< March 19 March 21 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as failing verifability. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag-Ops[edit]

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

Unreal Tournament mod that doesn't appear to be