was a name of "Roy C. Strickland" on the congressional ballot in 1972) and retrievable for someone who came in third in a virtually uncontested 1972 congressional election. And according to WP:ATT, the burden of proof, with regard to whether there are adequate sources, falls on those who wish to add or retain the article. So far, I don't see any proof of such sources besides that one article. So it still seems to me that as things stand right now, this guy would satisfy WP:N only if we accept the proposition, per DGG, that losing congressional candidates are inherently notable, even in the absence of the availability of those such sources about them. Mwelch 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Williams_Hearn -- Here is a defeated congressional candidate with a Wikipedia story, but it is only a stub. The Strickland story is detailed. Does Gloria Williams Hearn have notability other than her losing campaigns for office? Are full articles on Wikipedia judge more strictly than stubs?

Billy Hathorn 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as her notability, you're correct. If there isn't any more to her than what that article says now, and no other WP:ATT-acceptable referneces to be found for her, then she's even less notable than Strickland. No argument there. But that doesn't necessarily make Strickland a keep (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); I'd say it makes hers a candidate for deletion. The discussion as to whether losing congressional candidates should be automatically notable or not is still on-going on the WP:BIO talk page, so I'd hold off on nominating her for deletion pending that outcome. But if the outcome of that is "no, they are not", and if no one can demonstrate further notability for her article either, I'd absolutely say that one should go too. As for judging of full articles vs. stubs, everything that's presented as factual and could be challenged must be so judged. A full article, by its nature, though, has a lot more info in it that needs to be verified by WP:ATT standards. Since a stub doesn't say much, there's not much that might be challenged. A couple of pointers to official election results would provide adequate verification of almost everyting that's in the Hearn stub right now. In Strickland's article, however, there is a great deal of info who's only verification we have is either primary source and/or original research. That's why, even if we decide Strickland's notability as a Republican congressional nominee is sufficent for a keep, I still think the retained article would then need to be significantly gutted unless other independent, secondary sources about Strickland can be found. Mwelch 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Above the special notes about politicians at WP:BIO is the suggested inclusion criterion "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Strickland would appear to be borderline with respect to this criterion. In fact, the statement in the opening sentence of the article "who was a pioneer in the development of the Republican Party in Louisiana" would seem to be in conflict with Strickland's repeated failure to achieve elected office. If some citation could be found that either indicated that Strickland's "struggle" helped to shape the state party (currently lacking) or if some citation could be found that could insert Strickland into the paragraph at History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#Realignment:_The_South_becomes_Republican, that would suffice to support retention of the article, I think. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitball[edit]

Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose first 3 edits here have consisted of removing prod tags I put up... Content is utterly unverifiable. Non-notable game invented in 1998 and played solely in the hometown of inventor. No third-party coverage whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I know I'm not supposed to say that, but I really have nothing to add. YechielMan 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article about a made-up sport by a small group of three or four users with few or no prior edits. Why does this sort of thing seem to happen so much? Wavy G 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be speedied, SPA's removal notwithstanding. /Blaxthos 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:NFT. I can't see grounds for a speedy, but this is just another insignificant local game. RGTraynor 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a perfect example of WP:NFT. FiggyBee 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete To date, 135 people have played ... "invented in 1998" Well, that about sums it up for me. Also, how do you get 13 years of champions when 2007-1998=9? Referencing a geocities page as the source of all this is not acceptable either. WP:(almost everything) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor --phenz^Talk 21:04, 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 Keep. Shimeru 08:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformed Church of Newtown[edit]

Notability Chronos567 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable, only google result was the wikipedia article. Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An American Church that was 225 years old in 1956 is surely notable (if the claimns made are correct). However some of the content about its ministry today seems non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic & like above observation only Google search result was the wikipedia article. Chronos567 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to say keep - a US church founded in 1731 is very notable - but there's no support online for that claim at all. For English Wikipedia the fact that they've disabled the Enlish version of their website makes it difficult. No !vote yet - I hope someone comes up with something. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I hope somebody comes up with something, then - but even if they do, it still remains that the article is rather spammy. --Dennisthe2 02:12, 19 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, Ezeu 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep the chinese section of the website is sufficiently expansive (and has some enlgish material) to demonstrate that this denomination is at least real. based on the fact that the website is not functioning in a language i can read, it's difficult to determine whether this has anything notable to it or not. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough for an article. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Vote changed, see below. --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC) The article reads as if it's advertising a church, and also rambles about what Newtown is at one point. It fails to assert any reason as to why it's notable. WP:CORP may apply, but WP:N definitely applies. I don't see anything that makes this church notable. --Dennisthe2 02:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep, based on the references added. Thanks for changing my mind. =^_^= The article is still spammy and needs a cleanup, so if somebody can get that, great. This does add one fact, though - the articles are subscription only. Is it possible to get a bugmenot on those? If so, so much the better. Also consider WP:LOCAL when cleaning up, by the way. --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Found several sources, haven't had time to add to the article, but~~ Added four article about the church from the New York Times which show it has been the subject of substantial coverage. ~~in numerous reliable independent sources in the past 275 years or so.~~They substantiate the age of the church, its special historic note of having abruptly changed to a primarily Chinese congregation, and the landmark status of the building. One of the nation's oldest congregations. Editing is a more appropriate response to arguments about phraseology than deletion of an article about a congregation/building which satisfies WP:N and WP:ATT. Notability is not a subjective matter or"ILIKEIT" versus "IDONTLIKEIT" voting. Multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources proves notability. This satisfies as well WP:CONG which is tagged as rejected. Edison 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I'm not !voting one way or another, there are several hundred religious congregations over 200 years old in New England, and I would very much hesitate to call them de facto notable on that ground alone. RGTraynor 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic church of particular historical note to the immigrant communities, as is now beginning to be shown with the references. Yes, it's possible that the article itself reads like spam, and this needs to be remedied, but that is not a reason to delete, that is a reason to improve the article. Robotforaday 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical churches of note, so long as they can be properly referenced. RFerreira 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an historic church; however, I think this article should be cut by 1/3 and improved in writing style.

Billy Hathorn 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fulfils WP:CHURCH, which, despite its apparent rejection, is still helpful to guide us in a decision. It is an historic church that has prominent role in history of local immigrant communities. JRG 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does meet church, but as the person above me stated, WP:CHURCH has not been accepted by the community as a whole. Even so, it still meets what I believe are our notability standards and satisfies non-trivial sourcing requirements as well. Burntsauce 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in Dharfur[edit]

Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose sole contributions to date have been the removal of three proposed deletions I had put up. Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we should not have stubs about planned documentaries unless they are so widely anticipated that they already have received non-trivial third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL, at this point, this film is not notable, and the article doesn't even make any assertions that it is. Mwelch 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only is the proposed documentary not notable, but, none of the three collaborators mentioned seems to be either. Keesiewonder ^talk 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Teppix about this on his/her talk page. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL. the article will probably be recreated as the development phase progresses, as it seems perfectly notable in nature but simply too young to have generated any press. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to recreation - if, of course, the film comes into being. --Dennisthe2 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with above ivan 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL /Blaxthos 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branding Iron[edit]

Stub article from April 2006 on a fairly low circulation student rag. No assertion of notability, and advertisement in tone. Prod contested because "the article is not harming anyone. Students from this school may begin to like Wikipedia and even consider editing Wikipedia more if they see their newspaper has an article of its own" Ohconfucius 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising and studentpapercruft. Students from this school may begin to like Wikipedia... . Say what? Does that mean I'll start 'liking' the New York Times if they'll publish my articles? Sheesh! Eddie.willers 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That means you will start liking Wikipedia because it does not arbitrarily delete things which you think are worth mentioning in the biggest encyclopedia in the world and which don´t harm absolutely no one. You will start liking Wikipedia because you are free to make articles about topics which so far could not be part of a encyclopedia because they were made of paper and their writers didn´t have the time to write about it. A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. We'll just have to get by somehow without the editing skills of the students of University of Wyoming. Saikokira 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? That those students could not help Wikipedia? That you don´t wish them to become users? A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Advertisement for their student newspaper. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "advertisement"? The reasons anyone had to creating this article don´t matter at all. It can very well have been created as advertisement, but it is just some useful information about a topic people may or may not be interested in. A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment with regard to A.Z's comments above. Firstly, I do not see the rationale behind A.Z. picking holes in the above arguments without stating his/her own position. Indeed, I would call such a stance vexatious - in that it adds nothing to the debate. Secondly, looking at A.Z's contribution history it would appear that he/she has a strong interest in LBGT matters and comments on the Reference Desk, but has largely stayed away from AFD discussions. Thirdly, the above comments all reference this article wrt to Wiki policies and/or standards yet A.Z. appears to take the position that all contributors to this AFD discussion are, thus far, in error. So, what gives, A.Z? Are you for or against this nomination and on what grounds? Let's see your colours. Eddie.willers 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It adds to the debate the fact that the arguments had holes. Users debating may find it interesting. I do. My contribution history has nothing to do with this discussion, so talking about it is really just chatting about another subject. Let´s chat: you got it right that I have strong interest in LGBT matters and that I stayed away from AFD discussions. That doesn´t really say anything about the deletion of the article on the Branding Iron. I am against the deletion because of the students of the University of Wyoming who may be offended by this deletion and really should be. A.Z. 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete WP:N /Blaxthos 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of notablity. --RaiderAspect 06:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the students. A.Z. 07:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A.Z. I strongly suggest you review Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia has no intention to become the source of all knowledge. --RaiderAspect 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see that. But letting this one article exist doesn´t imply the contrary. It´s just that one person bothered to create it and a few people may bother to edit it in the future and to make it better. And it is good that new users are allowed to start editing Wikipedia by creating and editing an article which pleases them and does not harm anyone whatsoever. A.Z. 08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable group; article not properly attributed. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is for things that have already been noticed by multiple reliable sources; it's not for getting notice in the first place. --Charlene 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, fails WP:ATT. Like many other student newspapers, this one is worthy at best of a sentence or two in the main article. As per AZ's assertions, I somehow find Wikipedia a worthwhile place to visit despite its callous rejection of my own college newspaper, one from a university with much larger enrollment than UWYO and for which I was an editor back in the day. Wikipedia's policies do not, in so far as I have been able to find, make any reference to "U Wyoming students might be offended" as grounds to keep an article. Ravenswing 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletions. -- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ((University of Wyoming)) this information is worthy of a short paragraph in the university of Wyoming article but not an article of its own Irate velociraptor 06:21, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of documentary films about the Korean War[edit]

Redundant list that doesn't actually link to any articles. Even if it did contain links, still not a notable enough topic (documentary films about the Korean War, not the Korean War itself) to deserve a list.

Keep - it may be short now, but has the potential to grow and be a valuable resource. Akradecki 04:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this ever came to actually have possible content (doubtful), it should be categorized, not an article with a list. I believe one can speedy empty / orphaned articles like this. /Blaxthos 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these could be expanded with information adding to the context (information about the films), then a weak case for keeping could be made. If this is not the case by the end of the discussion, delete, with secondary option towards categorisation. -- saberwyn 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded per Saberwyn. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm this article's creator, and I do intend to expand this article (certainly there were more than three documentaries made about the Korean War). I don't feel that each of these films will deserve their own article (hence categorization would not work) and I think adding such a list to the Korean War article would cause clutter. If these concerns not reasonable for some reason, then I'll support deletion.--Daveswagon 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and can use sandbox to create a full fledged articleRaveenS 13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Argument of Daveswagon is convincing.Biophys 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list of docs about Japanese American internment. I have added more films, and will add more in near future, with links. It is an often-researched topic and would be good to provide resources for viewing. (sorry if I'm leaving this on the wrong discussion list but couldn't find separate page regarding JA internment discussion) TienTao 23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holds potential to become an encyclopedic list, and I too find the argument presented by Daveswagon to be convincing. RFerreira 16:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now unless expanding isn't possible. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:19, 25 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. Shimeru 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Solomon[edit]

This is a reposted page, originally at Jay M Solomon. I speedied this as a repost, but was denied because the original page had been speedy deleted and not subject to an AfD. The subject is utterly non-notable and is one of countless advocates for countless issues worldwide. Wikipedia is not a place to store your personal resume, and this article certainly looks like an advertisement. A G search for "Jay Solomon" bully (since the name is fairly common) yields less than 200 results. I can think of no reason why this page should be kept. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, seems to be an ad. All google results appear to be ads.Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

last time i checked, wikipedia is a place where people search for, and find information on a wide range of people, places and issues. this article certainly falls into wikipedia's raison d'etre. search wiki and you will find COUNTLESS other articles like this one. if you're going to delete one, you better delete them all. i think that would be a tragety for wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

Articles are subject to general notability guidelines. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is valuable and should not be deleted. There is no reason for it's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

what is with wiki all over the news these days? they're going nuts for accuracy... in the end, this just leads to useful information being deleted. there is nothing in the wikipedia deletion policy that justifies removing this article. the subject is relevant and noteworthy.

How could you possibly have a problem with demanding accuracy in an online encylopedia? NW036 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability not accuracy justifies deleting articles. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nothing. but you are not claiming that this article is inaccurate, are you? you're claiming that it has no relevance. that is simply not the case. check through wikipedia. you will see countless similar enteries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

Comment - Many of which should be deleted as well. Plus, yes, I am arguing that the article uses weasel words and boosterism, a form of inaccuracy. Regardless, this page is not the place for a back-and-forth. Please make your statement/argument and allow others to do so without cluttering up the page. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that this page should not be deleted. Wikipedia is a form for information - all information; not just the information that certain editors wish to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs)

It has to be notably verifiable information. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not certain if this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but the Toronto Star featured an article about Solomon in 2002. (Caroline Mulroney, "A former victim speaks out about bullying", 30 September 2002, E06.) I've found three other passing references in the "respectable press". CJCurrie 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, do you have this paper? Cause the Star's online search feature only has the last seven days worth of publications. I couldn't find it via Google either (Keyword "Toronto Star" "Jay Solomon"). Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search the archives - it's there. I don't think this is sufficient to qualify for an article though. Mind matrix 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The subject is of some notable significance. GreenJoe 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The standard for WP:BIO is multiple independent non-trivial articles. Lexis-nexis produces six articles for "Jay Solomon" and "bullying". This need to be added to the several already in the notes, which would have been enough for the keep. Bucketsofg 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filling in some of the holes would be a start. There are just too many statements claiming notability without sources ("lectured to thousands", "more well known anti-bullying experts", "respected freelancer", etc). It needs to be re-written for tone, and it needs to lose the resume attitude. But it passes WP:V and the letter of WP:N thats all thats needed. Keep - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry follows both WP:V and WP:N and should therefor be kept. --207.245.44.227 12:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)K8De[reply]
Keep This article matches the rules and regulations set forth by Wikipedia for BIOs. If you want to clean it up, that's fine, but there is no justifiable reason to delete it whatsoever.--Labelboy 20:17, 14 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, Ezeu 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say right now. The article feels a bit spammy. Yeah, he's doing a good thing here, but...well, I like to think I do good things, but I don't have an article about me, now, do I? The references need some cleanup. For now, I'm going to Abstain, but I'm kinda waffling to a delete in its current state. Those who say keep, please, put some polish on it. --Dennisthe2 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Going with Keep per User:Labelboy's rewrites. --Dennisthe2 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's notable enough, in my opinion, for his article to be included. If it seems like the article is spammy, then rewrite it. - Richard Cavell 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ive tried to do a bit of editing to make it less spammy. if anyone has other suggestions, please do the same. there are tons of mentions of him on google, so more sources could also be added. --Labelboy 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work on the rewrite, I'll consider that good enough. --Dennisthe2 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he has been the subject of newspaper stories, notability is not an issue it appears. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to me there is a clear consensus... this article is very worthy of keeping here on wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Bucketsofg, a rather open-and-shut case if you ask me. RFerreira 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete this article. it's well sourced and relevant. kind of a no-brainer in my opinion.--Rubbish82 13:35, 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 Speedy deleted by me. This article's author has a conflict of interest. There are insurmountable notability concerns. Also, the author states that he created this page to allow developers to work on the project. - Richard Cavell 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quickimmigrant[edit]

Non notable software. No sign of any third-party reliable coverage. The creator of the page is the creator of the software and claims on the article's talk page "My goal is to make this CRM system open-source. This page is a step forward toward that goal. If this page be deleted it will be very difficult to make this great CRM system open-source." To put it mildly I find that claim to have little credibility. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Two lines explaining the software, and that's it. If you want Sourceforge, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deport per nom. YechielMan 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete, blatant WP:COI case to say the least. And attempting to coerce us into keeping the article in order to make the software open-source... that's a new low. What if poential "Quickimmigrant" users/clients see that? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 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 speedily deleted by Mike 7. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaner[edit]

Dictionary definition at best. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eew, racist in its existence. Going Speedy Delete as an attack page. --Dennisthe2 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I was going more in the G1/A7 direction, but it amounts to the same thing. What's up with that non sequitir image? YechielMan 02:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kearns[edit]

No notability can be deduced from the article, no references are given (nor did I manage to find anything on the subject). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resume, feels a bit like COI. --Dennisthe2 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of little exploits, but nothing big enough to justify inclusion. YechielMan 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:ATT and per nom. Orderinchaos78 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Kntrabssi 16:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted a paragraph per WP:LIBEL. No references are given, and it said that the subject attended a "School For Children With Dyslexia". The whole article was created by one user [4] and may well be an attack page. It should in my opinion be speedied. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in here that would indicate an attack page. Reading closely, there's possible WP:AUTO (or at least WP:COI), but no libel - and attending a school for dyslexic kids...well, ain't nothing wrong with that, especially if it's true. --Dennisthe2 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot wrong with including it without providing any sources, per WP:BLP. My attack page suspicion comes from the desperate attempts of an IP to delete the content/article [5]. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, noted there. --Dennisthe2 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Fertel[edit]

Other than running for mayor of a large city, he doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements per WP:NOTE Delete Editing Maniac 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a thoroughly non-notable gorilla-lover. Eddie.willers 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rewrite The mayorial campaigns, along with his wife's legacy makes this notable (if only B-class) and I'm sure we can get more proper sourcing. He was covered in the press over spans of decades. /Blaxthos 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO in spades. Only sixteen Google hits on a directed search [6]. A single NY Times article referencing some crazy fellow doesn't represent "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." RGTraynor 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major party candidates for the mayor of New Orleans would be notable--an outsider with 0.2% of the vote is not. DGG 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games involving China[edit]

Indiscriminate list: any video game "involving" China. First on the list is Civilization II, which has the Statue of Liberty on the cover, and according to Civilization_II#Civilizations China is just one of 21 different civilizations in the game, which shows how indiscriminate this list is. Saikokira 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems totally indiscriminate. The list will be huge, too. - Richard Cavell 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly pointless and indiscriminate list. --Haemo 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the type of article which would be better served as a category. Pablothegreat85 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You'd have to put almost every single fighting game in this list. JuJube 06:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rediculous cruft. /Blaxthos 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is going to become unmanageably long unless some kind of strict inclusion criteria is put in place, and users with an continual interest in the subject put some effort in to maintain that criteria. Unless this is done before the end of the discussion, delete. As a secondary, do not categorise, as the relationship between most of the current entries and China is minimal, and could very easily be substituted for another country. -- saberwyn 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - hopelessly indiscriminate. Arkyan 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hopelessly indiscriminate. We've deleted lists like these in the past, and more so with categories. --Scottie_theNerd 03:01, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mallee Football League 2007 Season[edit]

While the league as a whole may be notable, the individual seasons are not. Mattinbgn/^talk 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are subsets of the above article and as such non notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mattinbgn Ga rr ie 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - This is a small regional league. No evidence of notability is presented. I am happy to change my vote if proper sourcing on notability is provided. TerriersFan 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per comments above. /Blaxthos 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all per snow. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Four votes in four hours is not enough to claim it has a snowballs chance. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main season page, but probably not the individual grade articles. Mallee Football League (South Australia) has a reasonable article, so there's not reason to believe the season won't too. Do we have an accepted AFD guideline for sports leagues? The US get excited about school football, which in rural Australia is a lot less important than the regional league. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that the article on the league is notable and of reasonable quality and I would also agree that the clubs are possibly notable too, but the season is likely to be of passing interest only. A list of premiers and/or grand final results in the main article would be more appropriate. The likely quality of the article has no bearing on the the subjects notability and is not relevant. I suspect that this is an attempt to host an unofficial webpage on the league in breach of WP:NOT#WEBSPACE.--Mattinbgn/^talk 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a policy on English soccer leagues which I understand maintains the first ten levels. The Mallee Football League would of similar notability to one of the lower leagues in that standard. However, the reserves and colts are not notable enough to warrant an article and should be deleted. There may be a case for the main article with brief summaries of the lower grades. In summary, weak keep main grades, delete lower grades. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - a rural football league in an area which covers less than 100k people. The league is notable as a social institution, but the level of sport is such that it is not notable as a sporting achievement. Grumpygrumpy 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Choice[edit]

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the way it is written sounds like it may be a hoax as per this line and not being able to find it on Google "It was released on her bestfriends label Big Hunna." Big Hunna is the name of the band, and the best friend's label? Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. - Richard Cavell 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom says it all /Blaxthos 06:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The author of this article has had his and his friends' material deleted before. This should qualify as recreation of deleted content (CSD G4). See [7] and [8] for examples of old Dolla Billz/Big Hunna-related AfDs. And the two authors, Big Hunna Entertainments and Jordan Star Records are sockpuppets of the already indef'd Jack tha Ripper. He's been adding vanity articles for some time now, and if I'm not mistaken, there should be more out there. Just search "Big Hunna" and you'll come up with a lot of vanity articles and even more vandalism. I've been after this guy for a while. Rockstar915 18:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBB (album)[edit]

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Richard Cavell 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Speedy? Is it any coincidence that "B (album)" was recently nominated and speedied? Wavy G 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They were different albums by the same spamming sock puppet master... -- Scientizzle 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy. /Blaxthos 06:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per my comments on Smart Choice. Let's squash this vandal/sock. Rockstar915 18:44, 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 CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hunna Presents: Nickal Lachey[edit]

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Richard Cavell 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No article. Does this person even exist? Zero Google hits and no entry at allmusic.com (There is a Nick Lachey but that appears to be an entirely different person). Herostratus 02:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 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 CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B (album)[edit]

De-prodded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. Scientizzle 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Richard Cavell 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray-Ray (album)[edit]

An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. Scientizzle 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ray-Ray redirects to Characters in Drawn Together. 202.67.87.132 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy ? /Blaxthos 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per my comments on Smart Choice. Rockstar915 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an album would not deserve an article if the artist does not have one. Wooyi 22:10, 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 speedy delete, no context or assertion of notability. --Core desat 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artprocess[edit]

Reprod. Rationale was "non-notable site - forum has less than 50 posts on each topic". Procedural, abstain. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Manik Raina
Speedy delete; so tagged. No assertion of notability in the article, and the web site hasn't changed my mind. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete /Blaxthos 06:57, 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 Speedy deletion by me. The article is unsourced, unverifiable, and likely a hoax. Its subject is not notable and the parts mentioned by Dennisthe2 indicate that it might well be original research and borders on things-made-up-in-school-one-day. Best just to rub it out. - Richard Cavell 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huntological Determinism[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and might be a hoax. John254 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google hits. Manik Raina

Speedy Delete According to the article, it "gets its name from a twenty-second century machinima series called Huntology". Yep, could well be a hoax, or alternatively nonsense :) EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I can't justify speedy. (Sorry, EliminatorJR.) Note, too, that the series the article references specifically states that the series itself doesn't even mention the name. Leads me to remind us that we aren't for things made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete term from a "twenty-second century machinima series". It's cruft... of the FUTURE! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Airlines flight 3026[edit]

No sources, no proof that such an incident occurred, no Google hits outside of Wikipedia, likely hoax. Khoi khoi 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. I concur, two google hits - and not a one of them outside of Wikipedia. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs better references than "I heard about this accident whislt in Baku, Azerbaijan." [9] -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "This article does not cite its references and sources. You can help by not citing 'I heard about this accident whilst in Baku, Azerbaijan' as a source." =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATT. No such person as "Mochome Lucheberg".[10][11] Don't see route with flight number 3026 for Baku-Tbilisi either.[12]. cab 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unverified hoax. No records of accident in September 2006 for this airline with any of the normal monitoring services. Eddie.willers 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Strong Delete I agree. It's a hoax. Pablothegreat85 04:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another hoax. Grandmaster 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and someone should check the users other edits, it looks like he has messed with a bunch of other pages related to airlines, crashes, etc., under possibly 2 other usernames. --killing sparrows 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing to support this incident, and air accidents are big news no matter where they are. Ben W Bell talk 09:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - suspect it's a hoax. No reliable sources are given, and the article doesn't even specify the aircraft type. A check of the airline's web site reveals that they don't have flight numbers in the 3000 range. ~~If I'm reading it right, they're only in the 2000s.~~ I wasn't reading their timetable right - their IATA abbreviation is J2, so their flight numbers are all less than 1000. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotta ask, how were you able to extrapolate that from the IATA code? --Dennisthe2 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But wait - Wikipedia says it's NOT a hoax! Be right back... Werthog 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Okay, fixed! Werthog 22:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. I never noticed that before. It's obviously not a hoax, because somebody said it's not in a Wikipedia article. Guess that GIGO doesn't apply anymore, does it? =^^= --Dennisthe2 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax but do not treat the Google test as gospel.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interestingly, creator's userpage states that "I'm currently working in Helsinki, Sweden." Newyorkbrad 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It violates attribution policy.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is utterly incomprehensible these days that a large airline crash in of the magnitude this article claims, won't generate widespread media interest, no matter where in the world the crash took place. No entry in the aviation-safety database either [13]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically, show the media coverage or bust. I'm a lazy researcher, but it's never too hard to provide at least one external link that says this stuff actually happened. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also no luck searching Factiva and LexisNexis. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does WP:SNOW apply here yet? --Dennisthe2 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I herd about during late October in a small article the British Metro newspaper. It was a medium sized Tupolev aircraft. A Georgian man, 2 Armenian kids and several Tartars also survived the crash. It was not a total wipe out as claimed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.253.109 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 24 March 2007.

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Khoi khoi 02:13, 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 keep. Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Ballarat Rebels[edit]

Contested prod. Sportsteam competing in the under 18's age group of the TAC Cup Ga rr ie 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should probably include other teams in the same league. But I will wait on results for this AfD before going to that step.Ga rr ie 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Several notable players have played for the club. Should evidence of notability from third party sources be provided I would be happy to keep.-- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to TAC Cup (and the same goes for the other teams in the league). FiggyBee 09:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a team in the league that many Victorian AFL footballer come from. Do we have a sports team/league/season guideline for AFD? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. We do, actually; a team in a fully professional league, or at the highest level of amateur competition in a sport in a given country, is notable. Does this team qualify? I won't register a Keep on a subject about which I know little, but if others assert the notability of the league, I won't register Delete either. RGTraynor 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this team would be - at a stretch - on par with US college level football (however, college footballers recieve scholarships and other benefits). The TAC Cup (in which this team competes) is a feeder competition for the national Australian Football League (professional), and for the state's Victorian Football League (semi-professional). No indication is provided that the TAC Cup is a fully professional league. Ga rr ie 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The TAC Cup is a notable league with its grand final played as a curtain raiser to the AFL Grand Final at the Melbourne Cricket Ground see [14]. This grand final is also broadcast live across Australia. Further, there is a significant potential for its players to be drafted by the AFL. Adam Goodes, a former player with the Rebels has twice won a Brownlow Medal for best and fairest player in the AFL. They are certainly equivalent to one of the top 10 leagues in English soccer. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no-one's saying the TAC Cup isn't notable. The question is whether that notability extends to the individual teams and players to the extent they should have their own articles. FiggyBee 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several of us appear to think it extends to the teams. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Several = 2.(Scott Davis + Capitalistroadster) Ga rr ie 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, team in an amateur sports league. The fact that they've produced some famous players is not really relevant, for the same reason that we don't have a page on the club that Wally Lewis played for in the Under 3s division. Lankiveil 09:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- He played for the Wynnum-Manly Seagulls - is that any more significant than the Ballarat Rebels? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is; the Seagulls were in a league that was for many decades the major sporting competition in Queensland, so they're much more comparable to, say, a VFL team than an under-18s amateur club. FiggyBee 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And when he did play for the Seagulls, he was being paid to. Do we have any articles for teams he was not paid to be in? Ga rr ie 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and reasonably well known, club. Rebecca 08:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

This article contains a lot of POV, unsourced nonsense. Furthermore, many of the bullet points have little to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. The page is in need of some serious editing after which I do not believe the article will have enough information to stand alone. For these reasons, I have nominated the article for deletion. Pablothegreat85 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks or Al-Quida. The problem with these background information is that they are quite ambigious. If we have to strip out all the assumptions, then these backgrounds would actually be Al-Quida's info. George Leung 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is speculative original research. --Ezeu 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As-is the article is an unsourced mess. However, it could be cleaned up by adding proper sources and weeding out irrelevant info. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Never mind, looking it over again, September 11, 2001 attacks#Motive already covers the motives of the attackers in a more accurate and succinct fashion. Delete. — Krimpet (talk/review) 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvagable POV mess. I don't see how it can be cleaned up now...maybe later it can be recreated, but this is unencyclopedic, has almost no sources, makes some spurious connections and not in keeping with WP:ATT.--MONGO 06:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Huge subjective element in working out which incidents are relevant background and which are not. Where reliable sources have claimed event X to be a factor, that would be worth mentioning in the article about the attacks. But this is simply the wrong way to present this information- the article is composed predominantly of OR and synthesis. WjBscribe 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia has a rule against an article such as this, informally called "connecting the dots". It amounts to synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is codified at WP:SYNT. MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MONGO, Morton_devonshire, ~~Tom Harrison~~Strike as Tom has not voted. and NuclearUmpf. background history of the Sept 11 attacks is contained in other articles such as Al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks. The unsourced opening paragraph seems to conclude that the background of the attack is "US foreign policy with regard to predominantly Muslim countries and Israel in the latter part of the Cold War, the growth of radical Islamism, and prior terrorist attacks on the United States" and as such is original research. This narrow conclusion of the causes then becomes a POV fork to be critical of these presumptuous, unsourced "background" events. --Tbeatty 07:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. WP:OR, fails WP:RS. --Folantin 08:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and WP:OR synthesis. FiggyBee 09:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia rules are not suitable for articles like this, where deciding what to include controls the message the article delivers (by showing readers a bunch of dots they can connect, per Morton). Unless we create new (article-specific?) rules, editors have to make decisions about what to mention or omit based on their own POV. No wonder the result is less than satisfactory. This is not a suitable topic for an article in any encyclopedia, and is an invitation to POV-warring in this encyclopedia. CWC(talk) 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently pov essay Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I'm undecided on this. Chapters 2-8 of the 9/11 commission report deal with "background' history, as well as some material that can go in the "planning" article. The 9/11 commission report also has extensive footnotes, which lead one to more good, reliable sources. Of course, such an article could be attractive to POV pushers, but at the same time if it can be made to work, with good sources and comply with policies, then it might be useful. I suggest maybe stubbing the article and even moving to userspace, until time if/when if can be brought up to acceptable quality and compliance with policies. I'm of the opinion that it's better we try making something acceptable out of this, so people have something neutral to look at when they search "9/11 + background" on google, as opposed to some of the other material that turns up in searches. As the article stands now, though it's no better than the other things that turn up in a google search. That's why I suggest stubbing it, and if after some effort it can't be made to work then delete it. --Aude (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything of use in this article has been merged into the main article. Nothing in the subarticle of any use. --Aude (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as largely unsourced and WP:OR. I doubt there is anything here worth merging, as this touches on one of the most well-covered subjects on the encyclopedia. Arkyan 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Wow, I don’t know which slams this article worse, this AfD or the article’s talk page. Yep, not worth the time to even attempt to clean this mess up. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We can merge it into September 11, 2001 attacks--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Aude above. All of the useful information from this article has been merged already. This article has no value. Pablothegreat85 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR synthesis using selected "references" to put together a POV narrative. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete POV pushing, and little viable content. Does not accurately assess topic--Sefringle 04:19, 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.--Wizardman 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helium.com[edit]

Promotional substub on new website. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one source, which is a blog, and not WP:RS. Fails WP:WEB. Leuko 08:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An extra source is added + Alexa information Kalvitz 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And reverted, because the Alexa information given was incorrect by a factor of five. [15] RGTraynor 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure that I can consider Search Engine Journal to be very reliable for a source. --Dennisthe2 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa rank number was correct; it referred to the site's rank in the US. Kalvitz 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you accept Red Herring as a source then? [16]. That article has a quote from a Research Director from Gartner. They have several other sources listed on [17] Kalvitz 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Red Herring article reads like a press release, and the number 3 link you list is directly on helium.com - the use of which falls outside of our reliable source guidelines. --Dennisthe2 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There apear to be a number of other sources online that have mentioned Helium. Alexa shows links from CNET, TechCrunch and ABCnews, as well as a vast number of bloggers. It also looks like they were invited to speak at DEMO 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.92.43.9 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: as per everybody --User:Ahadland1234 23:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter Nationalities[edit]

Pretty much a list of indiscriminate information. Most of this information one can already find on either an individual character or game's article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the reasons for the article's nomination. This article is simply not informative enough to deserve its own page. Pablothegreat85 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:NOR, WP:NN. Why do we need an article doing nothing more than listing the nationalities of the characters in a video game? RGTraynor 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RGTraynor (above) is right, but I think the worst of it is going to be WP:NOR here. --Dennisthe2 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This info should be in each characters article and should also be listed in whatever main list of Street Fighter characters we have. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete already in the character articles. (It also repeats the old nonsensical "M.Bison is obviously Thai" crap.) JuJube 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless list; information already found in profiles. The list itself is incomplete and contains speculation and/or original research. --Scottie_theNerd 03:00, 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. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Callan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Incomplete nomination by 69.244.98.171 (talk · contribs). His comment on Talk:Jonathan Callan was: "the comment by the author of the article above is signed Roboliberal. A quick google search of the keyword Roboliberal reveals this site, which tends to indicate that Roboliberal is Jonathan Callan, the subject of this article, and is attempting to write an autobiographical article while fooling the Wiki community into thinking he's just a fanboy." Procedural nomination, no opinion yet. cab 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I would say that the information contained within the article does not sufficiently show notability. Additionally, the page is self-advertisement and therefore makes it an obvious candidate for speedy deletion. Pablothegreat85 07:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT, NN, possible WP:COI. This bit of inflated puffery talks big about his award-winning TV series (in other words, the pilot put on his college's in-house TV station), his award-winning screenplay (in other words, the award given out by the community theater that hosted the play), and his second award-winning screenplay (5th place in a competition that has ten Google hits [18]). Roboliberal seems to have a skewed notion of what constitutes "significant body of well-known work," "notable awards" or "regarded as important figure by peers." Wikipedia policy has in mind a slightly larger field than the theater community in Ithaca, NY. When Mr. Callan's acclaim comes from the New York Times theater reviewer instead of from his college newspaper, and his awards from the Tony nominators rather than the local theater, that will merit notice. RGTraynor 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete Respectfully, I disagree on both counts for proposed deletion. Mr. Callan is a writer whom I work with on several IC-TV shows and is of extreme notability in the areas in which he writes. Certainly, the accusation that it is somehow self-advertisement is baseless and without proof. I have worked with the author but am not even a close friend, so in neither case does the article fit the criteria for auto-biography as laid out in the wiikipedia guidelines. After all, IC-TV itself (our campus TV station) has a wiki entry, so why not an entry on one of its more popular writers?

The case comes down to one of notability. I have fufilled at least three out of five of the notability criteria: recieved notable awards (cited), regarded as an important figure by peers (cited), has created a significant body of well-known work (cited). I would welcome suggestions on how to demonstrate the other two criteria, but there are honestly few authors that have statues or monuements of them built, anyway. And no one cites a problem with *their* wiki entries. The lack of a secondary source (such as a non-fiction book about the author's work) is one that I could find numerous wiki-entries on authors to support in contrary. Many articles on semi-popular modern authors fail to meet this requirement. I would like to remove the tag for speedy deletion, honestly. I welcome other opinions however.

-Roboliberal

Delete, but I'm going on WP:N and a side order of WP:LOCAL. It's my opinion that Roboliberal needs to also assert why Mr. Callan is notable beyond local theater stuff. In short, can we get more sources that assert better notability? If so, I will change my mind. --Dennisthe2 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A wee bit of digging. I've no beef with the notability of the ICTV site, seeing as it has won numerous awards [19] and serves 26,000 homes on Time Warner basic cable in the county in which Ithaca is located. By the bye, that awards list? Callan does not appear. The broadest possible search of ICTV's website [20] has only four hits for Callan, one as being on staff in the spring of last year, three pertaining to the one episode that he wrote. A search on the Cornell Daily Sun's website doesn't turn up any hits, despite the citation of an article purportedly about the subject [21]. RGTraynor 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a primary source that shows that he's employed (or has been) at ICTV, but no secondary. --Dennisthe2 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, although I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of ICTV's website. He's listed as a generic "staff" person in the spring semester of '06. RGTraynor 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Object to DeletionI object to the notion that the subject in question is not notable because he hasn't had a write up in the New York Times. There are plenty of television and comics writers who have never once had a write-up by either the New York Times or any other national paper who warrant (and have) wikipedia pages. Likewise, I will point everyone to the "notability page" for Wikipedia requirements which clearly spells out that fame IS NOT equivalent to notability. Mr. Callan is a well-known author in the Ithaca and Priceton communities and I believe I have established notability in this regard through numerous citations and articles. An inability to find a few of these clearly cited articles doing cursory google searches is not the fault of the subject. The world exists beyond the internet. And I'm not at all sure The Cornell Daily Sun makes an archive of even a majority of its articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roboliberal (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [Only edits by this user are on the article in question and this AfD.] (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I worked with Jon Callan on the IC-TV show Beyond and several other shows. He's practically a household name in Ithaca, NY. I can't understand some of these complaints. They are absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeGarland87 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [This post is user's first Wikipedia activity.] (UTC).RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete Jon Callan is a well-known author in the Ithaca area. His writing is followed practically with a cult devotion on our campus. He's a cool guy. How all he's done does not fit the requirements for notability has hardly been made clear here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DennisThapa (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC).— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [This post is user's first Wikipedia activity.] (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete Jon Callan holds a certain recognizable status above the typical college writer; he has several verifiable credits to his name. Callan has obviously just started his career, as evidenced by his works in progress, and I forsee this article being expanded in the next few months. At Ithaca College and the larger Ithaca area, Callan holds notability for his personality and writing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.76.93 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC). — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [This post is user's first Wikipedia activity.] (UTC).RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteHe's well known here in upstate NY. I've seen him in the Ithacan and the Cornell Daily Sun multiple times. N8dogg74 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)n8dogg74 — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [This post is user's first Wikipedia activity.] (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete These objections make no sense. I have worked as an actress on several IC-TV productions, and can safely say that Jon Callan is a highly respected and established writer at Ithaca College. He has also received awards and acclaim outside the college for his work. How does he not qualify as "notable"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vmayne (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC). — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [This post is user's first Wikipedia activity.] (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the rather clumsy sequential nature of all these first-time users, perhaps Roboliberal would find the provisions of WP:SOCK useful reading. RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I would like to mention that in addition to his notoriety in upstate New York, Jon Callan is also well known in central New Jersey. His short films and theater work are held in high regard by many authorities in the area, including Princeton's renowned McCarter Theater.192.152.243.19 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)anonymous concerned[reply]
Strong Delete. Google position is confused by "Jonathan Callan (artist)" (different person) ... Fails WP:BIO - references are not strong; article is over-egged. Springnuts 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But he's a "household name in Ithaca, NY"! These sockpuppet votes made me laugh though - nice try! Croxley 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice sock-puppeting, but you're fooling no one. Fails WP:NOTE. --Haemo 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete This will be my last post here. I find this entire argument ridiculous. Accusations of "sock-puppeting" most of all. You asked for proof of the subject's notabality, I have, in my mind, more than supplied it. Others agree with my positions, and wikipedia is meant to be a community foremost based on strength of argument in terms of inclusion, not percieved social standing. Whether or not those featured here are first time users are irrelevant. They have continued in making the case that the subject of the article is *INDEED* quite notable. Certainly, I have enough respect for wikipedia to know its not a vote. But I have registered my opinion. The facts and the citations more than speak for themselves. To disclude a writer of medium popularity who speaks to a large audience from an internet encyclopedia that has a substantially huge entry on LEGENDS OF THE HIDDEN TEMPLE is indeed insane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roboliberal (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment You've already voted TWICE before as Roboliberal. Once at 13:41, and once at 21:48. And now again at 00:11. You must have become confused by all the other sockpuppetry in between. Croxley 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you don't seem to understand is that we need proof. Real proof - not comments from people who may or may not exist and who may or may not of heard of the subject. We simply cannot take your word for it. If he is really a household name, if he is held in high regard by those in the know, then that proof would exist. Bring it- real sources that anybody in the world can examine and say "yep - this guy is notable", and this argument will disappear. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like we have another NUGGET Posse --Ron Ritzman 02:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete schoolboy and "writer of local acclaim". Nothing but LOCAL media coverage and LOCAL student awards, thus fails to pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete because the article appeasr to describe someone notable within the SF-media field, yet it is a name I have never seen (TtBoMR) in the media material I "watch", here in the UK. I suspect that a writer "famous" in a small village in England (but not known in the US or Guam) would earn the same disdain, if I wrote him/her up for Wiki. -- 62.25.109.196 08:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spacio-cide[edit]

Neologism, only example of use is POV, gsearch show no use outside of refs to neo creator killing sparrows 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, avoiding a neoligism that shows POV. Luke! 18:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious neologism. The article even says the term "was recently (2005) coined" Croxley 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NEO. Pavel Vozenilek 15:20, 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 nomination withdrawn. MER-C 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS conspiracy theories[edit]

There is nearly no encyclopaedic value in this article, as firstly such things do not really belong in a separate fork of this nature; and secondarily it seems unclear to me how this article could ever be written in an informative manner as a factual piece. In fact, what it is covering is perhaps "non-mainstream theories" versus conspiracy theorism, and writing articles very specifically on generalised classes of such matters is highly questionable. Consequently, I feel deletion is the only viable option, as it is difficult to see how it could be written in an NPOV manner. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn - since it seems I hadn't really considered this very well, considering the comments below. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I believe these AIDS conspiracy theories to be complete rubbish, it appears that there exist several experts who seem to believe that these conspiracies exist. Like the 9/11 "Truth" Movement, no matter how ridiculous a conspiracy theory, if it is notable then Wikipedia needs to provide an article for it. I will say that this article does need to be cleaned up a bit, though. Pablothegreat85 05:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps a rewrite is warranted, but not deletion. This has potential to be a good encyclopedic article. Conspiracy theories regarding the origin of HIV are widespread.--Ezeu 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we can have articles on Holocaust denial (which I think it's obvious that we should), then we can have this. StaticElectric 05:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable crackpot theories can be covered in an encyclopedic, NPOV manner; see Flat Earth, Holocaust denial, etc. This "theory" is pretty widespread and there are plenty of sources asserting its notability; the article cites The Economist and a Johannesburg newspaper among others. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Oh, OK, sorry guys, it looks like I must be wrong - I obviously didn't think it through long enough. Should I withdraw this or let it run? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you withdraw, and the next admin who sees this should close it as "nominations withdrawn". Since it is uncontroversial, a brave non-admin could do it too. --Ezeu 06:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fetish clothing manufacturers[edit]

Non-encyclopedic listcruft, filled with links to non-notable companies. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Leuko 06:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory of external links. MER-C 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#LINK. There's already a category for the few of these that have articles. —Cel ithemis 12:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Edison 13:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of external links, covered by WP:NOT. Only a couple actually have articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT. Pablothegreat85 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete collection of non-notables, if they were notable, the same thing would be accomplished with a category for distributors that had valid wikipedia articles. Lotusduck 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A3 - no content other than external links Croxley 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NOT#LINK point 1. Suriel1981 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expunge linkspam. Ohconfucius 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 speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold [22]. Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FNFL (American football)[edit]

fancruft, probable self-promotion Rama 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability. Mwelch 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such. AFD nominated by article creator!! Home fantasy league - no assertion of notability; no GHits; no sources. TerriersFan 12:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I am not exactly the creator of the article: I initially deleted this text to set a redirect from FNFL to Forces navales françaises libres ; this action was contested by the creator of FNFL, User:Leelad93. See [23]. Rama 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stember[edit]

You can search his name in any of the items below to confirm the validity of his claims.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9A05E3DB163DEF34BC4D52DFB667838A669EDE http://imdb.com/title/tt0807065/ http://www.amazon.fr/Te-Hine-Manea-Polyn%C3%A9siennes-fran%C3%A7ais-anglais/dp/2909790320 http://www.fashion-planet.com/sept98/features/sephorarocks/sephora.html http://www.search.com/reference/Gia_Carangi http://www.vickimarch.com/clients/marchv/pages/experience.shtml http://www.tahitiphilatelie.pf/details_timbres.php?annee=2007&id=152&chglangue=us http://www.answers.com/topic/carey-lowell

Comment: Great, but that's just a laundry list of long lists of photographers amongst which he is mentioned, a production he was in, and so forth. We get (and do not dispute) that the guy exists. We dispute that he is a notable photographer. Our advice is to demonstrate how Mr. Stember fulfills the criteria of WP:BIO, especially the following pertaining to "creative" individuals:

* The person has received notable awards or honors.

* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

* The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

* The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

* The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

Until that happens -- and even IF that happens, this is still going to be a vanity article that could fail to pass muster on that ground alone -- Calton's characterization of the subject as a "journeyman" photographer looks spot on. RGTraynor 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant self-promotion / advertising. Prolific name dropping but are there actually any links to anything that references the guy? -- RHaworth 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try checking: www.google.com / www.imdb.com / www.johnstember.com / or contact any of the people mentioned for references. We are not trying to promote but simply inform which is what we believe an encyclopedia is for unless you think otherwise. We have taken exactly the same format as used on many other pages including john's ex-wife's carey lowell. if your response is so negative why don't you try offering some advice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stember (talk • contribs) 08:09, March 19, 2007

Well, Carey Lowell is actually famous, what with starring in movies and TV shows and all. Oh, and establishing bona fides isn't our job, it's yours. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless something other than name-dropping backs things up, and perhaps not even then, since the CV looks like a journeyman fashion photographer CV. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. A directed Google search excluding Wiki mirrors and his personal website turns up just 26 hits [24]. Plainly he was a photographer, but just as plainly not all that many people noticed. Article also violates WP:COI, given that User:John Stember is the creator. RGTraynor 17:45, 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.

Frank and vinny[edit]

The result was Speedy delete A7 by ChrisGriswold. Leuko 08:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable webcomic. Article offers no sources as to why this particular comic is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with comments above. Robinson weijman 07:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: No assertion of notability. Marking as such. Leuko 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamtone[edit]

This band does not appear to be at all notable. Note that if this page is removed then the members' pages should probably also be removed. Robinson weijman 07:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this turns out to be quite a walled garden. Added all the relevant articles, I think. MER-C 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks MER-C! Robinson weijman 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - unless attributable evidence of passing WP:MUSIC is found. If the main article gets kept, I suggest that all the articles on (former) members of the band get merged into the main one, we don't need those substubs. MER-C 11:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Delete all. Robinson weijman 11:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per MER-C. Walled gardens are seldom a good sign, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Even though it is not a criteria for deletion, the user who created these pages is the webmaster of the website of this band. Raises some eyebrows to say the least. Could be just an amateur band of a couple of friends, really. Unless there are some references asserting notability they should be deleted. Baristarim 04:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mircobowling[edit]

non-notable/unattributable neologism. Zero G-Hits. Leuko 08:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a typo for "microbowling", but that search term doesn't turn up anything relevant either. Delete per WP:NEO unless sources are found. —Cel ithemis 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'neologism' is putting it nicely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "and there for is a advantage" - that's why it's not a good idea to create articles when you're stoned! Croxley 23:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...That and the fact that they misspelled the article title. Wavy G 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could have been nominated for speedy, clearly inappropriate. WP:NOT a dictionary of pot-smoking slang. CMummert · talk 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have loved to. Unfortunately, an admin took a narrow view of the CSD criteria, and neglected WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Leuko 16:11, 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 no consensus. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Kudryavitsky[edit]

Unsourced article. I get 358 Google hits for the name. The most salient claims to notability seem to be the awards but I am unable to confirm them from reliable third party sources (3 Google hits for "Robert Graves poetry award", 1 Google hit for "Edgeworth Prize for poetry"). No hits at Amazon.com for "Kudryavitsky", Amazon.co.uk has an entry for A Night in the Nabokov Hotel with a publication date this month and a sales rank of 1,036,009. Haukur 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valrith 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak delete~~. On ozon.ru (main Russian online bookseller) there are 24 books related to him http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/258458/?type=305#305 In most of the books he is a translator (he translated a lot from W. Somerset Maugham, G. K. Chesterton, etc). There also a few of his original short stories in anthologies but no solo books he authored. I think it is bellow the level of WP:BIO Alex Bakharev 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thank you. Haukur 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:My dear Mr Bakharev, the author has published every book mentioned in the biog. To state the opposite is sheer ignorance, or even worse. There's no place here for uneducated guesses, like yours. I've checked and double checked all the sourses and added a couple. All in all, the author published seven collections of his Russian poems with reputable Russian publishers; three of them with the Third Wave Books, the publisher of Joseph Brodsky. His English collection was brought out by the Kildare-based Goldsmith Press, who published Patrick Kavanagh, among the others. I am beginning to think that you're no expert in Russian literature, Mr Bakharev. Not yet. Generally, I am terrified by the prospect of authors being judged by people who know little about literature and seldom read books. Counting Google hits seems more important to some folks. If only they could count a wee bit better...User:Dreamcatcher9 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not notable enough. In addition, this seems to be a case where the person in question has written his own WP:Bio. sample and another sample. --Camptown 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article under consideration was written by one of the author's Irish publishers. The article you mention [25] was written by Philip Casey, the well-known Irish playwright and poet, who is also the webmaster of www.irishwriters-online.com.User:Dreamcatcher9 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - He doesn't seem very notable. Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 03:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I guess you can cast a !vote only once Alex Bakharev 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Very weak keep - there are published books, some are with reputable publishers. See no harm in keeping the article Alex Bakharev 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author seems to be notable.Biophys 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Vlad fedorov 08:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in Russian wiki - [26]. Catchpole 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Sefringle 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author is notable in two countries, Russia and Ireland. Can we say that about many writers represented here?--WickedPetya 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: user's fifth edit, the first outside his own userpage Alex Bakharev 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I thought the rule was not to attack newbies Alex. Yes, I am only starting here but have a look at my edits in a few months' time!WickedPetya 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see the reason why it shouldn't be here Garcia-Fons 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:19, 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. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron John Waltke[edit]

Here's fame for you: Aaron John Waltke is currently recognized as the Guinness World Record holder for the most t-shirts worn at one time by a single human being... No. really. Ludicrously trivial bid for fame. PROD tag added, but removed by creator on WP:INN grounds -- about which see also Matt McAllister and its brand-new AFD. Calton | Talk 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just about to write that this is the most ludicrously trivial claim to fame I've seen in a long while... then I noticed the former holder of the same record, Matt McAllister has an article too. Wikipedia ain't the Guiness Book, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia not being a mirror site for Guiness. Individual fails WP:BIO. Edison 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, probably also auto-biography. Mak (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am the creator of this article, and I have been in communication with User:Calton on this issue. I added this article because I thought it was relevant to the previous article on Matt McAllister. I am not making the argument that simply because both were included in the Guinness World Records that this automatically merits their inclusion in Wikipedia. On the contrary, Waltke has been featured in dozens of newspapers, film, television and radio programs regarding his record (as I cited in the article) as well as publications on the history of the t-shirt (also cited in the article). This includes an appearance on the CNN program of Glenn Beck's "Sick Twisted Freak", which gave him national exposure. If these grounds aren't enough, I have already suggested to User:Calton that perhaps a merged article would be in order for the record itself, which gained even more attention in the past 6 months because of Matt McAllister, the previous record holder. Matt McAllister became notable under the premises of a the Wikipedia definition of an internet phenomenon. The viral YouTube video of his record breaking that was uploaded in September 2006 (which is linked in his Wikipedia article) has been very widely viewed (nearly 3,000,000 separate views as of this writing) on the initial uploaded site alone since its inception. This is far more internet exposure than many other videos listed under internet phenomenon, such as Gary Brolsma, who has not one but two separate articles about him (the other regarding his Numa Numa video) and whose cited video has been viewed around 1,000,000 times. In addition to this, McAllister's internet popularity earned him a guest spot on the October 12th, 2006 episode of The Late Show with David Letterman, earning him further national exposure. Because the record which made him famous was broken, I thought this merited some mention at least in his article, and possibly another independent article for Aaron John Waltke. If the Wikipedia editors' consensus is that these biographies are too trivial to merit independent articles, then I would wholly endorse a merger into a general article about the record, but not a wholesale deletion of all mention of it.--GoodAaron 20:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this " I have been in communication with User:Calton on this issue" supposed to mean? I've already expressed my opinion, and to repeat the message I left on your talk page:

Be aware that the argument that "Article X exists, so my article Y should, too" is extremely common and complete non-starter: it's so common, in fact, the rebuttal has its own shortcut, namely WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I refer you to there.

The other article [that is, Matt McAllister] is equally a ludicrously trivial bid for fame, and having an article on the subject of this "record" as a whole is not any better. I've put a PROD tag there, too.--Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, please try not to become defensive. I only meant that I had contacted you about contesting the article. What I have tried to illustrate above is why WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which openly admits that it is neither an official policy or guideline but more of a "matter of opinion", is a bad argument to use here. I will try to clarify this as best as I can below. As for the label of "ludicrously trivial bid for fame", I know of no other way to engage that kind of arbitrary assessment than by laying out my reasoning as rationally as possible as to why it is not "trivial" in the terms of notability.

Accepted Premises:

1.) A Wikipedia article is eligible for deletion if it is not found to meet notability standards.

2.) The achievement of a Guinness World Record alone is not enough to meet notability standards.

3.) According to the above Wikipedia Editor consensus, Aaron John Waltke may not be eligible for notability as an independent article.

4.) If Matt McAllister can be found to meet notability requirements, it is possible that Aaron John Waltke could be merged into the McAllister article as relevant information.

5.) The Matt McAllister article may be eligible to meet notability standards on the grounds of the Wikipedia category internet phenomenon.

6.) The notability standards of the Wikipedia category internet phenomenon are ambiguous, because there are no minimum quantifiable standards in place to define that category.

7.) If there are no quantifiable standards in place to define a category, then there is no other option than to rely on examples of precedent to define that category.

8.) Other undisputed examples within the Wikipedia category internet phenomenon include Gary Brolsma. Matt McAllister has received just as much exposure (as measured in the quantified number of views) with his World Record viral video as Gary Brolsma (see above). On these terms of notability, the two articles are analogous.

9.) Matt McAllister has also appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman for his World Record viral video. Gary Brolsma was mentioned in the New York Times Entertainment section for his viral video. On these terms of notability, the two articles are analogous.

THEREFORE: Since the Matt McAllister article appears to be eligible for notability on terms of the Wikipedia category internet phenomenon, and much of the information in the Aaron John Waltke article would be relevant as an addition to the Matt McAllister article, the McAllister article should be retained and the Aaron John Waltke article should be merged with it.--GoodAaron 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, please try not to become verbose and nonsensical: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS was pointed out to you to stop the complete non-starter that is the "Why does HE get an article and *I* can't" argument: been there, done that, got a closetful of t-shirts. You'll note that my response to your original WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS claim was to immediately slap a ((PROD)) tag onto the other article: if it's been removed, Matt McAllister is coming to AFD, too. That should be a tiny hint as to how convincing I found your argument to be.

Also, trying to imply that there was some sort of negotiation going with your completely meaningless "I have been in communication with User:Calton on this issue" in an attempt (it seems to me) to mislead readers was particularly irritating. --Calton | Talk 08:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoodAaron removed the PROD tag, big surprise, so now we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt McAllister. --Calton | Talk 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Matt McAllister ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's in Guinness if you want this information, fails WP:BIO easily. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holding a random Guiness world record like this doesn't qualify, IMO, as notability. This will be a permanent stub, so it's not worth keeping. Mango juice^talk 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matt McAllister. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Abboud[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Created by single purpose account, reads like vanity. Come back when Business Week or Forbes recognises him as "one of the best network marketers in the world" - until then, it's only crystal-balling. Assertions not supported by reliable sources: Zoominfo bio not considered reliable; ACN website article is a non-independent marketing piece. Ohconfucius 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable- no secondary sources provided--Sefringle 04:47, 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, not to question the site's motives, only it's notability as a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:WEB criterion. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

400,000 Faces[edit]

Facebook groups, even large ones, are not notable. The references provided are not from reliable sources. DWaterson 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any and all facebook groups, myspace groups, yahoo groups, friendster groups, msn groups, orkut groups, etc Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-sourced, and fairly well written. Given the frequency of AfD noms for list and organisation-related articles, I wonder if a review is needed about the notability of user "groups" in general. If millions of people are part of a group, does that not at least give a group notoriety? While every group with 1,000,000 members may not deserve an article, neither do the many lists and collections of loosely associated articles. I think that a policy page dealing strictly with creation of "list" and "collection" style articles may be necessary, to reduce the number of AfD nominations produced daily.--Lostcause365 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "any and all facebook groups, myspace groups, yahoo groups, friendster groups, msn groups, orkut groups, etc" - this is nonsense. Any group that is notable should of course be kept, simply because something comes from a social website does not in any way mean it is of 'less value' than a non-social website. This is an obvious speedy keep, apart from the fact 400,000 people are in this group, there are a number of google results, proving that it is notable. Thedreamdied 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This clearly doesn't fall under any of the criteria for speedy keeping. DWaterson 15:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ryan[edit]

A senior minister of some church who has apparently self-published a two books. This does not appear particularly notable. Judged by the tone of the article, it is written by people of his church in conflict of interest. >Radiant< 10:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valrith 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rename~~ Delete. Skip Ryan. Although there's no article for him yet, a far more notable Joseph Ryan was the president of the International Longshoremen's Association. As for this guy, it seems to me that a minister of a 5,000 member church would easily be notable. WP:COI isn't reason to delete, but should instead be a flag that extra attention to NPOV is necessary (as with inumerable wikipedia articles). It's a stub that needs a lot of work, that's all. Bobanny 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His name isn't "Skip". His name is "Joseph". >Radiant< 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the guy. The convention on Wikipedia is to use the name the subject is most widely known as for the title (e.g., "Sting" instead of "Gordon Sumner"), whether or not it's their legal or birth name. If he's only called "Skip" in certain situations or by certain people, then no, that wouldn't be the one to go with. Maybe Joseph F. Ryan or Joseph Ryan (Minister). It's not big deal currently because this is the only Joseph Ryan article. However, if you hit the "what links here" button, you'll find there's a Joseph Ryan in the 1934 longshore strike, one in the 1904 Olympics, another who's an Irish-American mobster, and a Winnipeg Blue Bomber. Bobanny 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we need a DAB page. However, the fact that we need an article on some of those Joseph Ryans doesn't imply that we need an article on this particular one. >Radiant< 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's a little off topic. But since no one who has an interest in the article is around, what else do we have to talk about? Seriously though, I did a little work on it, and I'm considering changing my vote. His notability seems more dubious than it did at first glance. Bobanny 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has a couple of published books and multiple newspaper articles so I don't think it has a notability problem, but still it needs some work I would think. Billymumphry 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to delete. Looking a little closer, the subject doesn't resonate outside a very localized church circle. He has 2 books, that technically aren't self-published, but if you google the titles, all they produce are websites trying to sell them. No reviews or indication that they provoked any interest beyond his own small flock, of which he is no longer the shepherd. He was the minister of a church with money, and that's why he was published. Newspaper articles? He wrote an editorial years ago in a Dallas paper. The same paper announced his retirement. Not much else. His controversial stepping down has been pretty much kept under wraps except for an announcement on the church website admitting that he's a drug addicted deviant, just another wayward sheep needing restoration by the church (which no doubt consists of purchasing non-notable books from Crossway publishing). No one outside the congregation seem to care or have noticed, or else are too nervous about incurring the wrath of the church by saying anything publicly (at least that's the impression given on the talk page). Besides that, he met with Bono, as have a kazillion other people. Looking at the article's history, Bono's "people" stepped in disallowing a photo of the rev and superstar from appearing on Wikipedia, which doesn't bode well in establishing notability. Bobanny 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Douglasbjordan 20:38, 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 list as CSD g4. Non-admin close. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My proposal of speedy deletion for this page was based on an incorrect premise. Article was not recreated as Ozgod stipulated (content was: '((db-repost))Joseph Ryan (born 1970) is a photographer best known for his work with the Grateful Dead (1992-2001) and the reuniting of [[B...'). Speedy deletion should have been proposed per CSD a7, as this content is not the same as the content of the article nominated in the AfD process (content was: '((db-bio))Joseph Ryan, Born in February 1991, (Day unknown) is the founder of Shakirism. He worships Shakira. So far, he is the only known worshippe...'). My apologies for any confusion this has caused. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ryan[edit]

Article was recreated and fails to meet WP:Notability Ozgod 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. A few film credits are not enough. YechielMan 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for Speedy Deletion per CSD g4. AfD template removed from page. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kai-Ty-Do[edit]

Does not seem to be notable. Zero google hits, might be even hoax Alex Bakharev 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete in 7 days because articles lacks good referencing. I think notability is not the main issue. --FR Soliloquy 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it relevant that the title appears to equate, phonetically, to the well-known phrase "Katy do", as in "Katy see: Katy do" ? -- 62.25.109.196
delete I know google is not infallible but still... If this isn't a hoax then it looks like Original Research or even a vanity article. Suriel1981 12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:SPAM Peter Rehse 09:09, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snifferanto[edit]

Page is about an obscure language which is a subset of Esperanto. Supposedly the grammar is still incomplete. It was invented last year, and the author or someone close to the project wants extra exposure here on Wikipedia. Two PROD templates have been placed on the page, one by me, one by someone else. Both have been blanked by the original author, without the concerns being addressed. -- Yekrats 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. No reliable sources. --Folantin 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless veracity can be proved, I would tend towards categorizing this as a hoax -- Simon Cursitor 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete according to the small number of (self-promotional) Google hits, this is a "an invented language based on Esperanto". This is a self-promotional vanity article. The article contains the creators YouTube ID for goodness sake! Suriel1981 11:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, you aren't supposed to PROD something more than once. If a PROD has been removed in the past but you still want to delete it, you should bring it right here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the first sentence "Snifferanto is a version of Esperanto created in February 22, 2006 by a Finnish Reform Esperantist, whose Youtube username is Snifcjo." Something made up someone at Youtube? Come on. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:45, 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, CSD-A11. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrolly[edit]

Not notable corporation. If their business model is notable they should be merged somewhere Alex Bakharev 10:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per CSD A12. Luke! 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panclarkes[edit]

Not notable desert, only one ghit Alex Bakharev 11:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - unsourced, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish the notability of this "desert" (sic). Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless. Doesn't even say what kind of food it is, just what's put on it. The fact that there's no Google hits is hardly a good sign either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATT. Even if it referred to pancake, it would not be a likeley misspelling. --Tikiwont 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge) to Pancake. I don't think it's necessarily all that unlikely as a search string; there are some abominably bad spellers out there. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:32, 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 Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz (model)[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valrith 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple verified magazine appearances, multiple verified film appearances, multiple reliable, independent sourcing. Clearly passes WP:BIO. Dekkappai 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. -- Dismas|^(talk) 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is verified, and the subject is notable. Acalamari 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article and notability of the subject has only improved since the first nomination for deletion. RFerreira 17:15, 25 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 after rewrite and addition of sources. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lama Foundation[edit]

Nominating two articles, which appear to be of the same organisation. The more recent one has been notability-tagged for 3 months, and the only activity since the tagging has been an act of vandalism and the reversion thereof. The older one has seen minimal activity since its creation, the majority of which being non-content edits.

My searches of Google find minimal information regarding the organisation, with 258 from 340 total hits first page last page, several of which refer to the "Laboratory Animal Management Association" (LAMA). The few links I looked at do not assert the notability of the subject, ~~and I cannot attribute any of the information through third-party sources, let alone find any reliable ones from my brief scan.~~ -- saberwyn 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now print-sourced. I am changing my personal stance to neutral, but not withdrawing the nomination. -- saberwyn 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - only source is their own website; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:N. Per the nominator's remarks, it seems unlikely that reliable sources will be found. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep due to addition of multiple reliable sources. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 09:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable organization. google link:www.lamafoundation.org gives nothing important. So delete unless the articles are improved and notability is asserted. Cate |_Talk 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided if weak delete or delete. There are references (so verifiability seems ok), but I've still doubt that it is notable and encyclopedic. Cate |_Talk 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone involved in the deletion process of these article provided notice to the creator and significant contributors to the articles? This is considered civil under WP policies, although it is seldom honored in practice. If no one else does so I will provide the notice tommorrow , if I am able. Edivorce 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems at least moderately significant, and there are certainly enough sources to expand it, if someone's inclined. I'd merge the two into one article at Lama Foundation, and convert the other to a redirect. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working to improve the article right now. Please take a new look at it in a bit, to see whether the new version addresses your prior objections. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's a little better. It could use some copyediting, but I merged the two into one article and added some sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commnent I didn't get a chance to send out notices until today. Too busy yesterday.Edivorce 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article now properly sourced with improvement from Hit Bull. Edivorce 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you Edivorce for contacting contributors. I don't know much about this place but have known two people who have been there and report its reality and good organization. Don't know much else. The only contribution I made was to give it a category, i.e. Spiritual Retreats. Looks much better since the merge and sources. Cott12 Talk 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important to many of us ex-drugged-out-hippies.--Nemonoman 00:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Diana Institute of Peace[edit]

Non-notable organization that has conducted a seminar, organized a dinner, and conducted some awareness programs. Fails WP:ORG. There are very few external links/references, which are trivial, and don't establish notability: [27] is written by the Secretary-General of the PDIP, Rajkumar Kanagasingam. Image:Dianaincorporation.jpg is notice for application in a newspaper. [28] says that it has conducted awareness programs. [29] mentions it once, saying that it jointly organized a dinner event. Googling returns Wikipedia mirrors, except this, which mentions it once for the dinner event. utcursch | talk 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm a Sri Lankan my self, I never heard of this organization until I saw this article. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --vi5in ^[talk] 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for cheap propaganda.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, non notable organization with just 15 unique GHITS [30], most of the Wiki mirrors. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the image included in the article it is a limited liability company incorporated in Sri Lanka. Non notable as all the hits you get is from mirror sites of wikipedia. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Someone more knowledgeable than me will need to answer this: Is a Limited Liability Company in Sri Lanka like an LLC in the United States? That is to say, is a Sri Lankan LLC generally a for-profit corporation? --LastChanceToBe 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply : To answer your question yes it is, a limited liability company is a for profit organization that has to produce thier accounts to the auditor general/Department of Inland Revenue, every financial year or when requested. Furthermore the companies are registered by the government body "Samagam Medura" which means "Center for Companies" in Sinhala, it is mentioned in the image that this organization is registered with "Samagam Medura", it is required by law to publish an advertisement in a noted media if a limited liability company chooses not to use the term "limited" with their organization name and it should mention that they have permission to do so and the purpose of it. Hope this answers your question. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I removed the prod as I felt this was a contentious issue given discussions elsewhere. AfD therefore seemed necessary to determine the fate of this article. I make no comment in this discussion. WjBscribe 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Springnuts 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N - there are not sufficient acceptable references. Ccscott 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails WP:ORG completely and it is not a notable organisation at all. I too am from Sri lanka and I have never heard of this organisation nor seen it mentioned in news papers. There are far more notable institutions in Sri Lanka rather than this so called "institute" of dubious notability.Kerr avon 16:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hpolizim Ïjaaja[edit]

Do not think this philosopher is notable. Zero ghits, might be a Hoax. Even Hpolizim gives zero ghits, very unlikely it is a Finnish first name Alex Bakharev 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reeks of hoax, and even if true would be hopelessly non-notable: the "works" section includes only unpublished books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Why is a Finnish/English philosopher publishing in a (non-existant, as far as I can tell!) American journal? How did he "enter Eton" at the age of 21? It all sounds like rubbish to me. FiggyBee 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FiggyBee: It is a Canadian University journal, Canadian "University of Ottawa" should not be confused with American "Ottawa University". There was a lot of confusoion on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruppenfurer (talk • contribs)

Okay, so you changed the university. I still can't find any evidence that the journal exists. Also, please sign your posts. FiggyBee 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails completely WP:ATT. --Tikiwont 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfunny hoax. Pavel Vozenilek 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to everybody,It stands to reason,that everybody for some obscure reason seems to think that this is some sort of a hoax. I can not respond to these accusations, since they are unprecise at best. I can only express my regret that this is the case. However, I have to add, that as a Canadian 4th year philosophy student(U of Ottawa)I felt proud to have shed some light on this interesting philosophical matter. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and and I appologize for the lack of technical knowledge. Signed: Gruppenfurer.2:37, March 20

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X[edit]

Windows vs. Mac was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-25. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discusson, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows vs. Mac.

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-25. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discusson, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X.

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discusson, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X (second nomination).

Delete: When first nominated for deletion, the article was really long, but was a real mess because its content was very un-encyclopedically disposed. The discussion lead to a "Keep", since the article was still young (it was marked for deletion on its first day) and seemed to be possible to develop. Three months later, it was again nominated for deletion because the article hadn't gotten better in the elapsed time. The result was "No concensus", because some thought that it should be deleted, and others thought that it should be rewritten. Now, considering that we are five months later, and the article is in no way better than it was for the first and the second nomination (unsourced or dubiously sourced statements, unencyclopaedic content), I therefore propose it for deletion. There is no real contributor interested in making this article better with reliable sources, NPOV, and everything that an article as controversial as a comparison of two major operating systems need. The almost sole contributors to the article are anonymous users throwing in their opinions or ideas, regardless of whether it is encyclopaedic or not, or whether it is sourced or not. My opinion : this article is doomed to fail, as it is the subject of a religious war for many people, and cannot gather "facts" to make a real comparison of operating systems. I will never become a good article in my opinion. Dravick 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good points, but if it's deleted I think someone will create a new article the next day on this topic. It's better to fact tag every unsourced statement and delete it if sources doesn't appear, I think. iNic 03:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I do understand the issues raised by the nominator, the topic is real and nodoubtly can be sourced largely from reviews and comparisions that have been published widely. The other issues, namely that only anonymous user edit the article, and that it currently is a mess, are no reasons for deletion, however. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is problematic from the title forward. For one, we are putatively comparing Mac OS X which has gone through 6 major version changes over a period of 8 years, and the Microsoft Windows family of operating systems which has gone through 7 distinct operating systems and countless individual revisions. This is just dripping with confusion and leaves the reader wondering precisely what we are comparing. Comparison articles of this nature are further hindered by the fact that, while they are in direct competition, it is difficult to come up with objective comparisons as they run different subsets of software on different computer architectures. Combine these issues together and you really are comparing apples (hah!) and oranges. Furthermore, if you bother looking around for objective comparisons, good luck - it's about as easy to find neutral and objective comparisons between the two as it is to find fair comparisons between Republicans and Democrats - avoiding POV is hard. That said, I believe this article can be deleted on technical merit alone. Get rid of the unsourced information and you are left with "Some people compare Mac vs Windows. Mac gets less viruses." Sub-sub-stub and pretty much devoid of content. Arguments that there "should be more sources out there" and "someone could improve the article" are no longer valid - the nominator is correct in saying that the article has been given far more than enough time and no one has stepped up to bring it up to standards. Continually passing on the buck and relying on "someone else" to fix it is not a reason to keep it, particularly after so long. The article ahs had it's chance and lost. Time for it to go. Arkyan 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not something that is encyclopedic, even if it's verified, notable, etc. etc. Will anybody care in five years about this particular comparison? 15? Better discussed under an article of "OS Design Theory," or such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - This article is verified, informative and useful for wikipedia users. Richard Cavell 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Comparison" is far too vague; it's easy to compare different versions of the same OS, but Windows and Mac OS are apples and oranges. Constant updates to each OS mean this article means this article will constantly be out-of-date and inaccurate. It's also full of OR, and impossible to source without synthesizing information to draw new conclusions. This is material for a computer magazine, CNet, etc.; not Wikipedia. — Krimpet (talk/review) 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your conclusion, but a general comparison article of Windowses with Mac OSes needn't be constantly out-of-date, so long as it focusses on stable features. (Of course, such an article should make plain that it is a “big picture” article, lacking coverage of more changeable characteristics.) —SlamDiego 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the article is OR and very vague. That and it's not really encyclopedic and is redundant as several OS comparison lists already exist. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Revise - The general purpose of the article is to compare the two operating systems, alike to how the Comparison of Windows and Linux entry does. Certainly, the information may be better presented in a general OS comparison article, but the comparison of Windows and the "new" Mac OS is worth it in either form. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is this article doesn't compare any particular version of Windows with OSX. It's just says "Windows". That could mean XP, Vista, Longhorn, Server 2000, Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.... you get my point. Same goes for OSX. Doesn't specify which version of OSX. It could be anything from OSX Server 10 through 10.5. This article at MINIMUM, needs to be retitled and moved. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — While no article should be deleted simply because it is and has long been bad, as other editors note above, Windows has had many version, while Mac OS X is essentially Mac OS 10.x. An article comparing all versions of Windows with all version of Mac OS could have my support; an article comparing recent versions of Windows NT with Mac OS X could have my support; but this article is fundamentally, irreparably broken. —SlamDiego 05:17, 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 Merge this and GC-set into Closure with a twist and redirect thereto. Avi 03:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cwatset[edit]

Unintelligible, probably with typos carried over from the original source, [31]; see Talk:Cwatset. Perhaps a new article should be written on the subject, but it would have to be reliably sourced and not nonsense. Quuxplusone 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator's vote). Datapoint: More than two-thirds of the Google hits for "cwatset" also contain "wikipedia".[32][33]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright violation. Keep, having a second look, it appears not to be just a copy/paste. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is neither nonsense nor unintelligible. The addition is done bitwise (so, 011+001=010, 110+110=000, 110+101=011, etc.) You can call this XOR if you prefer. A subset C of the set of n-bit words is then a cwatset if for each of its members c, there is some permutation π on the bit positions such that π(c+C)=C. For the example given in the article of a cwatset, C={000,110,101}, we may pick c to be the member 110 of C. We then have

c+C={110+000,110+110,110+101}={110,000,011}

and π should be chosen to interchange the first and second bits and leave the third bit alone:

π(c+C)={π(110),π(000),π(011)}={110,000,101}=C.

As for the relation between groups and cwatsets, the set of all n-bit words under bitwise addition (or XOR) is itself a group. If a subset C of this set is a group under bitwise addition, it will also be a cwatset as we may take π to always be the identity permutation. The converse is not true—{000,110,101} is a cwatset but not a group under bitwise addition. Spacepotato 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without a reliable source, this is original research. Gandalf61 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Withdraw my vote, as article now has published sources. Gandalf61 10:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Spacepotato that the article is not nonsense (though it was badly written). I tried to improve the article because I was too lazy after researching the topic to write down exactly what I think about deleting or keeping the article. For me, this one is really borderline: there are sources out there but it seems to be a really obscure part of mathematics that has drawn very little interest in the mathematical community, and I doubt whether there are enough sources. Together with closure with a twist and GC-set, it forms a cluster of three articles with no incoming links. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added some references to the article. Although there hasn't been much work on this subject, there seem to be sufficient sources for an article. I recommend a keep for this reason. (~~As the nomination appears to have been based on a misreading of the article, I would move for a speedy keep, but that appears to be procedurally impossible at this point.~~) Spacepotato 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the nomination looks to have been made in good faith, I'm withdrawing my hypothetical remark regarding a speedy keep as inappropriate. Spacepotato 09:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into wreath product, or delete. I agree with Jitse's evaluation of the facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into closure with a twist, and also merge GC-set into the same place. The new references seem to me (barely) enough for notability, but we don't need three articles on the same obscure topic, and we don't need to clutter the more important article on wreath products with this stuff. If we're to keep one of the three titles, closure with a twist sounds best of the three to keep to me. —David Eppstein 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - merge and redirect would be fine, too, but this paper (not exactly a paper, but...) seems to imply that a nice little history and applications section could be added, which makes the concept feel encyclopedic to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:16, 25 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ponderosa Elementary School (South San Francisco)[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mere redirect pages:

Delete. This article seems to have been voted for deletion once already (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ponderosa_Elementary_School) but has been recreated. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previously deleted Ponderosa Elementary School was not this school--it was the one in the Spring Independent School District. [This comment posted moments ago by --Hjal 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Comment. I was unaware of that. Still, Special:Whatlinkshere/Ponderosa_Elementary_School_(South_San_Francisco) and Special:Whatlinkshere/Pondarosa_Elementary_School don't show any inter-wiki-linking except for the redirect pages mentioned above. At the moment, all references/external links are either statistical, non-independant or trivial. The school is non-notable except for being "the 2nd most attended elementary school in South San Francisco", which might still not be notable enough. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable school. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible speedy as G4, else delete, all sources are primary, no indication of notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to South San Francisco, California. Inadequate demonstration of notability at this point in time. Alansohn 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently redeveloped. There are now multiple non-trivial third party sources to support this article. RFerreira 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was looking to see if I should change position, but I see no secondary sources? There is the school's website (primary), its parent district's website (primary), a government report (government reports on a government organization are primary), a list of statistics (raw statistics are primary and also trivial), and another report which was produced by the school and district (primary). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To describe a government report about a school as a "primary source" in this context is, well, bullshit. RFerreira 17:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep references exist in current article, no valid deletion criteria given for AFD listing. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no consensus that schools are or are not inherently notable. As such, notability has to be asserted and attributed in the article, and that is lacking here. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is already at Start class for the Schools project and it fulfills the Policies. There is no consensus on school notability, although you could visti the AfD for the other Ponderosa Elementary School and learn that "no schools are notable."--Hjal 07:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep -- This recurses (again) to the issue of whether Wiki includes schools per se, if so, which levels of schools are (and are not) deemed notable, and whether schools outside these criteria should be included when they have independent notability -- issues which, properly, need policy rather than endless discussion -- Simon Cursitor 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. This is a good example of what is not sufficient for notability. The entire information is trivial list type data: locate, date of building, the number of playing fields, the scores on standardized tests, the 100% standardized "vision statement" the racial breakdown, the class schedule--that one keeps showing up & it still startles me--what can possibly be notable about the time that any school says the pledge of allegiance? At least it won't need as much upkeep as some, for it doesn't include the names of each teacher & the class presidents.

What would be the equivalent for a business organization? the size of the building and the parking lot, the names of the manager, the working hours, that they intend to make money, & when they were founded? - hopeful businesses keep writing such articles, and they all get speedied.

So what would be sufficient for a school? Really distinctive program or building or founders--famous alumni--test site for important eduational research--major news story for one reason or another. (If we were to accept the first school in each state as N, we might get a total of 100 US elementary schools.) Just the same criteria as for every organization. So why do we have these schools without anything to say? do we need a rule that WP is notaclassroomexercise?

- and, there are no independent non-trivial sources. Their website and the one for the district. The profile on Greatschools.net, which is about as distinctive as myspace, and references to where they found the test scores, the demographics, and the vision statement. Every one of these are trivial, non-indpenendent, or both. Even for those who think most or all elementary schools notable, there's still this problem about RS. The distinction for N is not which level school, but the individual school. This and below are the ones that fail. DGG 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article fulfills attribution requirements and the subject itself appears notable enough for an electronic encyclopedia. Burntsauce 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. South City High and El Camino High are in the same districts as Pondo, and they have the same format, but they're listed for deletion. Derrty2033 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think you meant not listed, but they're every bit as formulaic as this, and just as deserving. Still I think it better to go one at a time, because some will be notable. DGG 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not meet the criteria in the proposed WP:SCHOOLS. There are no good references. The fact that there are two high schools with articles is of no importance in this discussion. Previous consensus decisions in this area tend to keep high schools and delete other schools unless they show some significant notability. If the consensus is leaning to keep, then I would say Strong Merge rather then keeping as an independent article.. Vegaswikian 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 18:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alkivar, schools are usualy notable enough. bbx 01:19, 26 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 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.O.C.K. Solid (book store)[edit]

non-notable John Foxe 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment has anyone provided notice to the creator of this article? He/she is the only editor besides an annon. It is considered civil for the initiator of the AfD to provide notice to the creator and significant contributors. This is seldom actually done. If the lister does not do this by tomorrow I will provide the notice if I am able. Maybe he/she can provide source to demonstrate notability.Edivorce 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I take responsibility for originating the AfD (incompletely I'm sorry to say), and I have now provided notice to the creator/significant contributor. This article looks like an advertisement, a "yellow page" listing.

Delete - no secondary sources; I can find nothing on Google to stand up notability, Bridgeplayer 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thank you user:John Foxe for providing notice. Edivorce 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Handzy Show[edit]

not-notable web "show" JohnCub 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hopelessly non-notable YouTube videos. The "special" described as a "the viewers favourite" in the article has been viewed just 97 times on YouTube, and only has 3 comments (2 of which are from the same person and none of which is more than 5 words). Others in the series fare even worse, with "episode two" having just 16 views. Considering some YouTube videos have tens of millions of views, this is just pathetic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. DWaterson 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You've made your point - go ahead and delete Jimbo91uk 17:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought I better watch one so I sat through Episode 2, Part 1 and to say that it was dire would be a flattering comment. However, my delete view is based not on that but on the lack of secondary sources attesting to notability. Bridgeplayer 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, if someone hasn't watched the video, how can s/he tell if it qualifies for notability; if s/he has, how can they express an unbiased view ? Delete unless a verified review can be sourced -- Simon Cursitor 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 Delete. Avi 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyreke Evans[edit]

Subject fails WP:BIO, as he is still just a high school basketball player and has not "played at the highest level of competition" Thomas.macmillan 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO states "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits.". Subject has been featured in a major publication as being an "exceptional teenage athlete". Patken4 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See User:Patken4. --Bender235 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being in SI is nice, but not adequate on its own. Since the depth of coverage is poor and he has yet to play professionally, an article isn't justified. Valrith 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many kids in many sports get profiles on their potential. However, notability comes from achieving something and so far he has not played professionally. Bridgeplayer 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I draw the minimum line of notability for high school basketballers at the McDonald's All-Americans, and it'll be at least until next year before Tyreke can make that claim. A lot can happen to a prep sports star between now and then. Caknuck 00:19, 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 Nomination withdrawn -Obli (Talk)^? 01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Party[edit]

Nominated for Deletion Reason: I dont see any real notability to this article anymore due to that the party totally failed in the election. And no one does really know if they even exist anymore. And Linda Rosing is out of party as a leader and only a member.--Matrix17 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strangnet 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC) - even though they might not be active and their current media exposure is close to none and it's unsure whether they'll run in future elections the article still has historical value. Their existance in history can't be wiped away simply because they've ceased to exist.[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, participation of a party in an election should warrant enough notability. As a second choice, redirect it to Linda Rosing. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Linda Rosing. I can't speak for Swedish politics but here in the UK we have dozens of one-person parties standing in general elections most of which are profoundly non-notable. A redirect allows the minimal details to be found and the article can be recreated if it becomes notable in the future. Bridgeplayer 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: i guess its best to close the discussion now. and just let it be on.--Matrix17 13:30, 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. Avi 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Olin[edit]

Not notable → R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 102-year-old man who claims to be a WWI veteran, but for whom no proof has been offered, is not notable.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That would be stupid if his claim were to be proven in the near future, but the article was deleted meanwhile, Robert. Extremely sexy 17:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be hoax (see surviving veterans of World War I). I will change vote if a reference appears. -- TedFrank 13:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay: reference coming up in due course. Extremely sexy 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis of existing stub. However, if there's a verifiable source for the claim in his article, he's probably notable. --Dweller 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you change vote as well then? Extremely sexy 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, it is only the claim in the first sentence that stops this article from being speedy deleted. That claim is what needs to be cited. If it is, I and any other reasonable Wikipedian would vote Keep. Hope that's clear. --Dweller 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed so: if I were to find one, and I am looking for this. Extremely sexy 11:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources. Will reconsider if/when I see the reference. Bridgeplayer 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood: I am trying to fulfill this. Extremely sexy 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that this man claimed to be a WWI veteran, but no evidence has been produced, and, in fact, the claim is listed on the 'Surviving Veterans' page as UNVERIFIED.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, but I'm still trying to find a reference though. Extremely sexy 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're running out of time - AfDs don't last forever. --Dweller 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Damn: I'm working on it as fast as I can, but don't they (just joking)? Extremely sexy 15:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge of Qur'an[edit]

This article appears to exist only to promote Islam. Not encyclopediac content. Zazaban 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Zazaban 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. What a mess. Delete Cgingold 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Criticism of the Qur'an. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Criticism of the Qur'an (not sure if there is much), then redirect. Hut 8.5 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that thing isn't a criticism of the Qur'an, it is an attempt to prove Islam using common criticisms that are already in the Criticism of the Qur'an article. Zazaban 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, simply redirect. No deletion is required for that. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor article, possibly anti-muslim, or even just horribly biased.--Lostcause365 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. And am I the only one who thought of this when I saw the article title? JuJube 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of the Qur'an. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to merge Summary of this article: Muslims believe the Qur'an is the word of God; non-Muslims don't; non-Muslims are wrong. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:ATT. There is no content worth merging. --Folantin 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My sentiments exactly.

Delete per Folantin. --pIrish 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto Folantin. -- Big Brother 1984 20:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Clear unsourced propaganda garbage. It would be far easier to delete than to fix.--Sefringle 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NFT, Wikipedia is not for things dreamt up in propaganda class one day. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic and addled quote farm.Proabivouac 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible offensive, and even the title doesn't make much sense - "Challenge of Qu'ran" - delete asap. Thedreamdied 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for any action. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciudad Real Torre Solar[edit]

Ciudad Real Torre Solar is yet another attempt of promotion of the Solar Tower®. For an extensive discussion of this issue, see Talk:Solar updraft tower as well as Talk:Energy tower (downdraft). There have been numerous attempts to promote this technology on Wikipedia pages, apparently trying to influence public opinion to raise money, be it from public or private sources. Looking carefully over the published material one quickly finds out that the energy conversion efficiency of the Solar Tower is far lower than competing solar thermal energy technology, and that the Cost of Energy (cents/kWh) is likely to end up 5x higher than other alternative sources of energy. Now the Ciudad Real Torre Solar is being promoted, an apparent attempt to promote yet another version of the Solar Tower. The only source of information is a blog, AFAIK there are no concrete plans to built one, all there is is a "proposal". So until it is actually built, and in working order this should be considered "promotion", and does not belong in Wikipedia JdH 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to rein in the wikispammers, but this AfD nomination sounds dangerously like WP:OR to me. Objections to the cost or conversion efficiency have nothing to do with the notability of the tower in question. If the tower has been seriously proposed, and if it has been written about in reliable sources, it deserves an entry. This looks quite real to me; see e.g. [34] and [35]. These sources should probably be added, but I will leave that for someone more fluent. Keep. bikeable (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think keep the entries, but the current ones may need some serious fixup. Just because a topic is considered pseudoscience by some, or because a method of doing something is not the best(most efficient, most profitable) method of doing something, it does not mean it does not belong to wikipedia. On the contrary - the downsides and current consensus/dissent about the topic should be well presented, so that when one will leaves well informed after reading the wikipedia page on this topic, instead of empty handed (empty-brained?). I my personal opinion think the current pages need some serious balancing from the technical and financial difficulties side, in comparison with other technologies - same goes for the solar pond idea - but that does not mean an article has no place in wikipedia. Sometimes a bad article with lots of warnings is better than no article at all, at least for a start. Go back to the very early history on a lot of articles. Many started with 2 sentences, and were considered bad articles, but after about 3 years they often get nominated to front page. Keep. Sillybilly 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article devoted to the technology, see Solar updraft tower. There is no need to expand the present article to describe that technology; that would merely be duplicating what is (or should) be in the other article. The Ciudad Real Torre Solar is about a specific proposal to built on of these in Spain, but is lacking reliable sources to show that it will actually happen. JdH 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles talk only about a proposal, AFAIK there is no evidence that funding has been secured, and that actual progress towards its construction is being made. In view of the track record of EnviroMission about proposed Solar Towers that have never been built I don't believe this one either until I actual see it. JdH 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-existent and non-notable, as evidenced by the lack of any independent coverage from reliable sources. Valrith 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely on the grounds that it has not yet been built. It almost certainly will be N if they ever do build it. A great many projects get approved that never get actually built. Not just theirs'. DGG 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This stub appears to have been created as part of a commendable project to create articles from all the entries in a website (cited in the external links section) listing the tallest buildings, both proposed and actual. The proposal appears to be encyclopedic to me... People are likely to come here looking for it, even (perhaps especially) if it goes the way of Solar Tower Buronga. We have articles on many proposals that are unlikely to ever be built, see Category:proposed engine designs. Andrewa 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a valid reason for having a separate entry: Wikipedia is not a directory; people can always turn to Google or other search engines if they want to find something on the internet. JdH 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, being pseudoscience (or considered as such) is not a reason to delete - it can be nonsense, as long as it's notable nonsense. However, I don't believe non-English language news stories make something notable, and that's the closest it's got to sources. Even if they were English I'd be inclined to suspect that the writers were simply repeating something they heard from a company representative. (That's based on a Google translation - it's hard to tell from a machine translation, but it didn't look like more than regurgitation of company claims). It probably deserves to be deleted, but moderation is good, and a more moderate approach is to Keep and merge with Solar updraft tower. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept Merge and redirect with Solar updraft tower JdH 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I don't think we need Babel Fish to tell us what Parece de ciencia ficción means...! No change of vote. Andrewa 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't? I do! I speak no Spanish. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nor do I. But say ciencia ficción with a put-on Spanish accent (pretend the single "c" is an "s" and the double "c" is an "x") and ask another English speaker what you've said and I think it will come close... (;-> Andrewa 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Spanish-language sources non-trivially cover the subject, establishing the notability of the subject. I am shocked by the claim that "non-English language news stories" cannot make something notable! Are news reports written by Spaniards or Latin Americans somehow inferior to reports written by Anglophones? I realise this racist/nationalist sentiment is not what Chriswaterguy intended, but there's really no reason why a source in one language is inherently inferior to a source in another. Merging the limited content of this article into solar updraft tower may be justified, but is an editorial matter for the talk page. -- Black Falcon 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pray tell me: If this Spanish language news story were all that notable then why did not a single English language news source bother to report it? I also checked Dutch, German, and French language news sources, and they didn't report it either.
For the record: Chriswaterguy said the following: "... it didn't look like more than regurgitation of company claims" JdH 06:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't news sources in other languages report it? I don't know but that question is irrelevant. I'm sure news sources in Kinyarwanda or Wolof also didn't report the story ... A language is a language. What is relevant is that at least two independent sources have non-trivially reported on the subject (and "looking like" a "regurgitation of company claims"--a disputable claim--is not the same as being a press release). -- Black Falcon 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge/redirect to Solar updraft tower if better sources can be found. --DeLarge 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No reason has been presented to suspect that these sources are not reliable (they are as far as I can tell) except that they are in Spanish. In any case, I have formatted them as references and incorporated them into the article (slightly expanded). -- Black Falcon 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is a section in Solar updraft tower on a proposed tower in Australia. This article should be merged into that section as another example of a proposed tower. SkipSmith 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely the Solar Tower Buronga will ever be built, since EnviroMission did not get the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) grant from the Australian government. Perhaps we should change the header of that section to "Proposed but never realized Solar Towers". JdH 18:39, 26 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War Multiplayer[edit]

WP:NOT - WP is not a game guide The content is strictly stuff one would find in a GameFAQ or similar manual, regardless of the quality of writing. The technical information about Gears of War multiplayer is already covered in the main article Gears of War Masem 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gears of War, but no info needs to be merged. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki somewhere. This is good info, useful, pretty well-written, and should be preserved somewhere. WP isn't the place for gameplay guides though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is worth keeping. Most of this is gameguide material though, so that should be Deleted.DreamingLady 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge encyclopedic content, then transwiki. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree that this is well written (at least for any kind of encyclopedia); the lead is very POV, there are parts written in the first person (!), and it is obviously a how-to. I think it can be redirected to Gears of War without any merging. — brighterorange (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't really see any encyclopedic info here that won't already be in the main article. I've kept a copy at StrategyWiki:Gears of War/Multiplayer. Garrett^Talk 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No encyclopedic information in this one. Straight-out game guide. --Scottie_theNerd 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There might be a need for a separate article on multiplayer modes in some video games, but there is nothing salvageable here. Wickethewok 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a game guide. Cynical 22:31, 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 deleted (A7) by ChrisGriswold. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Card (Businessman)[edit]

This article meets no notability criteria and cites no sources HokieRNB 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable businessman. Serving on the board of non-notable professional organizations doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Caknuck 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Article doesn't even make any claims of notability. Mwelch 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck. Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 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 Speedy redirect to Meta noise. The article was obviously intended to be a duplicate but should be a redirection. - Richard Cavell 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta noise (Metadata recording)[edit]

Duplicate of Meta noise greenrd 14:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as duplicate article. FiggyBee 19:01, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Hayes[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Nearly 100 films, three independent, reliable sources. This is an article on a celebrity, not a vanity page. Clearly passes WP:BIO. Dekkappai 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PORNBIO Q2 (more than 75 films) as well as VC4 (prolific in a specific subgenre - in this case, Ebony, based upon her filmography) LaMenta3 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets pornbio standards. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above, meets both WP:BIO and porn bio guidelines. RFerreira 03:51, 25 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 super speedy snowball barbecue keep. Picaroon 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeley Hazell[edit]

Delete This article does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia. In addition, the link to the Keeley Hazell unofficial website may be used to solicite visits or income from users of the Wikipedia. Remember, the idea of the AfD process is to build consensus. So, support this deletion nomination, or vote to overturn, but do so with style and grace. Bluestripe 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I removed the prod tag that the nominator put on the page. She is known not only in the UK but also the U.S. for her modelling. Not only has she appeared in The Sun in the UK but also in the U.S. edition of Playboy. Granted, it was only one photo and a small bit of text but it demonstrates that she is internationally known. The modelling section of the article shows why she is notable. The polls and honours section just nails the lid on the case. Dismas|^(talk) 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Clearly notable. Not a very good article, but that's not grounds for deletion. --Dweller 15:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dweller and Dismas. Pablothegreat85 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very notable. Lack of content can be rectified by someone writing new material. 23skidoo 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Keeley Hazell is very notable. Acalamari 20:33, 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 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lithician Empire[edit]

There are no Google hits for the subject of the article or for any of the people named in it. The article is incoherent - e.g. the last section has warriors marching into Gaul (France) in order to attack Carthage (Africa). There are no references. andy 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Patent nonsense. This is just a hoax. --Folantin 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Hut 8.5 17:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. --Haemo 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Hawkestone 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense sounds about right to me. RFerreira 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was going to mark it as nonsense originally but then I read the policy on hoaxing and got nervous. Maybe France really is part of Africa... andy 07:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tagged it as ((db-nonsense)). andy 17:12, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AaNet[edit]

Article has no independent source and fails to source its statements. and per Jimbo no text is better than having unsourced Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems a little WP:POINT to put an article up for deletion solely because it doesn't have any independent references, especially when the article contains no bold or controversial claims (even a little detective work will confirm that aaNet at least exists). FiggyBee 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. PCock 11:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. "An internet provider in Queensland" is not an assertion of notability. Αργυριου (talk) 22:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Funny Moments[edit]

Article has no independent source and fails to source its statements. and per Jimbo no text is better than having unsourced Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable. PCock 11:53, 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 speedy keep with an indef block on the side. auburnpilot talk 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii[edit]

This console is a joke. It does not deserve its own article. Not only is the article flawed in every way, but Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are the main sellers, not this $250 wannabe console. It’s also a vanity article created by Nintendo for the most part. --Brokendownhondaaccord 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously. Maxamegalon2000 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. - Claims of "a vanity article created by Nintendo", and being "non notable" were made without supporting evidence relating to actual policies or guidelines. The phrasing of the nomination indicates that the nomination was made maliciously. Dancter 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If you think that the Wii doesn't deserve a wiki based off your "wannabe" status, then why aren't you nominating the 3DO, CD-i, Neo Geo, Virtual Boy, and N-Gage wikis for deletion? Fanboy-ism aside, you could at least give us a list of things you find flawed with the current wiki if you really want legitamite discussion? MisterCQNZR 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a bad faith nomination from a user whose only edits are vandalism and bad faith AfD's. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Ahahahahah! So let me get this straight. A Featured Article is non-notable? A console that has sold, not shipped, over 5 million units is non-notable? You sir fail at life. And the fact that all your previous edits have been stupid AfD nominations and vandalism just adds weight to the case against you and against deleting the article. Ixistant 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and an indef for the nominator. Bad faith nomination. He's obviously not here to help in any way. --Onorem 16:00, 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 Speedy Delete - CSD G10 Attack page. Avi 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yudelism[edit]

No sources provided. No notability outside of yudelkrinsky.com established. "Yudelism" returns only a single result on google. Article deleted twice earlier today as nonsense and non-notable. Onorem 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Alf^Photoman 17:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube 04:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources establishing notability despite attempts to find them on Talk:Yudelism. Weregerbil 09:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete a7 non notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:21, 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 - the authors have gone to considerable effort to address the problem of lack of reliable sources, and the article as it stands now is quite different from the ones that were deleted previously. The present article still has problems with conflict of interest and so on, but if it is to be deleted it needs to be given another run at AfD. - Richard Cavell 04:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum-Touch[edit]

Article at this title deleted in 2005 via an AFD. Subsequent deletions at this title via PROD (1x) and WP:CSD#G11 (2x). When salting was removed, an article was created in less than 48 hours by a user that may have a conflict of interest. Article speedily deleted, but deletion review felt that since the number of google hits has grown by at least an order of magnitude since the 2005 AFD, there might be independent reliable sources from which to build an article. So it is here for consideration. This is a procedural nomination on my part, I offer no opinion on what to do. If deleted again, I think salting again will be needed. GRBerry 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Weak consensus to overturn the deletion mainly on the argument that new Ghits establish WP:N. Nevertheless the first several pages of hits seem to be all self-referential or from blogs, and none from reliable secondary sources. Given the author's COI issues and propensity to recreate I agree with the protection as well. When it can be demonstrated that this can pass WP:ATT and not just WP:N then perhaps the protection can be removed but not now. Arkyan 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you that there is no COI as I am not employed by the organization in any way. As for "propensity to recreate", please note that this is my first ever Wikipedia article. I'm seriously hoping that we can find agreement to fix what is wrong with the article rather than delete it. I realize that the page itself has had a rather rocky history. I wish to avoid a repeat of that, as trouble with an article wastes everybody's time. Trane Francks 22:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize if I came across a little harshly, I suppose it was just unfortunate coincidence that the article was re-created by you when it was. As far as wishing to 'fix' the article rather than just get rid of it, it would be possible assuming that WP:ATT can be satisfied. There may be a lot of Google hits for the term, which would establish that "Quantum-Touch" exists, but our attribution policy requires reliable secondary sources for our articles. That means discussion in published medical journals, newspaper articles, or otherwise well-known, peer-reviewed sources. Primary sources - those that are in some way intimately related to the subject at hand - can't be used for information until after attribution is satisfied.
    If you have some information that would meet those requirements than by all means share, and I would be happy to change my mind and support keeping the article. As I stated I did a quick search of my own and could not find any reliable sources for attribution. That does not mean they don't exist, but it means they are not readily available. While it might sound lazy on our part, the burden of proof in finding these sources lies with the contributors, and it becomes your duty to find them. But like I said - if you've got them please let us know. Arkyan 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the reply. I'll do my very best to flesh out the article in accordance with WP:ATT before this discussion times out. Trane Francks 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to let you know, I've added information regarding Continuing Education credits being given to RNs and CMTs who take Quantum-Touch classes. This can be fleshed further, I believe. Trane Francks 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that the way that the article will be kept is with published third-party sources and that the article should be covered or nearly covered by them. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I appreciate the help here. I'll do what I can to whip it into shape. Thank you. Trane Francks 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original deleting administrator, it's the most blatant advertisement I've ever seen. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- at least the silliest.DGG 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the most sourced at this rate. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the help of some great people from the QT message boards, we have been able to stir up secondary sources to help muster up some highly-needed attribution. The sources are found, now it's a matter of utilizing them completely into the actual article. How much time do we have until the article runs out of time to pass wikipedia policies? Antranik 08:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs should run for at least five days from the nomination (timestamp above). Any time after that is a matter of luck while the various interested administrators close discussions that they feel comfortable with. Discussions that are short and/or close to unanimous tend to close faster than those with disagreement or extreme length.

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the guideline on sources considered reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for the guideline on how to cite those sources. GRBerry 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GrBerry, that was exactly the info I neeeded.Antranik 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have the article reviewed in its current state to see whether issues still remain that require fixing? Once again, I'd really like to extend my thanks for the help. Trane Francks 02:33, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Alethea Tabor[edit]

Non-notable academic; I considered marking this CSD for no assertion of notability, but for clarity I am bringing it here. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Boyle. Delete. bikeable (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the discussion that you yourself make mention of. I feel that this academic should be kept for the same reasons but I shall restate them here. All academics with a PhD will have done a unique piece of novel work. If this is not a reason for being notable I have no idea what is. The reason for being a notable academic is currently a hot topic of discussion and so cannot be relied on for reasons to be deleted. Rather if we look at the general guidelines we find that:
"Creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. The person has received notable awards or honors. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance."

So from this we can see that the academic is notable as they firstly are an academic and secondly they are seen as one of the leaders the field of lantibiotics (lanthionine based drugs). As such they surely must be considered to be important in their own field and to have created a well-known body of work that is both peer reviewed and cited.
So as you said yourself non-notable academic - I feel that here you are displaying your own ignorance and disqualifying yourself from being able to judge these academics.
We can apply this arguement independently to the majority of academics in the world today, each in their own research area will have a specialisation in which they are one of the leading figures. They may not shout their names from the rooftops but they do not need to as they shine forth with their ideas and techniques rather than their brash and vulgar claims, like the majority of popstars and celebrities. So give credit where credit is due and let us get the names of academics out there into the wider world, they will be the ones changing the world and making the future. Alex Jones - Synthesis for all 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm for academics. I think that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is a perfectly reasonable guideline (it's hardly a "hot topic of discussion") and both of these fine people would seem not to meet those criteria. Not all peer-reviewed research is notable. Saying that these academics are not notable is not a slur. I have done a fair bit of research myself, but neither I nor my work deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. I think we simply have a difference of opinion about this. bikeable (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~and tagged as such~~. Clear failure of WP:PROF. No secondary sources attesting to notability. Bridgeplayer 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of passingWP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please refer to the results of a search at Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=AB+Tabor&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search In general, it makes sense for anyone nominating an academic's article for deletion to go a Google Scholar search and discuss the results in the AfD nomination. --Eastmain 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, her ISI SCI h-index is a very modest 9. Pete.Hurd 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Here's a more focused version of the search proposed by Eastmain. It looks like she's a productive academic but her pub record hasn't made a wide impact yet, if one can judge her field by GS results. Pete Hurd's ISI numbers indicate the same thing. —David Eppstein 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I somewhat distrust the use of the h-index in general, because it is heavily biased towards authors producing a large number of papers rather than a few exceptional ones. So, examining the details in Web of Science, as I would do in evaluating a list of publications in the real world, there are 39 papers by AN Tabor, the most cited papers of heres have been cited 95, 58, 27, 18, 11, 11, 11, 9, times. This sounds impressive, but A/ the most cited work is from her postdoc, B/ the 2nd is a review article. On the one hand, review articles always get large numbers of citations, but then nobody is asked to write one unless reasonably well known. C/much of her work ins in synthetic organic chemistry, where it is customary to publish a number of small papers. (I've copied the results onto my userspace in case it gets deleted).

I conclude more or less the same as Peter and David, that the use of the h-index in this case does give a reasonable result. I consider it somewhat on the side of notable because of the review paper (in Tetrahedron, one of the very best Organic chemistry journals) , but it is borderline.

The rough rule of thumb used here frequently, that Assistant Professors (and their equivalents) are rarely notable, because they generally have not had time to establish themselves, also gives the same result. (On the other hand, a full professor has passed several very stringent reviews for notability by her true peers in her academic field,and all we need do is record the fact.)

comment I however note that speedy is only for use in incontestable cases of lack of notability (e.g. a beginning graduate student). An academic with published work or a permanent position--which always implies published work--is always worth the looking at. I commend Bikeable for realizing that. Probably if one is really skeptical a WP:PROD is more reasonable, because the 5 day period avoids the chance of a worthwhile article getting deleted without anyone noticing. And another test that does not make sense to me is that someone has to be more notable than oneself. I've seen that argument used here by distinguished professors who think that only the top prize-winners in the field are worth mentioning. There actually are many over-modest academics)DGG 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given above by DGG. However, I would point out that "Reader" in a UK University is not equivalent to Assistant Professor in the US in any sense. It is equivalent to someone recently promoted to Full Professor, but not to a named or distinguished chair. It is awarded on the basis of research and is on the same pay scale as Senior Lecturer (SL). At one time, there was a limit of the number of SLs or above in a university to 30% of the total of all academic staff. "Lecturer" was considered the career grade and many people retired as Lecturers. I am not sure whether that has changed. --Bduke 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who's-who entry without assertion of encyclopedic notability. Academics are not notable ex officio, and no evidence that Dr Tabor stands out among her peers has been offered. Not, from what I can tell, a PI or chair. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undoubtedly a productive academic but writing papers is a normal part of her day job. No secondary sources saying that she has any particular notability nor endorsing any of her papers as outstanding. It should be noted that there has been a huge expansion in the number of universities in the UK in recent years and consequently the Chairs available; every technical college is now a university so someone who is not a full professor has work to do to demonstrate notability and she hasn't. BlueValour 15:50, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Turner (wrestling)[edit]

Non-notable wrestling referee. Non-notable as a former wrestler. Just non-notable. (I believe the speedy was improperly removed, as there's still no claim of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. - Richard Cavell 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm guessing the ECWA Hall of Fame induction is the claim to notability. However, it's really tenuous. ECWA's reputation rests largely on the fact that some participants in their Super 8 tournament have gone on to be fairly successful (in indie wrestling terms), but I don't think that implies that any of their referees are necessarily notable. — Gwalla | Talk 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only a few wrestling referees I would class as meriting an article on notability grounds. Mr Turner is not one of them. ECWA is a respected company but on a minor level and I can't see that its HoF gives Mr Turner notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. Suriel1981 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Govvy 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in that case. I can see some valid points. Sorry, still new to this Wiki stuff ;) Goodolgm 17:12, 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak [36]. Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Law[edit]

No shit, Sherlock. Deprodded. Weregerbil 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a bunch of nonsense. Probably a new user just experimenting. Arkyan 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, patent nonsense Alf^Photoman 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS FiggyBee 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man glue[edit]

NN band. The article asserts two "number one hits" in Japan, so I suppose it just barely dodges CSD:A7. Somehow I get a feeling that a Google for "Man glue" will turn up material that's somewhat unrelated to this article. Action Jackson IV 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious hoax, also tagged as such. Google results are consistent with the nom's expectations of course. — Krimpet (talk/review) 17:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching Google with the title and the song name listed in the article, zero Google hits [37]. Thus, hoax or not, this is unattributed and unattributable checking easy resources, with the editor's burden of sourcing ever present.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATT. -- Satori Son 19:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything in Japanese Wikipedia Fg2 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. MightyAtom 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fuhghettaboutit. --Anthony5429 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagr[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Low Alexa rank Computerjoe 's talk 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under a7. If an assertion of notability can be made out—I don't see one—then delete for failure to meet WP:WEB, coupled with lack of attribution.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisment for a non-notable online service. Fails WP:RS, WP:WEB and WP:COI. (One of the principal author is Cpoelker (talk · contribs), a single purpose account that is ID'ed as "Cole Poelker" on the page for the uploaded image. One of the primary posters to the Flagr developer blog is "Cole".) Caknuck 22:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of roundabouts in North America[edit]

This list has significant potential to become EXTREMELY bloated. Some states and provinces have hundreds of roundabouts, perhaps even pushing 1000 or more. Considering the frequency of roundabouts throughout North America, I do not see how they are notable enough to all be listed here. Locational references would be needed for every location to prove whether or not it is indeed a roundabout, rotary, circle, or any other variety of circular intersections. In short: it is a long, steep slippery slope. Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete practically unmaintainable list that isn't going to be of any use to anyone. If we have any notable roundabouts then create a category for them. Hut 8.5 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, in YHO, what makes a roundabout "notable" ? What would be your view were this article renamed "List of Notable Simon Cursitor " ? -- Simon Cursitor 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles, such as the "magic roundabouts" of Swindon and Hemel Hempstead, are notable for their design -- which is currently a relatively rare configuration. I would still suspect a list of "notable" roundabouts to be risky, as defining notability could be particularly difficult. Some may say that a grade-separated crossing of an alternate mode through the roundabout's right-of-way would make it notable -- some may agree; some may disagree. I could see a category of notable roundabouts, perhaps, as that shifts the notability criteria to a per-article basis and does not provide a forum for an overabundance of information. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely indiscriminate, as roundabouts are a standard feature of traffic engineering. — Krimpet (talk/review) 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the roundabouts are for US 20 "somewhere in Indiana". Memory serves right, US 20 is RIFE with the things. Let's also not forget the Long Beach Traffic Circle, old town Orange, California's plaza (which employs - that's right! A roundabout!), and a series of roundabouts scattered throughout some residential areas of Yorba Linda, California. Just one problem - the ones in YL aren't notable (they're just there and I even played on one as a child), and...well, it's just better handled by a category. See WP:LIST. --Dennisthe2 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are at least a half dozen roundabouts/traffic circles in Davis, California and at least a half dozen more in U.C. Davis, by extrapolation there are perhaps a few hundred thousand of these in North America. Too many to list. Carlossuarez46 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow. This list will only grow. How about we start a list for every diamond interchange in North America? :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete California has many roundabouts; the town called Patterson (population about 18,000) has at least three alone. Places like Los Angeles have even more. This article will likely become very long. Acalamari 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the above. But made me smile Madmedea 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless list. Punkmorten 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a serious case of undercategorization. We don't do lists of non-notable things (even our List of people is restricted to those who have articles - the notability thing is taken as given). Highly ephemeral. Chris cheese whine 11:04, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristján Arason[edit]

Non-notable Icelandic athlete. One-liner article does not assert notability, google hits result in occasional box scores, copies of the wikipedia pages, or aside mentions in his more famous wife's bio. Tarc 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Meets WP:BIO as an Olympian. FiggyBee 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Been open for two months and this is all? Let's expand this... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article should be expanded, and for now, listed as a stub. Acalamari 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Arason was not on the team's roster for the 2007 or 2005 world championships, nor the 2004 Olympics. However, if he was born in 1961 (per his wife's article), he likely would have retired prior these events. No article on him in the Icelandic WP. There is adequate assertion of notability, so we should keep it as is pending verification. Caknuck 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Olympics, according to Iceland at the 1992 Summer Olympics anyway. FiggyBee 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments above. RFerreira 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Icelandic Wikipedians' notice board notified. Pavel Vozenilek 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see where this person meets the "has competed in the highest level of amateur sports" criteria of WP:BIO, but is that in itself enough, or should it also have to meet the "secondary sources" criteria? I still haven't found a single reference about him, other than a passing reference. Tarc 13:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAM SERINSKY[edit]

Article does not specify notability under WP:MUSIC, at least not in any way I can find on the web. Placed a notability tag, which was deleted without significant additions to the page. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD G4. Article deleted as a result of a previous AfD here. Caknuck 19:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though the article's subject could be notable in the future. Acalamari 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkies in popular culture[edit]

A typically indiscriminate "in popular culture" spinoff article. It is not of encyclopedic value to note that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer references Twinkies several times throughout its run," or that "in an episode of LOST the character Hurley wonders if an endless supply of twinkies are inside of a mysterious hatch." — Krimpet (talk/review) 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'In popular culture' articles need to die - if any of the information therein is actually encyclopaedic, merge it to the appropriate article. FiggyBee 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, plus the article is full of unreferenced garbage (e.g. Twinkies are not cooked). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and large number of precedents against garbage dump "in populr culture" articles. Otto4711 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am surprised that one of the best known popular culture reference to Twinkies, the ad campaign that had Marvel Comics and DC superheroes using Twinkies to distract their foes, is only alluded to briefly, mostly by referring to Seanbaby's site. I think a regrettable precedent has been set for these sorts of articles, but once it exists it should be applied evenhandedly. Delete and merge back any material of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about Twinkies in popular culture is not needed. Acalamari 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally indisciminate Croxley 01:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Neutral~~ - I dislike this article intensely, even though I created it, but it HAS been an effective way of keeping this crap out of the main Twinkie article. It is only linked from that article, which is either good, because it means only the obsessed are seeing it, or it's bad, as further evidence of the total lack of notability of this subject. — Catherine\^talk 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike Orangutans, pigs and pterodactyls (which are also under the deletion gun) Twinkies are patented and it is entirely possible (personally, I think probable) that the company that makes them pays to have them inserted into movies and television episodes. It's a common practice, and there's a name for it (I just can't remember the name). Almost every (or maybe every) reference here was to movies or TV. I find that suspicious. I think we should look harder at "[blank] in popular culture" items when "[blank]" is a patented product. Noroton 05:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if we delete, Catherine, you can keep down any cultural references that pop up in the main article by demanding that any new items in a "Twinkies in popular culture" section be properly referenced. Stick one of those notices in just under the section title. Hardly anybody who sticks in these items seems able to reference them. You might get overruled by consensus, but I doubt it. And no, it's not a perfect solution, but nothing else is either.Noroton 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product placement, you mean? Yes, I'd agree on that poing. And yes, I agree on requiring references being the best solution, having reread Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles (which has evolved a fair bit since I last read it) and been convinced by the recommendations there. — Catherine\^talk 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The solution is to keep this article clean, not to allow the main text to deteriorate again. While I fully understand everyone's distaste to ".. in popular culture" texts they work rather well to keep the body of main article on topic and maintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, spinning off trivia sections only serves to make the problem worse, by allowing the trivia to accumulate to the point where it gets unmanageable, and making it harder to integrate relevant info into the main article. — Krimpet (talk/review) 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for as the original poster points out, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Strong agreement with previously iterated comments regarding "in popular culture" articles. — Whedonette (ping) 21:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of carbon offset providers[edit]

This article is just a list of external links to organizations (both commercial and non-profit.) I think this is outside the scope of what Wikipedia is meant to be. There are other, better places for a web directory such as this. Apparently, this list has been prodded/deleted/restored. I think an AFD to gauge consensus on this article is warranted. Deli nk 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. Not only is this site a raw mass of links, but also several of the alleged not-for-profit sites are commercial ones (such as Climate Care) or rather dubious in nature. Malljaja 18:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: WP:NOT#DIR. FiggyBee 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may look like a jumble, but it was actually requested, and it's growing a lot and may soon evolve into a fullworthy article. In fact, external websites have linked to it for the overview it gives of providers. Second, it keeps offset providers from adding endlessly to the external links in the Carbon offset article. Jens Nielsen 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
was Keep now Delete Although it may not be strictly in accordance with WP:NOT#LINK (Rather than WP:NOT#DIR suggested above), whilst the subject carbon offset is particularly topical, this page may well provide a useful service in keeping these links from the main article. It would however benefit from more a detailed classification system. Lynbarn 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) - Having looked at this again, I can see the problems in maintaining such a list in any meaningful way, and the spam magnet argument. Let it go. Regards, Lynbarn 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BHTT: as far as I'm concerned, if they don't belong in the main article, they don't belong in a spin-off either. If any of these companies are actually notable, perhaps a category might be more appropriate than a list; the list is not and cannot be complete, and is just a spam-magnet. FiggyBee 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory Croxley 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no question that this article violates guidelines, as noted above, about what Wikipedia is not. If an article like this is going to be kept, the encyclopedia's mission will have to be changed. PCock 11:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is also very volatile list and thus next to impossible to maintain. Pavel Vozenilek 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is a sundry assembly of different providers many of which are simply companies trying to sell a product (an "offset")--in its present form it's bound to grow uncontrollably and become an advertising platform as more and more business-savvy people will enter this fast-growing rogue market. Non-profit companies, as they are far and between, can easily be accommodated on the relevant sites, such as carbon offset. Malljaja 11:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dvdremaster[edit]

Appears to be non-notable software product. First few pages of Google hits mainly appear to be directory-type listings or ads. fchd 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seicer. Acalamari 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Springnuts 22:16, 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 merge and redirect to parent articles. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Liberals of Canada (Manitoba), Nova Scotia Young New Democrats, Ontario New Democratic Youth[edit]

None of these organizations are notable, and fail WP:ORG. Merge with parent articles and delete. GreenJoe 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete all: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent articles (e.g. Nova Scotia New Democratic Party). No evidence of independent sources to establish separate notability for these organisations. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking more that it should be mered into Young Liberals of Canada and Young New Democrats. GreenJoe 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per GreenJoe. Analogous to student organizations (albeit on a larger scale), which rarely pass the notability test. Caknuck 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete all No refs no evidence of notability. NBeale 06:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GB3LH[edit]

Article does not appear to be notable, it is also an orphan. An article concerning the Shrewsbury Radio Amateur Club might be notable enough, and could include this info, but this appears too weak on its own. - Davandron | Talk 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - amateur radio isn't inherently notable, and there are no references to demonstrate multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:N. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are other places for lists of radio repeaters. Call signs, frequencies, etc., are transient and don't have historacle notability. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disbelievers[edit]

This is kind of a dictionary definition. Also, it would be covered in the other articles on specific religions. Also, does it need to be said that to people who believe in something (anything) that people that do no believe as they do are disbelievers? Looks like a POV nightmare waiting to happen.Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they have to call them "people who believe in something else". If I say I am not a christian or a jew of a muslim how can they then know that there is nothing else where I believe in. If the bible of quoran speaks about "disbelievers" then they have not the right to call me a "disbeliever" ! They have to keep me out of their ridiculous and dangerous doctrines. If I should me calling "disbeliever" why then not "person who will burns after his death in hell for eternity" !

If they have, if not calling me a disbeliever, to throw there religion onto the scrapheap is their problem. Not mine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comment pretty much proves my point.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WINAD. This article is no more than a dicdef, not to mention unsourced and poorly written. Nor is it even the normal word used in this context; "unbeliever" is the more frequent usage. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this could be a good entry for wikipedia but at present its more similar to dictionary entry instead of encyclopedia one.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sa.vakilian. --pIrish 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete too vague and too short, though a good article could later be written on this topic.--Sefringle 04:15, 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 keep.--Wizardman 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails to pass WP:ATT: No RS/Valid sources to be found in article/from Googling about; WP:N: not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources; WP:RS: see what I wrote about the ATT sourcing--there is none. was nominated once here in mid-2006 and kept but none of the keepers said why in policy it should be kept. The person has apparently also asked for their article to be removed, and they are simply non-notable per our policies/guidelines. Previous Keep/AFD appeared to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT kept which isn't appropriate. Delete as non-notable. - Denny 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my own nomination, changing to Keep for myself. Subject's notability to me is now proven, good research guys! - Denny 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Archimedes Plutonium page from Wikipedia because the way Wiki is set up, novice editors who are untrained in logic and reason and objectivity and which allows a flood of demonizers to edit any page in Wikipedia spells only frustration to those serious about science and knowledge. Wikipedia stands at the opposite side of the spectrum-of-encyclopedia compared to when James Clerk Maxwell was the editor of Britannica encyclopedia in the 19th century. The sum total of quality-of-knowledge that the Wikipedia encycl gives is less than or equal to the sum of the intelligence of its combined-editors and that sum is a low-class sum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) - 19:51, March 19, 2007
- Comment Man, Archie, that's really a tough hurdle you're setting up there.. that Britannica, really had a lot of luminaries writing for it. I guess they just don't make things like they used to. Not even the current Britannica. Hey and Wikipedia? We can't even use it as toilet paper!--CSTAR 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, for that is just the way Wiki is set up. That it cannot do a good job of objectivity or of science entries. The mind set of most Wiki editors is one of a friday night drunk fraternity party. Most of the kooks of the alt newsgroup have turned into being crappy Wiki editors. These sort of editors would be terrific if all Wikipedia did only Hollywood airheads, but when it comes to doing factual or scientific, Wiki looks like some grocery store tabloid. If Wiki were around when Copernicus or Galileo or Darwin came out with their science, you would have the same buffoon squad of editors that would only frustrated Copernicus, Galileo or Darwin. Wiki is contructed by mocking juvenile delinquents as editors. Take a look at Wiki's page of Archimedes Plutonium, for a reasonable person would see that he is given a page because of the Atom Totality theory, so explain this theory in the first three or four sentences, but for the past decade of the Wiki entry everything about eating candy and fruit and what clothing the bloke wears and trying to tie Plutonium to a murder case, everything but his original idea. So who needs a Wiki entry when the entire Wikipedia is mostly a piece of junk.
    When the Dalai Lama wrote a book in 2006 as "Universe in a Single Atom" where was the Wikipedia goon squad of editors mocking the Dalai Lama, yet when Archimedes Plutonium discovered the idea some 16 years earlier, the Wikipedia goon squad is falling all over themselves to mock and harrass AP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31
  - Comment because Wikipedia is not good enough for any science entries, for it is loaded with immature brats and editors who lack the logic and reasoning and objectivity. Brats who have not even grown up enough to not play trick and pranks. Any scientist who has a Wiki page is worse off than if he/she did not because of the tons of misinformation and the immature mentality of its editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31

Comment This AfD appears to have been solicited by the subject of the article (Superdeterminism (talk · contribs)). FiggyBee 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He got me to look at it, after I apparently RV'd one of his edits doing RC patrol this afternoon... when I googled him, however, and tried to look him up, it appeared he was non-notable, so I nominated for deletion. - Denny 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AP gets 21000 google hits. I don't know if that counts as notability but it sure indicates existence and interest. The fact that the subject has requested removal of the page was irrelevant in other AfDs. In my opinion one of CSTAR's later edits is a good fair description of the subject. Usenet is hard to document in dead trees for obvious reasons. Greglocock 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are RS sources about other internet 'legends', but the problem is this person simply fails our standards for notability. Can you address my points above? thank you. - Denny 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Google shows <400 hits, if you follow the search to the end, not 24000. - Denny 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, interesting on the google hits, how do you find the real number? OK the problem is that his posts on usenet are primary sources, as such "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about" So, it seems to me that edits based on searches in google groups would be an acceptable source for a usenet phenomenon. Greglocock 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the real Google count, just go to the last page of results--then again, and again, until you can't descend further. That will show you what Google actually has on a search string... for the sources, however, Usenet is typically not valid per WP:ATT & WP:RS, correct? - Denny 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - For comparison, my (real) name gets about 400 hits on Google. That puts me in the same Google fame league as AP, and I don't consider myself famous or unusual enough to warrant my own Wikipedia article. — Loadmaster 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. Well on that basis I get 814 results for "Jimmy Wales", so AP is half as googly as JW, and 6 times more googly than myself, or Loadmaster (incidentally is your name unique?). I don't know if googliness=notability, but it sure is /a/ measure of something related. I really don't see how you can discount Usenet as a source for Usenet related articles. Greglocock 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        the quality of the source counts as well, and forum and/or posts never count for anything as they are completely unreliable... the sheer number of Google hits is also a supporting criteria, not a main. I.e., the phrase/some guy named "Hipocrates Uranium" might appear 50,000 times in Google, but that doesn't make them article-worthy by itself. Please double check WP:N and WP:ATT. that decides what stays and goes. - Denny 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment because the above who said Keep is an editor and what Denny displays is typical of Wiki editors because when I google Archimedes Plutonium I get 41,000 hits. So if Wiki editors typically cannot even tell the factual truth, then no scientist would want to have a Wiki page. When Denny cannot even say the truth of 41,000, then he is hopeless when it comes to reading Atom Totality or Fusion Barrier Principle or Unification of Forces as a Coulomb Unification. I mean, Denny would be good in writing an entry for some HollyWood airhead who wants constant attention but to people serious about science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31

~~Delete~~: The only things notable about this person mentioned in the article are his email responses to Andrew Wiles, and his Plutonium Atom Totality Theory. The former is not enough to qualify for an entry in Wikipedia; the later is just a crank theory, which is at best original research and at worst completely ignorable. A previous reason for keeping the page was his unusual name, which could easily be handled by a one-line entry at List of unusual personal names. — Loadmaster 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm changing my vote on the grounds that he may be noteworthy enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia, but then again he may not. What I said in the preceding paragraph still stands, i.e., that he is really only noteworthy because of his limited Usenet fame. He certainly does not deserve an article merely to promote his crank theory.

— As to his comments about Google hits, Google shows that there are 23,500 hits. But as has been pointed out several times here already, there are only 454 actual URLs, and almost all of them have nothing noteworthy to say. That's about the same number as there are for my real name, most of which reference a handful of articles I've have on my personal web page, and that's not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about me.

— AP's insistence on an "articles of permanent barring" policy, is, of course, ludicrous. One personal cannot, and does not, dictate what is or is not worthy of inclusion in a public encyclopedia. And he can't possibly expect written history to vanish simply because he'd like to forget some of the more unpleasant things in the past.

— His claims of historical ideas to support his theory (which in fact, they do not) has no bearing on the article, for the simple reason that the article is about him the person and cannot be about his theory. His crank theory is mentioned only in order to establish the basis of the controversies surrounding it. As much as he'd like the world to hear his beliefs, WP is certainly not the place for them to do so.

— His personal attacks on "would-be editors" don't help his case either way. In fact, they only serve to prove the allegations of his Internet notoriety. Obviously, his comments should hold no sway at all concerning the status of the article.

— In the end, the article is essentially only about what a controversial person he is. I am undecided about whether that's enough for a WP article or not.

— Loadmaster 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No reliable sources exist to establish notability. The glancing reference in the Discover article isn't enough. For this to be kept, he'd have to be a notable crank, which means that we need reliable sources established that he is more notable than, say, James Harris, who has no WP page. There are many cranks out there; we can't include them based on personal experience. If, for example, a reputable paper or journal ran an analysis of Usenet postings and determined that this person is remarkable based on their volume of posts, that would be a source. Or multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources mentioning him as a notable crank. I don't deny he may be notable, but there's not enough evidence of his notability in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Changed from delete to neutral because of the work done on finding sources. I still have concerns -- I think the phrase "a notable internet phenomenon" is a subjective assessment, and I also think many of the references are glancing only. The Francis reference appears to contain almost all the non-trivial information, and that doesn't really establish his notability as a crank, only his incidental involvement in the murder case. This is not enough by itself for inclusion in Wikipedia, otherwise the other incidental participants such as Roxana Verona (who is given more coverage than AP by Francis) would be in WP too. However, the sum of the other incidental references makes it borderline, and Francis's information at least lends credence to the notion that AP is a notable crank. So I'm switching to neutral. I still believe that if AP is as widely known as is claimed, other sources specifically (rather than incidentally) about him can and should be found. Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Has a chapter in Underwood Dudley's Mathematical Cranks. (Dudley doesn't identify him by name, but how many "AP"'s are there with thousands of Usenet posts.)~~ — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still keep as a notable Internet phenomenon, but not referenced in Mathematical Cranks. Sorry to have mislead people. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Strong Keep. Now adequately suorced, thanks to User:Uncle G. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Twasn't me. 'Twas Keesiewonder and Kharker, below, who located the sources. Uncle G 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly informative. Some guy posts stuff on Usenet, changed his name a few times. Moreover, no reliable sources as noted above. --CSTAR 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, vehemently, per previous result, in which the page was unanimously kept except for the nominator. A perfect example of the problem with "policy"; policy is a servant of which we are the masters, not the other way around, and at any rate the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay is not policy, and certainly constitutes no reason for disregarding or dismissing any editor's opinion. The subject of this essay is certainly well known on Usenet. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- can you source his notability? - Denny 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most notable Usenet personalities from its formative years and a character of much interest now. Phiwum 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Denny keeps asking, "most notable personality" according to whom? Are there any citations we can use? — Loadmaster 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting to who? What sources are talking about him now? - Denny 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A notable personality based on existing documents written by influential members of Usenet at the time. Killfile.org and alt.usenet.kooks both have entries dealing with Archimedes Plutonium and the latter is at least notable enough for their own entry here on WP. Is it a reliable source? Seems to me its role as a source is comparable to that of historical sources reporting on beliefs and opinions of the day—admittedly, on a more trivial subject. Is there any Usenet character that deserves a Wikipedia page, in your opinions? If so, how do you identify notability? If not, is Archie's page just the first in a list that includes all of Category:Usenet_people?Phiwum 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's arguably WP:OR, since you're proposing using what IMHO are primary sources. --CSTAR 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh? How can citing Killfile.org or alt.usenet.kooks count as original research? Sorry, but I really have no idea what you mean. Phiwum 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There's now a long trail of precedents on writing biographies of living people on WIkipedia. I'm not arguing that these guidelines are always desirable, but they're there and failure to follow them leads to oftem very tedious discussions. I think they are now subsumed under ~~AP:ATT~~ WP:ATT.--CSTAR 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; truly notable Usenet kook. These kinds of articles are hard to source, but it can be done, and it's one case where you can use Usenet itself, such as alt.usenet.kooks. Antandrus (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because many of the above are by people who dwell in the alt kook newsgroups. These are, in my opinion, people with mental disorders that they spend a large chunk of their life in categorizing other people as demeaning. They are stalking bullies who for some psychotic reason they boost their ego by calling other people bad names. The above indicates that many of the Wiki editors dwell over in the kook newsgroups. So Wikipedia is no place for anyone who is serious about science because it is infested with lowclass editorial minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31
- Article has been tagged for sources for quite a long while already... do we know they exist? - Denny 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went through the article pretty closely over the weekend and cleaned up the display of the references so they were not just external links in square brackets. I was able to find everything that is "cited" ...

Questions: Keesiewonder ^talk 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. ) Do we know for sure that User:Superdeterminism is AP? (Seems like we can't know this ...)
  - Answer Sorry to break up your sentences. Superdeterminism is in fact me-- Archimedes Plutonium. I signed in to Wiki as Superdeterminism since I created a entry on Superdeterminism, but the day after I offered the entry it was rejected as "new research". But if the truth be known, is that the editor had little to no understanding of science, and because of his laziness, rejected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 06:03:12
2. ) What exactly in WP:BLP says how to handle a request from a person to delete an article about them? I see this, but, that's not this AfD ... i.e. if George W. Bush wanted the WP article on him deleted, would we give his comments in an AfD more weight than that of other users?
- We can be sure that it's AP who posted the request for removal on the newsgroups. Since the post is within a couple of hours of the wiki edits made by User:Superdeterminism, it's a fair conclusion that they are one and the same (see Talk:Archimedes Plutonium for the newsgroup posting). — Loadmaster 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Daniel Brandt precedent establishes that subjects don't get a veto over their own articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC) --> True. How could I forget about that ... Keesiewonder ^talk 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this might help: [38]. There are print references to this person: anyone with the inclination to swing by a good bookstore or a library could look them up. The Oliver Sacks book mentions that he was a dishwasher at Dartmouth. Don't know how good the sources are on his real name: it's a fair question. Antandrus (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the first 3 hits apply to our man, though. i.e. AP but not A................P or P.....................A Keesiewonder ^talk 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct. And it's those three which are printed, reliable sources. Antandrus (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The second and third of those are trivial passing references which I don't think meet WP:N's criteria. The first is certainly non-trivial, but I don't know that they justify an entry for AP. There are many more references in that book to Roxana Verona, for example, and she doesn't have a WP entry. However, I'd agree that if there are multiple sources like this that mention AP's eccentricities, that would be an argument to keep this article. As it is it appears he simply is mentioned in passing, as many non-notable people are in this book. Mike Christie (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - few Usenet kooks are notable; Archimedes Plutonium is one of the few. It doesn't matter if he wants the article removed; all that matters is that the article is neutrally written, reliably sourced, and meets WP:BLP. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ' Comment you see what I mean. Label the person as a "kook" and keep the entry so that we can mock him and get drunk and laugh over him and then constantly throw darts at his Wiki page. You see what I mean about the level of maturity and aptitude of Wiki editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31
- Is there a different standard for reliable sources when the material exists almost exclusively on Usenet? Keesiewonder ^talk 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either we accept Usenet archives and similar sources for information about Usenet or we have no reliably sourced articles about almost any Usenet phenomenon at all. There are no books about what happened on Usenet, but there is an archive. We must be careful, since posts can be forged, but I'd say that we have very reliable authority on the main gist of this article: AP exists and supports various strange theories on Usenet. Phiwum 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not the existence of a crank poster that's at issue; it's his notability. Surely a truly notable person would generate coverage elsewhere? Many books do exist (such as the "Hacker's Dictionary") which document net phenomena. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm admittedly torn on this one. I am usually a stickler for a plethora of reliable, third party references published in scholarly sources, if at all possible. That's not possible here. On the other side, I recognize that this is a realm where Wikipedia can distinguish itself from other encyclopedias, and include an article on "someone" like AP. While getting up to speed on this topic, I clicked on the category Usenet people, and immediately recognized another entry - Greg Deeter. I'm not a Usenet user, but I am a stamp collector, and Greg Deeter is a familiar name. I skimmed the article WP has on him, and, I have to say, I'm glad there is an article here on him since I didn't realize what he was a part of - and I recognize I may not have ever seen this aspect of him anywhere else. AP receives more "hits" I believe than Deeter ... thus ... by that reasoning alone ... I need to say I'd keep the article on AP. Keesiewonder ^talk 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be certain that you're not voting "keep" just to thumb your nose at old Pluto Ron Ritzman 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~DELETE~~ (weak Keep see comment labeled Reasoning below) per WP:A: "Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately." I know, I'm shouting. If all this Googling had brought up a useable reference, one of you editors above would have stuck it on the article. No reliable sources, no article. (And there sure ain't anything reliable and nontrivial in the references section.) What more is there to discuss? Noroton 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, here's another little reference for you: WP:BLP, the second full paragraph reads:
  We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
- There are footnotes there attributing a lot of this stuff to some "Jimbo" fella. I think I'll now go and do it myself. Look at archived versions if you want to see what the article used to look like. Noroton 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (fix link to WP:BLP Noroton 05:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- On second thought, I did leave two lines as well as the quotes. We rely directly or indirectly on people to tell the world what their birthday is (that's where the sources we cite on birthdays get the information from, almost 100 percent of the time), and a quote from Usenet and info from Usenet is properly sourced to Usenet, so the quotes are there. Not much of an article.Noroton 05:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Reasoning for changing to "weak keep": I'm impressed by the work done by editors to recreate this article. I think the article shows multiple reliable sources (but just barely, therefore "weak"). I think any administrator who closes this argument and decides to keep would first need to decide that the sourcing of contentious material is, in fact reliable enough for Wikipedia to hang its hat on. My biggest concern is the reliance on The Dartmouth, a student newspaper, as a source. Again, I admire the work done here. It's produced a really interesting article. Noroton 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good to me, short and sweet.Greglocock 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable Usenet phenomenon. --Henrygb 10:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The attention he has received makes the subject meet WP:BIO. Some cleanup of unverified statements may be necessary. PCock 11:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hello, I am Archimedes Plutonium, and I want this Wikipedia page of me removed. I am in the throes of having some of my work published in hardcover and the Wikipedia entry of me for the past decade has been mostly a detriment to that end, for it was full of mockery and character defamation. It never focused on any of my original ideas. When anyone comes up with a new and original idea, it seems like a flood of demonizers follow him. There is no-one on the Wikipedia staff who could do justice on a biography of Archimedes Plutonium. So I anticipate that publishing outside the Internet medium will turn the corner on this person who loves doing science and loves to discover new ideas. Wikipedia is only a stumbling block and another dartboard. There is not a single editor at Wiki who is objective.
Comments on why Wikipedia has been a decade's long demonization of Archimedes Plutonium
Here is what an objective page on Archimedes Plutonium would look like:
quoting what would be an objective page on AP
Archimedes Plutonium born 5 July 1950 with the name Ludwig Poehlmann in Arzberg Germany. (http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/)He earned a B.A. degree in mathematics from University of Cincinnati and a Masters from Utah State University. He was adopted in his teens and had his name changed several times, Ludwig Hansen, then Ludwig van Ludvig, then Ludwig Plutonium and finally Archimedes Plutonium. He is noted for many original ideas in science but his most noteworthy one is the Atom Totality theory. A brief history of this theory during human history follows:
The first idea of a Universe being one single atom appears to have been Democritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus) some 2,400 years ago, one of the founders of the Atomic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory), as referenced by the book "A Short History of Atomism", Joshua C. Gregory, 1931, A.&C. Black Ltd, page 4 "single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomic tradition."
Georges Lemaître hinted of the Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe in his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' first presented in 1927. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre Ironic that Lemaître is credited with the discovery of the Big-Bang theory, and yet he begins the Big-Bang with saying that the total universe starts out as a atom-totality. Ironic that by 1990, the greatest rival to the Big-Bang theory will become the Atom-Totality theory.
Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) hinted of the Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe in the idea that the universe can be an elementary particle; as written in his book "Cosmos", 1980, Random House: pages 265-267 "so that an elementary particle, such as an electron, in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to be an entire closed universe."
The Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe does not come into full bloom until November 1990, Archimedes Plutonium announced a full theory of the Atom Totality theory, by stating what chemical element the Universe is specifically-- a big Plutonium Atom and that galaxies are dots of the electron-dot-cloud of this single big plutonium atom. AP states it must be plutonium to satisfy special numbers of physics and mathematics such as the fine-structure-constant, the 2.71 Kelvin cosmic microwave background radiation, quantized galaxy speeds, Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, and the values of (pi) and (e).
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Structure_Constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulers_number
Interestingly, Archimedes Plutonium has the first Internet Book where he wrote the entire book and used the Internet to publish it. This first Internet published book is his Atom Totality Universe: Book: "ATOM TOTALITY THEORY REPLACES THE BIG-BANG THEORY OF PHYSICS", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math)
Curiously, the Dalai Lama published a book "Universe in a Single Atom" in 2006 by Time Warner. The Dalai Lama never referenced Archimedes Plutonium but then when does a spiritual leader ever reference and cite the way scientists cite? Reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama
end quoting of what would be an objective Wiki page of Archimedes Plutonium
The gang of Wiki editors never demonized Democritus for his say on the Atom Totality.
The gang of Wiki editors never demonized Georges Lemaître on his Wiki page over his Atom Totality.
The gang of Wiki editors never demonized and ad-hominemed Carl Sagan over his say on Atom Totality.
The gang of Wiki editors including Mr. Rubin and Mr. Dudley never demonized nor ad hominemed the Dalai Lama over his Atom Totality.
But when Archimedes Plutonium has a Wiki page, well, the worst in every editor comes out and rushes forth to put any demonizing and tainted and ad hominem and even libel on Archimedes Plutonium. As if the editors, judging from the below want to say just one word about Mr. AP--- call him kook. They do not want to call Democritus, nor Lemaaitre, nor Sagan, nor the Dalai Lama, but when AP appears, then every ugly opinion becomes part of a Wikipedia biography.
The above is a objective entry of Archimedes Plutonium, and why that is almost impossible and difficult for Wiki editors to do is really beyond belief. For the past decade Wiki has done nothing but a joke and mockery and demonization of Archimedes Plutonium.
Currently the References cited on AP's page are inappropriate for they reflect more on the game of demonizing Mr. Plutonium than to objectively understand what he has done. References of Ad Hominem on Mr. Plutonium
3. ^ Ludwig Plutonium in sci.math (Google Group), Ludwig Plutonium, King of the Universe (discussion thread), December 12, 1993
4. ^ Archimedes Plutonium in sci.chem (Google Group), Forge your friends to a subscription list, Xmass greeting card (discussion thread), September 2, 1996
5. ^ Ludwig Plutonium in alt.sci.physics.plutonium (Google Group), Plutonium Atom Totality: The Unification of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics (pages 3-11 of 400) (discussion thread), January 6, 1994
* Kahn, Jennifer (2002-04-01). "Notes from Another Universe". Discover. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.
* Scott, Joseph C. "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is 'gobbledygook'", The Dartmouth, 1997-09-25.
None of the above references focus on his noteworthiness of his ATom Totality. Neither Kahn nor Scott ever attack Democritus for his Atomic Theory and Atom Totality, neither Kahn nor Scott ever attack Carl Sagan for his Atom Totality of elementary particle, and neither does Kahn nor Scott attack Lemaitre for his Atom Totality. But then again the reason neither Kahn or Scott attacks Democritus, or Sagan or Lemaitre is because neither Kahn or Scott know enough about science and about the Atomic theory. These are examples of two reporters who are ill suited to report on Archimedes Plutonium and they end up with a piece of demonizing and perhaps even libelous journalism.
Also, the current Wiki page on Mr. Plutonium gives two quotes, which have been there for a decade and which are so ill suited for his page because of their irrelevance to his noteworthiness of the Atom Totality. Which again shows that the editors of Wiki are so foreign to doing a decent job of a entry. The Wiki page on Archimedes PLutonium has been a magnet and dartboard for jokesters who like to demonize a person.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 19:13:26
- Comment NPOV means that an article may present negative facts alongside positive ones. If your "biography" sticks, then you're going to have to admit it will be neutral, which means it must not promote you or your work. It must be neutral. WP is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press. mike4ty4 09:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Usenet itself may be notable, but every crank who posts there is not. csloat 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with csloat. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - striking my deleted nom. It appears as though the issues with this article have been cleared up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, marginally notable. The Google book references stand out here. Everyking 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No they don't. There's exactly 1 result: ISBN 9057022222. The total content related to this person in that book is the following 14 words (on page 141): "Medium volume group which gives a home to Archimedes Plutonium and his many theories". In other words: There's nothing in the book about this person at all. The book is documenting a newsgroup, not a person. Uncle G 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are three results, as someone stated above. Everyking 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That someone was wrong. If you want to assert otherwise, list the specific ISBNs rather than linking to a set of search results where you haven't even searched for the two words in the correct order — and thus have picked up things like ISBN 185070418X where the words "Archimedes" and "plutonium" occur in two entirely separate entries. Counting Google hits is not research. Actually reading what Google turns up is research. Actually reading what it turns up in this case, as I said, reveals 1 book, whose 14 word entry for a newsgroup in fact contains nothing about this person at all. Uncle G 10:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This book does have non-trivial coverage of AP; however, I don't believe it is sufficient for this article. See prior comment: [39]). Mike Christie (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks like you can't link like I intended to. The section I referred to is in the first book listed under this search: "The Dartmouth Murders". That one has non-trivial coverage, though as I said earlier I don't believe it suffices. Mike Christie (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The first book that comes up when I follow that link is ISBN 9057022222, The Internet for Scientists. No book in that list (of 16 books) has the title The Dartmouth Murders. Don't link to search result pages. Cite the actual sources. You're discovering one of the reasons that proper citations don't take the forms of bare URLs. Uncle G 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uncle G, In addition to the one you've noticed, equivalent to ISBN 978-9057022227, please see ISBN 978-0312982317 & ISBN 978-0060936518. I'm not implying these are or are not scholarly research supporting an article on AP - just providing ISBNs to the three we've been referred to all along in this AfD. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The one editor who actually provides some real citation information instead of search engine links! Thank you. You'll be interested to know that Google Books claims, when I enter those latter two ISBNs, that no such books exist. Fortunately, Amazon knows differently. (This is why we have Special:Booksources.) I agree that The Dartmouth Murders has significantly more than 14 words. ☺ The Best American Science Writing 2003 is just a re-print of the article by Kahn that is already cited in the article. Uncle G 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bizarre, man. It's right there in the link I gave you. The first three. There are excerpts of the text that mentions him, and you can click on the links to the books to read more. This is not hard. Everyking 11:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It wouldn't have been hard for you to provide the ISBNs, as I said to do, but you still didn't. The first three books listed when I follow the link that you gave are The Internet for Scientists, as mentioned above, Archimedes, Newton, Murphy: wetten uit de wetenschap (ISBN 9085060184), and Physics Today (published 1948 by the American Institute of Physics). Now if you had given the ISBNs as you were asked to, I actually could have followed hyperlinks to the actual books that you were referring to. Linking to a Google search page is not citing a source. Uncle G 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly slightly notable rather than definitely notable, and difficulty in finding reliable sources. ElinorD (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If he's so "widely noted" for this weird plutonium thing of his, why are there so many citation needed tags, warning templates, and only apparently 14 words in a book about usenet that concern him? If the person above who claims to be the subject of this article actually is the subject, maybe it's a better idea to wait until he actually publishes his thing, though even then, i'd think that'd just be one primary source.... Homestarmy 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think we are missing the point. The person, or should I say persona, is probably best described as inside joke. Perhaps it corresponds to a biological person, but perhaps not. I quote from [40] " He's had letters to the editors of Scientific American magazine printed under that moniker. I believe the letters turned up in the April [Fool] issues of the late 80s, early 90s." If the article is kept as a reasonable notable phenomenon, there are some similar references I am eager to add. There is real pseudo science, and there is pseudo-pseudo science. DGG 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting perspective, DGG; thanks. I did notice that the Discover article's publication date is April 1 ... Keesiewonder ^talk 09:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the April fool This outlines my frustration with Wikipedia editors. How can anyone who reads what I wrote above about Democritus with the idea of Atom Totality, then Lemaitre with the idea of Atom Totality, then Carl Sagan with the idea of Atom Totality and then AP with the full Atom-Totality and then 16 years later the Dalai Lama with the Atom Totality. They don't get it. To them the Atomic Theory is non-notable, yet Feynman said the Atomic theory is the single most important idea in all the world. So these Wiki editors, their logic says that Democritus, Atomic theory, Feynman, Sagan, Lemaitre are all nonnotables. You see what I mean that Wikipedia page on a scientist probably ends up as a frustation to that scientist because it ends up as a negative light on that scientist since the people whose words come to describe that scientist, have no scientific brains to be writing about that scientist. Only other scientists can accurately describe a scientist in an encyclopedia, not these "less than half logical minds". Wikipedia should stick to being an encyclopedia "only for" Hollywood females who need that 24/7 constant attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 05:45:27
  - You really could stop, SD, with inserting personal attacks against all Wikipedia editors in an AfD. Who is it that does not have any scholarly, non-self-published works to their name ... or even an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica? This is not an AfD on all of Wikipedia, or an editor review for everyone except you. Keesiewonder ^talk 09:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yet you seem to be causing almost as much heat as AP. You waded in without reading the article properly, made some ridiculous number of edits as you floundered about, and now try and control the resulting debacle. Greglocock 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Question to Greglocock I would like to make a change to this Articles of Deletion. I would like for this to be a PERMANENT and FOREVER PERMANENT Deletion. In other words, after I become more famous, that Wikipedia is never allowed to put my name on anything of theirs. That Wiki can never have a page on Archimedes Plutonium. I have wasted so much time and frustration over this Wiki page that I would have the satisfaction that Wiki never can do a page on Archimedes Plutonium. Wikipedia is a blight to a serious scientist. So, Greglocock, can you change the above to be a Forever Permanent barring of Archimedes Plutonium from Wikipedia. And that would also include my entry of "Biophysics in the Bipedalism page of yours" to toss that out completely. In life, when I meet illogical people, I can only spend so much time, until I never want to waste another minute on them.
        Greglocock, please delete all of this, because, I, Archimedes Plutonium wrote it all [edit] Biophysics of bipedalism
        Notice in this picture frame above "A Man Running - Edward Muybridge" that there are two frames in which one leg is fully extended to a 180 degree position of upper leg and lower leg, simultaneous with the other leg almost contiguous of the upper leg with lower leg. This is the same physics features in overarm throwing snapping of the elbow (not overarm stiff elbow sling style) where the upper arm is virtually contiguous to the lower arm just before the thrust forward and snapping of the elbow joint. So just as in running, throwing achieves maximum thrust forward when the knee and elbow are midpoints in the configuration. Running is what physics would call the throwing of the body forward by two legs. Reference-- Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 10:31:16
    - Reply to Keesiwonder Well how would you like it Mr. Keesiwonder, if Wiki did a page on you, and for ten years, a decade, that page had you tied to a Zantop murder. And for 10 years you kept trying to delete that reference from you page, where the editors constantly revert it and finally in the 10th year the editors locked the page because you kept removing the Zantop murder. So do you go around praising the Wiki editors as they mock you and make a joke of you for ten years. I would say my behaviour was pretty much constrained and well behaved in light of what I had to put up with for 10 years.
      These are the facts. Wikipedia does an awful job on science entries. It does not have the editors capable of doing biographies of scientists. And the end result of any science entry in Wikipedia, because it is always open to editorial changes by nonscientists, that every science entry in Wikipedia is a frustration to scientists. Wikipedia on science is like a grocery store tabloid on science.
      Britannica Encyclopedia compared to Wikipedia on science subjects A Wikipedia entry on science whether a person or a concept or theory is choppy because few entries are written by one person, who can make it all flow together. This is the frustrating problem I have had with my page on Archimedes Plutonium. That I need to show the flow of logic from Democritus to Lemaitre to Sagan to AP. Yet when hundreds of editors put their little tid bit to compose a page, you end up with nothing but choppy unconnected pieces of tidbits. So when you read Britannica on some science issue, it is integrated and a flow of logic. When you read Wiki on science it is logically bereft and wildly incongruent in thought or sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 09:53:37
      - This is Wikipedia, not Wiki, and it did not exist 10 years ago; so you cannot have been trying to do anything with it for 10 years. Indeed, given that the murder of Half and Susanne Zantop itself occured only 6 years ago, there's no way that you could have been tied to it for 10 years. From a few minutes looking at the history of this article (which has only existed for 3 years) I cannot find any version of it where it has even mentioned Zantop at all. It was apparently an article by Associated Press, datelined 2002-06-30 and republished by outlets such as the Boston Globe, that mentioned Archimedes Plutonium in conjunction with (specifically, lest people leap to the wrong conclusion: being entirely ruled out of) the Zantop case. Your complaint is with the Associated Press and the Boston Globe, not Wikipedia. Uncle G 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply to Mr. UncleG Well thanks, my memory is not as good as when I was young, but I do recall that Wikipedia had a page on me circa the late 1990s with its usual mockery of -- clothes I wear, obnoxious nicknames, sleeping in a cemetery, dishwasher/potwasher, and the Tim Skirvin reference to "crank" and Zantop murder. I was too busy in moving and getting established out west after leaving the east coast to bother about a Wikipedia page on me. But I am in the throes of hardcover publishing and have tried to recast that page to be objective in the past several years. And the harder I tried, the worse the page became. So, apparently, I am going to have to force a Elimination of that page as the only real viable way out of this. Question Mr. UncleG: is there a Articles of Barring of a Person from Wikipedia. For I have wasted too much time on this, when I should be doing real science. A total Barring of Wikipedia from ever using the name Archimedes Plutonium in any future Wikipedia entry.
        Wikipedia ARTICLES OF PERMANENT BARRING The way I envision this is the strongest form of deletion of Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is so poor in science entries and scientist biographies. That Wikipedia have a Articles of Permanent Barring, where any person who has a Wikipedia entry can sign the list of Barrement and Wikipedia must immediately remove that entry and is not allowed to name that person in any of their entries. So that I could end my Wiki entry today and not even have to vote on it. And further by placing my name in their Barrement section of Wikipedia, Wiki can never use my name in any of their entries. And this Barrement section allows any scientist in the world today to place their name to that section and for which Wikipedia can never mention that person. What this does is fix all those mocking jokers pretending to be editors of a encyclopedia.

reply to Greglocock who wrote me on a different page but I am unfamilar as to how to talk to him there. So I post it here. I understand and accept what Greg is telling me. But this issue is larger than my case. This issue is larger because in the old days of science writing and science biographies was done by other scientists in a refereed hardcover book format or in newspaper print. It was not done to a world public medium where any nonscientist can alter and mock and jeer and harrass a entry of a biography of a scientist. So there is a huge wide difference between science encyclopedias and science books and science biographies of the past history, compared to Wikipedia which is wide open to everyone to alter facts. Facts and truth to scientists is very much foremost, but because Wikipedia is open to change by everyone in the world, that Wikipedia needs a ARTICLES OF PERMANENT BARRING as an invasion of the privacy of some scientist who do not want to be invaded of their privacy. So this becomes to the USA Supreme Court an issue of privacy since Wikipedia is wide open to changes by anyone in the world. Some scientists are not going to like being entered in Wikipedia where they can be mocked and libeled such as I have been for nearly a decade. So what I am saying is that Wikipedia should have ARTICLES OF BARREMENT for which some scientist can easily place their name to that list which forever forbids Wikipedia to have an entry of that person or to ever use his/her name in Wikipedia. Now if Wikipedia changes its policy of "open to all to edit" then this Barrement Article can be relaxed. signed Archimedes Plutonium

comment to the earlier Google book reference by Eric Francis This is why I say to be objective about a Archimedes Plutonium entry would be a short and simple entry that deals with his birth, his education and then the rest about his Atom Totality theory which makes him notable. During the 1990s when Mr. Plutonium was posting his theory to the Internet there arose such a gang of hatemongers including Eric Francis who then wrongfully included Mr. Plutonium into his murder book. So then, if Wikipedia references Francis, well, that is a tainted a and libelous reference. I am not saying that it is easy to write a objective entry for Mr. Plutonium, given that the world is filled with hatemongers who have referenced Mr. Plutonium. So that is why I keep saying that a Wikipedia page on Mr. Plutonium has to be bare facts and Atom Totality and nothing else.

the libelous Eric Francis reference Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, misc.legal From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 21 Mar 2007 10:53:01 -0700 Local: Wed, Mar 21 2007 11:53 am Subject: Does libel have statue of limitations? Re: the Eric Francis "Dartmouth Murders" libeling the innocent Archimedes Plutonium

--- quoting Google books --- The Dartmouth Murders By Eric Francis Summary Preview this book Preview this book By Eric Francis Published 2002 St. Martin's Press True Crime / Espionage 244 pages ISBN 0312982313

ERIC FRANCIS is a freelance reporter and photojournalist whose work has appeared in dozens of newspapers and magazines in over 30 countries. A staff correspondent for People Magazine, Francis has also covered several notable murder cases for The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and Time Magazine. He lives on the Vermont-New Hampshire border and was one of the first reporters on the scene of the Zantop double homicide in January, 2001.

--- end quoting Google books ---

I do not know if Eric Francis is the same as (oF60Hc4w1...@alcyone.darkside.com)

m...@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) who had stalked

Archimedes Plutonium for years with his spew of hatred and demonization.

Anyway, when people hate other people in the way that Eric Francis hates Archimedes Plutonium, then their little minds do a trick on them. That they look for moments of opportunity to tie and connect innocent people like AP with a tradegy. Where they mix innocent people up with a murder. So that innocent people like AP is forever tangled up with something he had absolutely nothing to do with.

Anyone who reads this message, how would they feel if a reporter hated you, and then as soon as that reporter gets involved with some murder, includes your name in a page of that murder in a book? I think most people would be very much angered by the action of Eric Francis.

Because when the Zantop murder occurred, Archimedes Plutonium had departed Dartmouth about 2years prior and was living calmly and peaceably in the Midwest some thousands of miles away from Dartmouth. Yet AP was called by the Hanover New Hampshire police.

I believe this is libel if ever I have seen libel. In that how in the world can a news reporter demonize me in a book about a tragic murder for which I was half the continent away and which I had nothing to do with.

Does anyone know the statue of limitations for libel? And if a lawyer is reading this and who knows something about me as per my love of doing science on the Internet and would like to help me to "get some justice put onto Eric Francis, please indicate in a followup post.

I am very busy with science and hate to have to leave it to correct what I call "people problems", but I feel that Eric Francis needs to be punished for how he has victimized an innocent person-- Archimedes Plutonium. Because if I do not seek justice on Francis, then like Kant's Categorical Imperative-- Francis will then victimize some other innocent after having gotten away with victimizing me.

Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

end Internet post about the libelous Eric Francis

Keep Archimedes' legal threats and rants aside, we have mulitple non-trivial reliable sources, the Eric Francis and the Joseph Scott references easily meet this criterion and the Discovery magazine reference is just more icing on the cake. He meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Archimedes Plutonium was certainly a notable personality on USENET in 1994, and made newspaper headlines: "Communities on the Internet", "Support Free Speech', "College violated freedom of speech", "Kiewit revokes man's network access", "Eclipse gave a message", "Plutonium Totality Discredits Supercollider, Montgomery Fellow", "Lederman Speech brings light to physics".--Kharker 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revise to keep ...as person who began the AfD. It's sourced as they say out the butt relative to what it was. Changing to KEEP... - Denny 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should strike through your nomination and indicate that your vote is now "keep" so that the AfD can be closed as nomination withdrawn. -- TedFrank 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done! - Denny 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I'm afraid there are a number of Delete !votes, even disregarding the subject and probable sockpuppets, so that the nomination may not be speedy closed. I suppose a rouge admin might do it.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Withdrawing a nomination is not an automatic closure. This is a discussion to obtain consensus, not a ballot. Some editors remain unconvinced. If you want to do something, contact them on their talk pages asking them to revisit this discussion. Uncle G 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Notable as an Internet meme if not as a crank. -- TedFrank 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Arthur Rubin and Uncle G already the page is one day old and already tussling over it. I want to know why it is that so much "crazy energy" is spent on Wikipedia biographies wherein the first sentence the main focus is on a nickname. Is it because Jimmy Wales page starts out with the first sentence calling him Jimbo? If Wikipedia did a page on George Washington, would the first sentence be: George Washington, born ... was nicknamed G.W. Is this nickname obsession some reflection of the age of Wikipedia editors that they seem comforted in knowing what a persons nickname is as the most important data on that person. And why has Uncle G and Arthur Rubin reverted my change of "Arky" to "A.P." On the Internet and most everywhere, people refer to me as AP or A.P. as short for Archimedes Plutonium. Just because a murder book says that some few unknown people are alleged to have called me "Arky" and are alleged to be fans, is highly inappropriate to put into a Wikipedia biography. Francis may have stood on a street corner and asked a passerby if he/she knows Archimedes Plutonium and they may have said "oh, Arky". And Francis then publishes Arky, but is that any reason to start the encyclopedia of Wikipedia on Archimedes Plutonium over something as dumb and stupid as "Arky". How would Arthur Rubin like it if Wikipedia did his biography and the first sentence is "Arthur Rubin, born ..., is nicknamed Arty by his grandparents." Maybe instead of asking this question, maybe instead I should ask for a 3rd attempt at Articles of Deletion because already my frustation thermometer is beginning to rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 06:51, March 23, 2007
- AfD # 2 is not over. WP:BLP and WP:OWN apply to this article just like any other. However, it is a bit unclear what the guidelines are when a living person takes to editing/owning the article about that same person. Keesiewonder ^talk 10:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Wikipedia house style to list alternative names in the first section, and it is Wikipedia policy to go with what the sources say and not to add our own new conclusions and new theories. No editor is exempt from our content policies. You have to cite sources that back up your claim that "people refer to me as AP or A.P.", just as I've had to cite sources that back up what I've written about (for example) people defending you on freedom of speech grounds. Currently, we have exactly one source that documents one nickname. So that's what the article says. If someone finds other sources that document other alternative names, we can add those names to the article. Uncle G 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that listing "your" nickname is encyclopedic, but, if we are to list it, we must list only those from reliable sources. You are not a reliable source as to what you're called, only as to what you say. (I was nicknamed "Arty" by some (fortunately) deceased relatives, but I doubt you can find a reliable source.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way, if you like: Prior to the recent improvements, the article had grown a list of nicknames, including such things as "Archie-Poo", added by people in a casual fashion. Now, we have one nickname, which is explicitly linked to a citation of a source that documents that nickname, indicating quite clearly that any further nicknames will be individually held to the same standard of verifiability. Whilst you may think it inconvenient, by insisting upon good sources for this (and indeed everything else) we are aiming to keep out the other nicknames, and prevent a long list of such nicknames growing by editors simply inventing new ones and adding them. Uncle G 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's references have improved drastically since I voted to delete, and therefore, I think the case to keep has also improved just as drastically. Homestarmy 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - notable internet character. Noted also User:DennyColt who created the AfD changed his vote for the article to be retained. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Orsini 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further question to Arthur Rubin. Sorry but this nickname stuff is still bothering me. I see it as a form of degradation that what some "other person" calls you ends up in your biography, especially when unfriendly. I am thinking, Arthur, that the policy of nickname is not a requirement but merely "optional". And further, that the nickname policy varies as per occupation of individual. So that if you are doing a sport figure or artist or comedian or politician that nickname is desirable as a option. But when doing scientists, the other extreme of where scientists are no-nonsense, and have no nickname applied. Also, Arthur, I have read the Wiki biography of at least 100 scientists and not once did I see a nickname attached. And on my page I refer to Richard Feynman, John Bell, Georges Lemaître, Carl Sagan, Wendy Freedman, Alan Sandage, William Tifft, Paul Dirac, to name just a few, and not a single one of them has a nickname in their biography. So I wonder if I am being singled out here. Can you please check to see of the nickname policy is optional or required and if the policy is different for different occupations. Because this is really strange to me that some enemy of me could make up any deprecatory nickname and it ends up on a encyclopedia biography of that person. I could almost bet that the policy is optional. Thanks for your time.

Statistical Count of the editors on this page who have called Archimedes Plutonium as AP Greglocock 2 times Loadmaster 3 times Mike Christie 6 times Arthur Rubin 1 times Keesiwonder 4 times Phiwum 4 times Greg Deeter 2 times

So, what I am going to do is edit the Wikipedia page and scratch out the deprecatory nickname and replace with a valid nickname and cite this Articles of Deletion with the proof that everyone who debates me, falls into the nickname of preference AP. Now AP is close to the "associated press" so I am going to also add A.P..

So can I please get some help from either Uncle G or Arthur Rubin to stop reverting this edit and to cite this actual Articles of Deletion where most of the editors themselves have nicknamed me withou me goading them or prompting them.

Can Uncle G list the relevant paragraphs of this statement "**It's Wikipedia house style to list alternative names in the first section, and it is Wikipedia policy to go with what the sources say" Because I do not see any scientist biographies with nicknames. So are you arbitrarily applying something to Archimedes Plutonium? Can you cite the paragraphs that state -- nicknames are required?

Delete. This article attracts Wikipedia editors who do not provide reliable sources for the many claims they want to make about living persons, resulting in continual violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If there are several high quality, reliable published sources describing why Archimedes Plutonium as a notable Usenet personality, then those sources should be used to support inclusion of the name Archimedes Plutonium in the list at Usenet#Usenet personalities. For biographies of living persons, "reliable sources" means, for example, book-length biographies published by reputable publishers who employ book editors and biographical articles written by professional journalists and published by reputable magazines with fact checkers and editors who review the contents of the articles. There are not enough reliable sources to support an encyclopedia article about Archimedes Plutonium. --JWSchmidt 14:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathy with JWSchmidt's comment A Wikipedia biography of a person who is very much controversial because of his "theory the universe is an atom" not only attracts biased hate storm, but it attracts editors inside Wikipedia who cannot place themselves objectively in maintaining the entry. It is my opinion that biased people of AP such as Eric Francis, Erik Max Francis (whether one and the same as Eric Francis), Tim Skirvin, James Kibo Parry, Uncle Al, are probably established editors of Wikipedia and who have established opposition to AP. A clear example is the nickname issue. Where Wikipedia has not one single scientist entry of a "deprecatory nickname" but when it comes to AP's entry, each and every sentence is looked for the opportunity to mock Mr. Plutonium, and if justification for that mockery is asked for such as what is the nickname policy then a Wikipedia editor such as Uncle G calls it a "house policy". This is what Mr. Plutonium is frustrated about and why he was for deleting this entry, is because the editors of Wikipedia simple cannot give Mr. Plutonium a fair objective shake. There is only one editor that writes with his real name-- Arthur Rubin, and I looked up his Wikipedia entry and there was no nickname mockery. I looked up every scientist connected with the reference to Atom Totality and not a single scientist enty has a nickname. But when it comes to Mr. Plutonium's entry, whenever there is an opportunity to mock him, that opportunity is grabbed at and given justification that it is some "Wikipedia house policy".

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation. A complicated case, with strong arguments on both sides. However, even those expressing a "keep" opinion largely agree that the current article (and by implication its history) is of questionable standing. While the subject may be notable, and there may be reliable sources with which to write an article, consensus seems to lean toward stating that the current/recent article isn't it. The subject's own expressed wishes also hold some weight here, even though we do not allow individuals to "veto" their articles. Any recreation should take great care to follow WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Shimeru 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon James Klingenschmitt[edit]

My name is Gordon James Klingenschmitt. I am the subject of a biography of a living person. I did not create this page, but improved on a stub originally created under Gordon_Klingenschmitt and changed the name to Gordon_James_Klingenschmitt (also Klingenschmitt). I now propose deleting all three pages, for several reasons.

1) Somebody stole my private information (including my personal VISA card number) and posted it on Wikipedia with the apparent intent to disparage me.

2) More than 5 regular editors of my page regularly disparage me with personal epiphets. (Just read the last 8 entries on the discussion page...honestly, I haven't been called "Slingensh**t" since 4th grade).

3) Whenever pro-Klingenschmitt editors post neutral sources (such as the Washington Times or Worldnet Daily, or original documents posted at persuade.tv), they are quickly deleted by those wishing to disparage me.

4) Even those 5 editors, all anti-Klingenschmitt writers, have agreed my article should be deleted.

While I originally hoped to spur a lively discussion, it's now apparent that I agree with them. The only person not in favor of deletion seems to be DGG, whose impartial edits vainly attempted to save this page. Yet his attempts to discipline the crowds have gone unheeded.

I respectfully request Wikipedia delete all references to Gordon James Klingenschmitt, and let us all return to peaceful co-existence as private citizens.

I may be reached personally at anytime: (Redacted). In Jesus name, Rev. Gordon James Klingenschmitt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingeng (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed nomination. cab 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if you didn't want your story out there then you probably shouldn't have created a website to promote your prayer tour. Of course personal information such as credit card numbers should be removed but the multiple reliable sources clearly attest to your notability. Otto4711 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the 56 Google News Archive sources indicate notability and easily available material. That said, this article is a mess, going into unnecessary detail, and could easily be halved or more. It depends on primary sources and other material that is problematic for controversial topics. Now, as to the other problems …
Disruptive edits may be reported as vandalism, and the editors blocked if they persist.
Posting of credit card numbers should be an immediate bannable offense, and the edit deleted via oversight. If this has happened, it would not be apparent in the edit history. Is there some proof that this happened, e.g. communications with an admin?
The subject of an article has an inherent conflict of interest and in almost all cases should avoid editing that article. The Talk page exists for bringing up concerns and pointing out alternate sources for information. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. The subject of the article appears to be notable, and the cure for the other problems is a more vigilant approach (particularly where credit card numbers are concerned, that's several miles beyond the pale), rather than deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, NPOV issues are beyond repair.Watanabe1 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC) — Watanabe1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The disparaging comments on the discussion page are numerous. Repeated use of vulgarity by many different users. This page is not what Wikipedia intended. Have you tried a db-attack posting?Muddiman 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC) — Muddiman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Vandals and disruptive editors should not be given the power, through concerted effort, to cause the deletion of pages they don't like. If editors are being uncivil or are violating WIkipedia rules and policies then sanction the individuals. Otto4711 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I responded to an RfC a few months back and tried to edit the article. I got it to a reasonably objective state, and then left quickly, pursued by the complaints of both sides, who had each hoped that an objective approach would favor them. I deliberately haven't been back to look. and have made no recent comments there. There are two separate reasons given for the deletion of the article:
It is unfair to the subject, for it casts him as an unreasonable man with dubious honesty,, when he is only trying to express his honest religious beliefs. As he will never be able to edit the article to make it honest, please delete it.
Alternatively, it is about a disgrace to the Navy and to ministers of the Gospel, who would like to pretend it's not notable.
As my personal summary, he is N. He has deliberately taken an extreme position, offending many non-Christians and liberal Christians, and has knowingly or unknowingly become a tool of the extreme right wink political groups. It is impossible to know whether our not his extremism is sincere. He has throughout this sought publicity--he has paraded in front of the White House, he has given interviews, he has written his side of it for partisan propaganda. He and his supporters have cleverly managed to get their political opponents caught in a dilemma between a defense of his free speech and religion, and the defense of his auditors' freedom of religion to not have to hear what they find offensive. He has done everything he has done deliberately, and has no right to request the deletion of an account of what he has quite consciously done. ( Some of the comments about the talk page are justified. I attempted to refactor it to remove the reciprocal insults, as outrageous as any I have seen on WP, but even my attempt to archive it was reverted. I would suggest blanking it as a courtesy to all concerned. ) DGG 04:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting discussion, but isn't the self-promotion DGG's complaining about just one more reason to delete him?Justinlawyer 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Justinlawyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete A couple months ago I tried adding factual data but DGG immediately deleted it because he said Worldnet Daily is not a valid source if the information favors Klingenschmitt but now it looks like the haters have cited Worldnet Daily as a valid source of information disfavorable to him and DGG has no problem with that so I wonder if he's really an impartial editor after all. They cite NPOV as their reason to delete anything favorable to the guy. Come on. Davesaturndealer 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Davesaturndeale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete He's back, and he posted my personal VISA card online again. Will nobody help me delete this entire page? Here's the email I just sent to the Wikipedia Foundation. But meanwhile, I'd appreciate some help from the voters, here, to delete my entire page. PLEASE VOTE TO DELETE. I'm done. And Wikipedia shouldn't have to pay the price for this idiot's violations of law.
Mr. Jimmy Wales, Once again, I am informed that somebody posted my VISA card number on Wikipedia, during the discussion about whether to delete my profile. Since it appears you're unable to control your users, I am (again) requesting (for the last time) that Wikipedia immediately delete all articles about Gordon_James_Klingenschmitt and Gordon_Klingenschmitt and Klingenschmitt from your entire program. These violations of my privacy by the Wikipedia Foundation are in direct violation of the 1974 Privacy Act. I've tried (twice) to follow your instructions for deleting the page, without success. You have one week to reply, or delete my page, or I'll begin discussing proper actions with my lawyers. Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Really, what other options do I have here? I'm being blackmailed, and all you 'professional editors' sleep well at night, I'm sure, having done nothing to help me. Its one thing to live a public life, but quite another to be stalked.Klingeng 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The violations of privacy that you discuss here are extremely serious, though they are not directly related to the question of whether there should be an article about you. I am bringing this matter to the administrators' noticeboard for further discussion. Please note that legal threats against Wikipedia or its editors are not permitted if you wish to remain editing. Such matters may be raised directly with the Wikipedia Office directly if necessary. I do not believe that a claim of legally cognizable invasion of privacy would have any merit but I do agree that we need to be alert to, and immediately address, any genuine infringements of privacy or postings of personal information that may take place. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any realistic way in which we can delete an article because its subject is unhappy about it. If someone is publishing his VISA number, the card should be cancelled immediately as having been compromised; but a compromised credit card cannot justify the deletion of an article. Torontothegood 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - if every Wikipedia bio had this problem, the project would rightly be shut down under a barrage of horrible press and well-earned lawsuits. If we aim to present biographies of living people, then we must not merely recognize the problems addressed here but decisively solve them. If we can't solve them, that's our fault, not Klingenschmitt's; he shouldn't have to pay for our collective dysfunctions.Proabivouac 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and whittle down. As it reads now it 'seems' okay, and illustrates conflicts inherent in service to two domains. However, the participants are quite enthusiasticly enraged. "Only Klingenschmitt would know his own Visa number certainly no one on the forum would have access to it." seems to be the nicest quote I can find which illustrates one fundamental flaw in the approach of most editors here - this isn't a open forum for discussion and disparagement of the person. It's supposed to be about the article, even on the talk page. Shenme 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a brief review of the sources used for this article indicate that few of them would be considered "reliable" - for example, the Statement of Claim (a document that contains only unproven allegations) being used as a source. By the time all the garbage sources are kicked out, there will be very little left of this article. It is very POV. So it fails both of the key editing policies - WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Notability is only a guideline; if the article fails policy then whether or not someone is notable is immaterial. Risker 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub and expand using proper sources, not the subject’s home page and a bunch of government PDFs. —xyzzy_n 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then restart article from scratch with sub-stub following BLP as closely as possible. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caveats Nuke the current page (and especially that horrible BLP violation that is the talk page--do THAT *now*). Keep, then also delete and recreate the page as a basic stub--closing admin, just create a listing of all the sources on talk or external links of the basic stub, and let it get rebuilt as a semi-protected article. Easy notability--30ish sources? but the current mess is bad. Start over, but keep/rebuild right. - Denny 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This Article! This article should have never been written in the first place. It originated as a self-promotion piece by the subject. Note that this article is the second response on a Google search of the individual in question. It is evident that he wanted to use wiki as a vehicle to propagate his own political agenda. A cursory look at the subject's own press releases and the subject matter in this article show that he is definitely not notable enough for an autobiography to appear on wiki. The fact that he is an officer who was convicted at Court Martial, though not an every day event, is similarly not notable enough to warrant his posting an autobiography on wiki. There are a number of Navy chaplains who have been court martialed for violating Federal law as the subject has done. The only difference in this case is that the subject is attempting to claim religious persecution as mitigation of his crime. It just doesn't wash. DELETE, DELETE, DELETE! USMC Padre 06:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth pretty much anything in WP will be the top 1-3 searches on Google for that thing, eventually. - Denny 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth it already is on Google. Which is why it needs to be seriously pruned of libelous information and rewritten. --Iamunknown 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite Subject is notable and is a limited purpose public figure and the subject of much news coverage ([41] [42] to start) but the current article should be replaced with a neutral and well-sourced one. I do believe a subject's wishes should weigh seriously in an AfD; however, there is significant encyclopedic value to a neutral article about him. Note to Mr. Klingenschmitt: if any more privacy vios happen, contact oversight-l@wikimedia.org by email to get the stuff removed instead of posting on-wiki, to avoid attracting attention to the stuff while it's still around. 64.160.39.153 07:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub, although I don't care how the article is kept. Whether we stub this current version of delete it and start over again, the same end resut is acheived. I think the person is notable, but the level of detail is not. Of course, the personal attacks and privacy violations need to be overisighted and I think those who add these unacceptable edits should be blocked on sight. Natalie 07:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article is of marginal and possibly only temporary notability, and the fact that the article has been the subject of extreme attacks and the subject requests deletion clearly tips the balance. It can be recreated if there is good cause to. Sam Blacketer 10:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Blacketer, the subject is of extremely marininal notability and definitely a flash in the pan as far as longevity goes. His crime was such a basic violation of US Code governing military behavior that it is only an oddity at best. The subject repeatedly used this article and WP for his self-promotion and has admitted it in his comment on this page. The fact that some editors objected to his spin does not make them "attackers" or "haters" as some have commented on this page. I find it troubling that mere disagreement with the subject's political spin is so casually categorized as hate by so many editors on the page. Stating the fact that the subject is a federally convicted criminal is not a negative attack, but a statement of fact. If that is "hate" or an "attack" then we need to delete the WP articles on Hitler and Stalin! Somewhere along the lines WP needs to decide if stating facts is acceptable or not. Since so many of the editors here seem to have such problems with a dispassionate recitation of the facts of the story, I say delete the whole story. Many of the comments made here makes one wonder about the value and/or legitimacy of WP in the first place. NavyChaps 14:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC) — NavyChaps (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hmm, the subject is definitely noted and thus notable, but the history of both the article and the talk page are rather libellous. I'd say delete both the article and the talk page and the talk archives, recreate a small stub, and watch meticulously to make sure this doesn't happen again. It's sickening to see how distasteful some of the conversations in the talk archives are. --Iamunknown 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But if you keep it, leave it fully protected from vandals, especially on the discussion page. I tried moderating a reasonable discussion there last year, and was shouted out by hostile attackers, the same ones now using repeated vulgarity. It's unfortunate some represent themselves to be Naval officers. (and even Chaplains?). We'd never talk like that in the Air Force.ChaplainReferee 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC) — ChaplainReferee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep if sourced. Information from previous versions establishes notability - but unsourced. If it can't be well-sourced now, then delete it without prejudice to later recreation. What is there now isn't worth keeping. Harassment to the subject should be shot on sight. SchmuckyTheCat 06:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since you are notable, improve due to BLP. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tear the thing apart and start again as a semi-protected stubbiest of stubs. (On a different note, notice how all the major POV pushers in the article's history are SPA's? I wonder what would happen if all of their edits were undone. Just thinking aloud, here...) Caknuck 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Notability marginal, he's certainly not a Public Figure and I think under WP:NPF this is a borderline issue where "do no harm" means respect his wishes. NBeale 06:31, 27 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breast expansion fetish[edit]

Unreferenced. Policy says articles must be attributed to published sources. If this can be attributed to published sources, why not add those citations before you vote, but after you review policy on acceptable sources? Lotusduck 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there is doubt that a topic is real, then the lack of sources can be used to remove quickly. But this is a notable enough fetish and someone else can go hunting for so-called "published" sources (an extremely outdated and 20th century term, incidentally. People need to understand that online sources are just as viable in 2007; this is not a sign of support for the particular sources currently cited in this article). 23skidoo 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ski, I am quoting policy. Articles on wikipedia must be backed and back-able by "reliable sources". Also it's confusing to say that you don't support the sources currently cited in this article, because no sources are cited by the article? Lotusduck 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources and lots of POV Original Research. Valrith 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough objective, encyclopedic information here to make it worthwhile. - Richard Cavell 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to improve the article I have moved most of the unreferenced terms into talk: essentially the entire article, since improving the article while deletion is undergone is encouraged. Lotusduck 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found to prove its notability; this article is a year and a half old, and such sources should have been found by now. — Krimpet (talk/review) 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fairly prolific fetish, particularly in fetish erotica fiction and in hentai. I have added a reference to the article and have referred the article to someone more knowledgeable in this area than I in order to reference some of the specific information that has been moved to the talk page. Some of the information that was moved probably shouldn't have been as it is relevant and based upon recurring topics of discussion within some of the pages listed under "external links" (and it makes it much harder for that material to subsequently become referenced as it's somewhat "hidden"). Much of the information that needs citing can probably be found within those links, however I do not currently have time to look through the sites that the links point to in order to find it (nor do I particularly care to as this sort of thing is not my "bag," as they say). LaMenta3 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, zero reliable sources are present. RFerreira 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to have multiple reliable independent sources for this obsession with inflatable balloon bazooms. Fails WP:ATT. Edison 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lotusduck. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- text is dictdef, not article -- Simon Cursitor 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-argument. The nominator moved almost the entire article to the talk page just a few hours after she nominated it. Bad form. She has been warned about vandalism before[43]. I will continue to restore the text until this NfD is resolved. --David Hain 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per 23skidoo's comments. Direct links to thousands of BE stories and morphs and their surrounding communities is enough proof that they exist. I fail to see how it's possible to be any more "reliable" than that. If it's necessary to prove every point in the article by linking it to a specific story, picture or animation, then so be it – it can be easily done. --David Hain 14:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Wikipedia, the stories, morphs, animations etc., would be primary sources, which are considered reliable sources. --David Hain 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recently there was an attempt to merge fetishes into single article (List of uncommon fetishes). This VfD may be postponed a while to see what comes out of this. Pavel Vozenilek 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...maybe merge with the article Pavel mentioned. --pIrish 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaMenta3 and 23skidoo. There are plenty of "original sources" on this-- just look at the external links. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator of this article has nominated a number of articles about non-orthodox sexual practices, and succeeding in deleting some of them. As anyone who uses an uncensored version of the internet knows, they are all of them in use, they all of them are discussed, and there are abundant illustrations, fictional and real. I do not want to speculate on others' motives. I think I know my own: they are most of them not things I find personally appealing, except in an anthropological sense. In that sense I find all human behavior interesting, & wish to know about it -- from a safe distance--and I think that people in general do or at least should also find that nothing human is alien to them. An encyclopedia is a relatively safe place. It is better that young people first discover these thing here than on the open web, and I wish such resources had been available to me.

Obviously, the sources will be a little different from the usual ones. But many of the cultural phenomena today have sources that are not quite the conventional published sources, and it is time WP acknowledged it. We are finding ourselves in the ironic role of having been one of the makers of this change, but not recognizing it. DGG 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the nom. Lotusduck 03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not long ago, I noted that there was a lack of attribution to this page, but I also admit that I did little to search for reliable sourcing for the fetish. This is one of those topics that I'm sure there will be *something* that satisfies policy and improves the article. ju66l3r 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF someone can add reliable sources, then you can, so why don't you?Lotusduck 03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just said: "...I also admit that I did little to search...". Given the body of work out there, someone, somewhere, has likely commented on it. In fact, it is the subject of one part of the book Deviant Desires (the lone ref in the article currently). So, someone has added a reliable source. More likely exist. Just because I don't choose to make this my topic of research currently doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Attribution requires that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source.... This material is attributable (and one ref so far attributes it). It's also pretty obvious that when the subject is sexual fetish, the NYT or WSJ aren't going to run front page stories concerning the subject. This pushes our given requirements for "reliability" to their limit and takes longer to find such valid sources. I don't think it's unreasonable to keep this article until more of these hidden resources are found. ju66l3r 12:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:

additional refs Two additional refs have been added, One exactly on point from the Chicago Tribune. The requirements for V and RS have now been met in a perfectly orthodox manner. DGG 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now two more have been added, N Y Times, and L A Times. Mainstream--it is much harder to find off-mainstream, but since there are 3 major mainstream newspaper articles, think how many there must be in some other publications... . All that was needed was Proquest Newspapers. Are the skeptics satisfied? DGG 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that this article meets the burden of attribution, reliable sourcing, and/or verifiability (depending on which way the wind is blowing through wiki-policy right now). As such I hope the submitter and/or closing admin takes note of the current state of the article and ask that above editors reconsider their comments in light of the recent changes made to the article that address all criticism in the nomination. Thanks. ju66l3r 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. Also, this article has a template at the bottom saying that it comes under "Paraphilias and fetishes", a template that has many articles. If this one gets deleted...I would suggest reviewing all the other articles in the "Paraphilias and fetishes" template. Acalamari 22:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Franchise History[edit]

Information is duplicated effectively from Timeline of the National Hockey League, but the latter is in graphical form, which may be easier to understand. kelvSYC 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The timeline is a little hard to read, but the list form is too long and repetitive. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Good article showing NHL history. Spy1986 08:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how does it show NHL history? Why wouldn't something like History of the National Hockey League be better at covering the subject matter? kelvSYC 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing here not in other wikipedia entries. can be safely eliminated. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant information. As noted by the nominator, Timeline of the National Hockey League conveys this information much more clearly. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ambler[edit]

Non-notable actress. According to IMDb, appeared in a grand total of 7 productions (5 television shows and 2 television movies) over a 20-year timespan. Speedy-delete was contested on grounds that some of these were "popular national TV shows", however that argument seems weak given that she appeared on Coronation Street only 4 times in 3 seasons. No information in the article other than her acting credits. No reliable sources cited, so fails the multiple independent coverages required by WP:BIO. Valrith 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BIO; "... actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Was a repeating cast member in both Coronation Street and Emmerdale, two of the most popular soap operas in history. --Oakshade 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oakshade, she appeared less than five times in each of those shows mentioned. If Rachel Ambler were merged to either of those someone would take them out for being irrelevant, and if the article wasn't merged it would stay a stub for an indeterminate period of at least a year and quite possibly forever.Lotusduck 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides appearing multiple times on those popular TV shows (6 times actually - 4 on Coronation Street and 2 on Emmerdale), she also has roles in The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, Harry, Hetty Wainthropp Investigates and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, all very popular television series and solidifing passing WP:BIO (ulness we decide to IGONRE WP:BIO). Also, "notability" is permanant. --Oakshade 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that notability is permanent and I argue that it isn't present. She appears in each of the things you just mentioned in only one episode each. Unless you plan to add "multiple independent coverages" by published sources to her article, you are the one who is ignoring WP BIO.Lotusduck 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Adhering to the exact WP:BIO guideline quoted above. See WP:BIO - Entertainers. I'll repeat the guideline here (since it's being ignored) "... actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." And per your own admission, she's appeared in at least ten episodes of very popular shows. --Oakshade 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment This argument has raised its head before and I think WP:BIO needs to be clearer about it - you can't take the sentence "... actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." without also including the next one: "Notability can be determined by.... Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers / A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following / A credible independent biography / Wide name recognition / Commercial endorsements of notable products". Otherwise, every actor who has appeared in Coronation Street for ten seconds standing in the background is notable. And Ms.Ambler doesn't appear to hit any of those categories. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only that Ms. Ambler wasn't in these shows for 10 seconds in the background, but a principal guest performer playing important characters in them. The ambiguous and contradictory multiple clauses of WP:BIO that can be interpreted many ways was always an issue with me, but that's an argument for another page. --Oakshade 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:BIO isn't ambiguous, just badly phrased - it clearly states what notability factors are suitable. If you take your argument as correct, then WP:BIO also states that ALL "scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" are notable. You must have notability per the bullet points. Rachel Ambler does not pass this. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She passes the bullet point of Entertainers to the letter. Adding the sentence you quoted ("Notability can be determined by.... ") does not negate the first and primary sentence of that clause. --Oakshade 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the text above the bullet points? Even ignoring the primary notability criterion, the Special Cases section states The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Where's the "good deal of verifiable information"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade's arguments. Edison 05:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my point above. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Here's the thing, on one hand, I think that's enough appearances to pass WP:BIO if she were a guest star, but she's not. She might be notable if these 7 productions were over a 3 year period, but they are over 20 years. Further, there's no additional information about her, other than the appearances. What makes her notable other than just being on the show? Does she have wide name recognition? I don't think so. It's tough, I feel like this is sort of borderline, but I just cannot go with keep on this one, due to lack of notability, lack of sources, and lack of growth potential beyond stub status. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criterion noted by Oakshade is one of a number of indicators that the individual may have achieved notability. The primary notability criterion - and actually the only one that matters - is: has this individual been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? No evidence is presented that they have. This looks like a generic bit-part player, perfect for IMDB but not for Wikipedia due to lack of secondary sources. 125 unique Googles outside Wikipedia is not a good sign, especially since quite a number (most, I think) are unrelated, Wikipedia is top Google hit, also not a good sign, and only three images on Google image search(!). Merge to a list of minor Enemadale actors if you like. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy, fails the primary notability criterion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, not every filler actor is automatically notable. >Radiant< 10:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are cited, per Guy. --kingboyk 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Fails criterion at this time... - Denny 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. Wickethewok 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references/sources are trivial. 220.227.179.4 17:02, 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A balladeer[edit]

Delete - Shows no notability other than releasing a few albums and winning a radio station award. Betaeleven 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has several albums out and has won a Silver Harp:

a balladeer has won the Silver Harp award 2006. The Silver Harp is a prestigious award given by Buma Cultuur to promising creative artists who have made an important contribution to the Dutch Music industry in the past year. Buma Cultuur is a foundation dedicated to the promotion and support of Dutch Music. Supported by the Dutch author rights organisation Buma/Stemra, Buma Cultuur initiates and carries out a number of projects in the Netherlands and abroad. The award will be presented to the band on February 5th.

[44] --Theunicyclegirl 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Releasing a few albums and winning a radio station award" does it for me. 25,000 g-hits for balladeer panama (the title of their debut album). FiggyBee 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won a prestigious Dutch award (past winners include Within Temptation, DJ Tiësto, Junkie XL), released an album and several singles. Evil Nickname 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the above comments, the Dutch award in particular. RFerreira 17:18, 25 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 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Texas Wrestling Legends (WTWL)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestling promotion, fails WP:CORP and WP:A One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Lots of bluelinks to wrestlers, but none looks amazingly notable (walled garden?) and a link to someone called Mike DiBiase links to the Ted DiBiase article. All very suspicious. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mike DiBiase is Ted DiBiase's son.PepsiPlunge 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It would be great if the article didn't look like original research and was fleshed out majorly. Currently I have to agree with nomination. Suriel1981 11:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has some notable workers, I would keep it. Kris Classic 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are notable workers and it is the only running Indy Promotion in West Texas. Brett420x 12:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of those are valid criteria for establishing notability. Anyone can hire an independent wrestler, doing so does not make the promotion notable. The promotion is notable if it has been the subject of non trivial coverage in secondary sources, please provide evidence of this as opposed to your own opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources, and just having notable wrestler occasionally compete doesn't mean anything since most of these wrestlers compete in indy feds all across the country. TJ Spyke 04:10, 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 redirect. - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ForteSp[edit]

This page is a sad attempt at the creation of an article that already exists, Bass.EXE. Please delete. --LordHuffNPuff 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close: Use a redirect, then. cab 22:13, 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 speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold [45]. Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Card (businessman)[edit]

This article meets no notability criteria and cites no sources HokieRNB 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No notability asserted or given, and so tagged (A7). EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No claims of notability made in article. Mwelch 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dollywood Pin Trading[edit]

Was going to tag this for speedy deletion but a proper AfD debate might avoid ill feelings. In any case, there is a complete absence of reliable third-party sources for the material contained in this article and therefore no chance to really create an article about this pin-trading club that meets our standards. Pascal.Tesson 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I don't see any reason why this isn't purely advertising, so tagged as such (G11). EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G11--Hu12 04:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I want to keep the page (having nominated it for AfD) but somehow I don't think this page was created as an advertisement per se. I'll go with WP:AGF and assume that the creator simply had misconceptions about Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 04:38, 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frellsen Reese[edit]

Subject is non-notable per WP:BIO. Note that my primary reason for bring this here is that the article was just deleted through prod, and the article's author has exercised his right to challenge that deletion by re-creating the article. So, with that background in mind, it should definitely be discussed here. Mwelch 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claim to notability would be that he served as mayor of a small town (population 600) for 14 years. That's short of the politician guidelines in WP:BIO. With such a long time in office, I'd be willing to consider that he might still be notable, but a check of the sources provided in the article reveals the article to be problematic. Almost the entire article is sourced by his paid obituary in the newspaper (i.e. not an independent secondary source) and a personal conversation between the article's creator and a town official where Reese lived (i.e. clear cut original research). Take those away, and all you have left is that he was the mayor, he once proclaimed a day in honor of a local football coach, and he was donor to the Republican National Committee. Doesn't really seem to be much of an article to me. Mwelch 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much more notable than many other article subjects I could mention. If the content is problematic, edit the article or give its author some time to edit it. Justin88 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A fair suggestion. But if there are no other sources about the man, then edit it with what? As for "other articles", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mwelch 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More information is out there about this guy and his relation to the more major politicians in the area. A little more Google work means that it can be shown what a power broker this guy is and how important he is in his city tommyduva

Comment. Hmm, OK. Then you're seeing something on Google that I don't. When I Google his name, I get 15 hits. Several of them are copies of the obituary, and none of the others shed any light on this issues you mention. What are you seeing that I'm missing? If indeed there are other legitimate soruces out there about the man, I'd agree that changes thigns. Mwelch 02:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mr. Reese was also a lieutenant colonel and a veteran of three wars, fairly uncommon. He was elected in his town and notable in that portion of northeast Louisiana.

Billy Hathorn 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Slight-Merge into the town per WP:LOCAL - NYC JD (interrogatories) 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kzq9599 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every town in America has prominent local politicians in their past. Not enough here to pass WP:BIO. Also consider Wikipedia is not a memorial. Caknuck 05:46, 26 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 01:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantyhose for men[edit]

A POV fork of Pantyhose, full of coercive statements and OR. As the author admits on the talk page, "Why I created this article is the point that most men who wear pantyhose are not any more 'fetishists' or 'crossdressers', AND that pantyhose for men is an individual type of pantyhose just like stockings or leggings that may be separated from pantyhose." Wikipedia is not a soapbox; the gender connotations of clothing are already widely discussed in other articles. I tried smerging it back into Pantyhose, but the author reverted without explanation. — Krimpet (talk/review) 20:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see the discussion page for the article. Best, Harisnya 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - POV fork. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fits notability guidelines and is certainly well-written and well-referenced. It may need some cleanup and possibly an NPOV review, but neither of those are reasons to delete it! I say keep. --Theunicyclegirl 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge - I think it's a decent article, but I do think it can be merged with pantyhose easily enough. There's already a short section on that page about men and pantyhose. Why not just add this information there? --pIrish 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a specific aspect, and some of the appropriate categories might be different. DGG 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written and well refrenced article addressing a specific and relatively new segment of hosiery.

Keep I think that this topic does have a specific aspect, the article is written from a NPOV, it's using reliable sources, stands up to Wikipedia:Verifiability and doesn't contain OR; and that it doesn't simply fit into Pantyhose. Obviously it's not perfect - as one of the authors I would be happy to go on with it.

So here comes Socrates' Defense.

First of all I object the way Krimpet nominated the article for deletion: he/she merged it without placing a merge tag before or making any suggestions to improve the article including placing other usual tags like NPOV into; and when I objected he/she simply put the AfD tag into. This is an article that was created more than six months ago and has been worked on a lot - it deserves a merge tag followed by a discussion at least. This is not WP:CIVIL from someone who aspires to become an administrator.

Second I object for the lack and/or poor quality of clarification of the merge act and the deletion nomination as follows:

In the discussion page Krimpet states the following reasons for merge/deletion:

'OR in the article'. We carefully tried to avoid any OR in the article. Please be specific and cite some.
The article 'cites questionable sources'. The article uses sources like the US.Gov's National Library of Medicine, and the International Herald Tribune amongst others. Some online articles cannot be recovered at the original place anymore indeed.
...and is a synthesis of material' - very much as with OR, we did not want to advance any of our positions (why should we/I?). Citations please.
...reads like an advertisement for male pantyhose'. This is really sad and should be improved! We have worked a lot on this already with the help of other more experienced Wikipedians (check the article history and/or discussion page). Your help is welcome!
'merging this back into Pantyhose' - it wasn't emerging from the Pantyhose article; sounds like preconception.

Here in the deletion discussion page Krimpet states the following:

A POV fork of Pantyhose. It is a bit of a summary style article - it is to ensure NPOV. Summary style articles are not content forking.
full of coercive statements' - please be more specific. 'Coercive statement' is rather a legal expression used for something very different.
OR - see above - we did everything not to include any OR - please cite some.
Soapbox - the article doesn't want to do anything with any propaganda/advocacy/self-promotion/advertising - but if it sounds like, please help to improve it.
Gender connotations are not discussed in the article but rather in the discussion page of the article... just as Krimpet points out.

Again, I am sure it's not a perfect article and would happy to go on with it.

Harisnya 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Not merge. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Harnois[edit]

Contested prod; seems like an obvious hoax to me. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, it's a hoax. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax. - Richard Cavell 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax. At least one variation of the article with a different title has been deleted already. Flowerpotman ^talk-_{wot I've done} 02:52, 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. Picaroon 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saya Misaki[edit]

Article does not assert notability, and subject is not notable anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 35 DVDs at mainstream Amazon.com clearly indicate the subject is visible to a wide audience. The article is a on celebrity, and is not a vanity page. Use of "Notability" to delete articles on lesser-known celebrities is an abuse of the term. As a sign of her notability in Japan, out of the hundreds, if not thousands of actresses who have made adult video debuts yearly in Japan since the early 1980s, editors of Japanese Wikipedia give this actress a lengthy article. Pornography has long been, and continues to be a very significant part of Japanese popular culture, and English Wiki's coverage of the Japanese porn area is woefully lacking. Taking out two general articles and four articles on pink film actresses, the English Wikipedia, with going-on 2 million articles, currently has 57 articles in Category:Japanese porn stars. For comparison, Chinese Wikipedia, with less than 117,000 articles, has 67 articles on Japanese AV actresses. In 1994 it was reported that "approximately 14,000 "adult" videos were being made yearly in Japan compared with some 2500 in the U.S."[46]. Also, "In addition to the influence of pornography on mainstream cinema, the line between pornography and family entertainment, such as daytime television, is blurred. It is not uncommon in Japan for a waning female television star or singer to feature in pornographic videos. Similarly, there are women actors from pornographic videos who move into daytime television."[47] And further, "By the late 1970s the production of pink eiga together with Roman Porno amounted to more than 70% of annual Japanese film production."[48] And finally, "The market for pornographic videos is worth Y400 billion annually, accounting for around 30 percent of [Japan]’s video rentals."[49] With pornography's high visibility in Japan, her status as an AV idol gives her much higher notability in her country than her U.S. counterparts have in their country. To further chip away at Wikipedia's already meagre coverage of Japanese erotic cinema would be to further cultural bias. Dekkappai 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added the following to the article: Saya Misaki stands out in the AV field, where an average career spans about a year, with five to ten videos total.[50](quote: "If she’s only out for money, she will studiously avoid publicity and quit inside a year—the average life-span of an AV girl—with five or ten videos to her credit and an unknowing family bosom to return to.") Misaki's career, currently active, has spanned over three years during which she has appeared in at least 35 DVDs. Dekkappai 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does the Japanese Wikipedia article provide any non-trivial sources? Epbr123 13:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 03:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability still not established within the article as per WP:BLP--Sefringle 04:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quoting from within the article: "Saya Misaki stands out in the AV field, where an average career spans about a year, with five to ten videos total.[1] Misaki's career, currently active, has spanned over three years during which she has appeared in at least 35 DVDs.[2]" Dekkappai 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Needs at least one reliable source. Epbr123 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. Clearly notable in Japan. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai and Disavian. Acalamari 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai Colincbn 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai, notable Japanese actress. RFerreira 17:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekkappai. The Japanese article on her looks to be very long, and if someone knows enough Japanese to translate, they really should. LaMenta3 20:28, 25 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. Picaroon 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Underground[edit]

Because there are no sources and a very similar article, Nintendo NSider forums was deleted Knowitall 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's nothing more then free advertising for the forum. If you cut the filler out of the article, it would only be a stub, if anything. Not to mention that fact that it looks like the article has a total of _zero_ sources. --Nakile 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this. It isn't really advertising, this is a commercial forum. It doesn't need advertisement. This was created by the community so that they could have something to be proud of. People worked hard on making this look good, and here you go wanting to delete it for silly reasons. -Lkr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.147.172 (talk)

I assume that you noticed the part about the Nintendo's official commercial forum getting deleted right? There are 2 solutions:

1. Undelete the Nintendo NSider forums article.

2. Delete the Playstation Underground article.

A lot of work went into the NSider forums article as well. Funpika 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source is from an un-creditable author. The claims are bias and mostly crapshoot. The page is often edited by malicious people as you can see at the moment under Moderating Team.Most of the information is from the New User Guide located in the forums and the wiki page serves no purpose other than for the creators to promote themselves with the benefit of a large community. - Hybrid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.137.80 (talk • contribs)
Delete Per above. - Denny 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If NSider's got deleted, either NSider needs undelete or this needs to be deleted. 209.159.198.114 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely this will be deleted. I would prefer to try to keep both articles. Funpika 01:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize & Merge This is a notable and official forum. The content is not acceptable though for a pedia article. I think someone should just take some important things about this and post a sentence or two in the PlayStation article. Just a suggestion...--Jingshen 14:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:ATT or WP:WEB (lacks reliable coverage). Wickethewok 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can see for deleting this article is because it lacks sources. Any other reasons are just absurd and unfounded. The fact the Nsider article was deleted has little to do with this, because we don't know WHY it was deleted. Arguing that because this is similar, therefor must also go, means we should be going around deleting every article that is about websites. Remember this is not about the forums, this article is about the PlayStation Underground, which is a whole website system, which includes the forums, exclusive gamer "clubs" (GAP), etc.... I like the idea of maybe merging it with the PlayStation article, or making it a stub of that or w/e. Personal feelings and vendettas should not effect the status of this article. Also, no reason was given for marking the article for deletion.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gino D'Addario[edit]

Non notable person, lacks independent sources establishing notability. 13 Google hits[51], only go to show that he is a student who manages a student radio station. Fram 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. - Richard Cavell 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: per nom. (My prod was rejected as "contested" because a vandal removed and then I re-added.) Danski14 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Name sounds famous, but no press, sources or cause to have an article about this person. MURGH ^disc. 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with his radio show Love Line (which is not Loveline, hmm, have they heard?). -- Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 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.--Wizardman 14:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham & Straus[edit]

Article has no independent source and fails to source its statements. and per Jimbo no text is better than having unsourced. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy Close You better get busy and start deleting all 1 million articles that were created before sourcing was required. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an ((unreferenced)) maintenance tag issue, not a deletion issue. I haven't bothered to check yet because I happen to know they were a massive outlet akin to JC Penny, but will source in a few minutes. To cite WP:ATT: "this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found" or at WP:AFD: "consider...adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."--Fuhghettaboutit 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per other "keep" recommendations above. I believe that the nominator may have misinterpreted Jimbo's comments regarding sourcing. But in any event, here are some sources: [52] [53] [54] --Metropolitan90 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Added some material from New York Times 1893 article and inline citation markup. There was actually some well sourced material present, though as naked links which I have refactored. Note that the Jimbo appeal to authority material is apparently from here; note the "unless it can be sourced" line nestling in there.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An historic new York City-area chain store that needed to be improved, not deleted. AfD is a rather blunt instrument to use to have sources added. Speedy keep based on notability and addition of sources. Alansohn 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article definately needs to stay; there are a few sentences that need attribution but if you look carefully at the sourcing throughout, there is much more than many other entries. I will look through and add a few. As the person who added stuff from their corporate history that is listed at the bottom, i will make sure the sentences that came from that document are attached up topBrandlandUSA 03:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sources, but it needs cleanup - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Besides, the header of that e-mail said Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, which is not the same thing. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close as WP:SNOW This is what WikiProjects are for, not AFD. Tuxide 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: As other users said, needs cleanup not deletion. Brooklynl 12:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Kadouri[edit]

Contested speedy deletion (db-bio). I concur, it is db-bio. 84 Google hits for this young designer from Israel, who apparently thinks she was in the same league as e.g. Alvar Aalto (see the talk page). WP is not a business directory. Delete as db-bio and self-promotion. (See also Iris Design Studio.) Lupo 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:AUTO and WP:N: endorse above search results. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO PCock 11:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Design Studio[edit]

See Iris Kadouri. Plain advertisement. Wikiedia is not a business directory. Delete, including all the images the creator uploaded. Lupo 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:AUTO and WP:N. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No self-promotion articles. Acalamari 22:27, 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 keep Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Paulson[edit]

Seems to fail WP:N. Article text does assert that he was the first American to win the "World Shooto Title" in Japan, so it passes CSD:A7. However, the results English Google returns for "'World Shooto Title' +Japan +Paulson" (all five of them) seem to be rather shaky attributions. Action Jackson IV 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is real. It's likely that most of the online references are in Japanese. The article needs work, not deletion. - Richard Cavell 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable person in the martial arts and MMA world, perhaps if someone could cite pro-fighters who trained under Paulson... Other than that it needs a cleanup. --Mista-X 03:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G!X[edit]

Non-notable game clan Mhking 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I put work into this just for it to be delted its a dictionary of our clan. Perhaps you dont understand cause you havent been in one (Maybe). But when a persons work is delted i think i would feel sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyzersawsay (talk • contribs)

Delete. Sorry, but wikipedia is not a webspace provider. You'll have to find somewhere else for your clan directory. FiggyBee 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless the author can substantiate the 'one of the largest clans...' quote. Additional: I declined to speedy delete, because of this quote from the article. - Richard Cavell 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete for nonnotability/vanity. Aaronbrick 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete videogame clan, the end. JuJube 04:34, 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 No consensus. The views expressed are about evenly split. Policy arguments and considerations have been carefully considered but, in this instance, do not appear to mandate a particular result. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz[edit]

Delete:While certainly notable within the Wikipedia community, MyWikiBiz has shut down, and moved on to Centaire.com. It only had one employee, and I only briefly looked for more news coverage, but I doubt there is that much more then what is already present. As a side note, we don't need the blog article or the foreign language articles, and the Internals Links should be listed as External Links (per WP:SELF)). Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy should be reformatted as an external link ([55]]). Danski14 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the business having shut down is a criterion for excluding it? Aaronbrick 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was it counts against it when it comes to meeting WP:CORP. If if was still around I might reconsider as then it might be growing and expanding.. and we might want to keep the article as there might be more active media coverage, etc. Danski14 16:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a business being defunct grounds for removal? It just means it'll always be a smaller article. - Denny 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the founder didn't like this, it shouldn't stay. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? If Jimbo doesn't like something, we shouldn't have an article about it? That's silly. That said, I think the notability is borderline at best. FiggyBee 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable business. Thankfully, this is one of those "odd moments in Wikipedia history" which doesn't seem to have been picked up by the media. If there's more coverage than I've found, the article will need to be rewritten to avoid being quite as self-referential as it is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10+ sources. Whats not notable? - Denny 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. PCock 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't meet WP:CORP, please qualify that statement? There are 10+ sources on casual inspection, easily exceeding CORP's requirements. - Denny 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Well certainly N within the WP community" which now stands at several million people. Articles about N things that might possibly show us in a negative light should be scrupulously kept. Further, the discussion regarding paid articles is likely to be for for quite a while. This is just the first of the group. The sources are sufficient--AP and major French & german sources. DGG 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Just so unnotable. Just like Willy on Wheels, Lightbringer, Mr. Pelican Shit, etc. we don't have articles on them. SakotGrimshine 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Oh and another reason is WP:DENY. SakotGrimshine 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is not notable--please qualify that statement? There are 10+ sources on casual inspection, easily exceeding CORP's requirements. - Denny 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not convinced that WP:DENY applies, since this particular character wasn't exactly vandalising the ol' 'pedia. He wasn't using it in the way we intend it to be used, definitely, but I wouldn't call what he was doing vandalism - which is, AFAIK, why the manner in which the account was blocked was more than a simple response to persistent vandalism. That said, I wasn't involved in the process at all, so I may be entirely mistaken. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's publicgirluk who they also decided wasn't notable. But I think mighta had a bit of press. I doubt MyWikiBiz had any. You know there was some other person who did the same thing--I forget her username now, but they tried the same thing, even advertising and was told no. They were banned as a troll because nobody believe someone paid them $300 to write a Wikipedia article about their company. SakotGrimshine 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - All fair enough, but WP:DENY strikes me as having special reference to vandalism, rather than trolling or being commercial. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP, and otherwise self-referential. Drive a stake into this thing. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't meet WP:CORP, please qualify that statement? There are 10+ sources on casual inspection, easily exceeding CORP's requirements. - Denny 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like it or not, there's that Associated Press article about MyWikiBiz so as far as I can tell, it meets WP:CORP. Am I missing something here?--A. B. ^(talk) 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep appears to have a little notability--Sefringle 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:DENY applies to article space? Appears to pass basic WP:CORP notability... a quick inspection turns up all these sources: Tech News World, MSNBC, Linux Insider Magazine, Associated Press, GMA News, News.fr, Asia Media News Daily, gegen Spammer und Vandalen IT News World (German), News.fr, Times of India. We don't delete based on WP:WEDONTLIKEIT or WP:WEDONTNEEDIT... - Denny 22:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was mentioned on many news sites (including CNN, if I believe correctly) as a demonstration of the importance of Wikipedia in popular culture and as a discussion of ethics. Therefore its importance goes well beyond wikipedia insiders. --FateClub 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also confess that I perceive some value in transparency and disclosure that could increase the importance of self-documentation like this, but I do not know of any such policy statement. And I should say while commenting that I see no problem with WP:CORP or WP:DENY. Aaronbrick 04:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with all the sources listed here I find it notable enough. bbx 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets and far exceeds the standards of WP:CORP, the only relevant application of WP:DENY I can think of is removing any such comments from this discussion as personal attacks. RFerreira 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RFerreira, et al. --Myles Long 18:35, 25 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 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superhero Captains[edit]

Essentially a list of indiscriminate information and appears to be based on original research. Inclusion of the word "Captain" in a characters name is not a definining or unifying element. J Greb 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is OR fancruft.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

The list is no less valid than any other in the same field; it expands upon the work I completed in the Captain entry, and is presented as this list so as not impinge upon the general them of the rest of the work. The field of Superhero has several lists of it's own, and if anything, it should be added tothem rather than deleted. The very size of the document indicates it is a point of interest to Superhero watchers; to wit, the very fact that so many characters use the title of Captain makes it a valid point of study, and probably for the reasons indicated on the 'Further Information' entry on Captain. If this list is to be deleted, then a similar "Sledgehammer" application needs to be applied upon the other lists upon which it was based. List of Fictional Captains has no more or less right to exist than this original work. The information is valid and relevant to the associated fields. If it is simply my authorship which is the problem (demonstrated elsewhere0, then I am happy for somebody else to take the credit, but deletion of such valid reference is tantamount to power exercised for it's own sake.

STEALTH RANGER 10:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since both the "Further information" section of Captain and this list flow from the same source, arguing one validates the other is suspect, at best. Further, Wiki articles are not supposed to be places for original research, which this is.
This AfD is about this article and it's merits, or lack there of. Other articles should be dealt with in their own time. If the article List of Fictional Captains existed, that mere existence would not exempt this article from Wiki guidelines and policies. Categories such as Category:Fictional Captains have even less bearing on this and, like other articles, they have their own place to have their retention or removal debated.
On the point of Wiki policy, meatpupetry, such as what you have done here is not to be done. IF you are going to point people to the AfD, do it in a neutral manner. If you cannot do that, do not point people to it.
— J Greb 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that should the list survive it will need to be pruned since whoever made it couldn't be bothered to double-check that all of the listed characters are actually super heroes. I also removed the OR essay that led the article because, well, it was an OR essay. Otto4711 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CREATOR I made this list, very recently, and is a work in progress. If I understand the reference to meat puppetry correctly, you are in error. I have created the list rather than add it to my extension to Captain, else it become unweildly and to diverse. I have solicited nobody to assist in this, and had hoped to complete the work without interference. This has not been the case. The stsement that I have not bothered to check information is insulting and must be considered personal. perhaps I tread on toes (again) by daring to add to peoples pet pages, and therefore deletion is the usual punishment, perhaps. What i hav edone is to bring the plight of this creation to those whom I thought might have a vested interest in seeing it's continuation; Sadly, this does not seem the case, and perhaps I have alerted the wrong peope to it's existance. Apologies to all. My earlier statement still stands. This page is a valid reference tool and one suitable for research purposes. It is an original work and worthy of survival on its own merit. It does not deserve deletion simply because a handful do not find an immediate use for it.

STEALTH RANGER 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Field Theory[edit]

Tagged as non-notable and lacking citations since Dec 2006 - no response. greenrd 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Mwelch 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, author is Him "Edward" Ip, a freshman at Trinity College I gather [56]. NN. Smmurphy^(Talk)
Delete - Definitely meets the criteria of OR. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, written without RS from a definite POV. Oh, and also WP:FRINGE. Anville 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacking RS, one must conclude that this in non-notable at best, but more likely OR. It fails both WP:SCIENCE and WP:FRINGE. --EMS | Talk 20:56, 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 -- Bubba hotep 09:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khanabadosh[edit]

Found this in the WP:WIKIFY, not quite sure on notability so I'll let the community decide on this one. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roma people? Seems to be the local name for them in Pakistan based on my Google books search (see Massey India's Kathak Dance pp 123-124; on the other hand, this is contradicted by Berland et al Customary Strangers p239 which claims it's the name for another group called Qalandar, who are not related to Qalandariyah Sufi mystics, and Atal Sociology and Social Anthropology in Asia and the Pacific who claims it's the name for yet a third group, Kanjar). The organisation itself mentioned on the page is pretty clearly non-notable, and even if it weren't, an article about it shouldn't be squatting on the name of an ethnic group. cab 01:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization (Khanabadosh Research & Exploration Society) doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Redirect per cab, if necessary. utcursch | talk 05:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization that fails WP:ORG. Also fails WP:RS. I'd advise against redirecting if the term is ambiguous. Maybe recreating as a disambiguation page with links to the three demographics listed by cab is the best option here. Caknuck 05:50, 26 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 Not enough good sources to support an article; Delete.. JWSchmidt 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orientals Family[edit]

Potential WP:BLP violations, all the information is unreferenced Alex Bakharev 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it's best to wipe this and start again if someone comes across some more encyclopedic references. - Richard Cavell 04:10, 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 merge Alex Bakharev 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Lamarckism[edit]

This page is just a dictionary definition, and I have never heard of it before. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lamarckism. No content to merge. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
close I have boldly redirected, redirect seemed appropriate. I've merged and redirected actually. Move to close. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:02, 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.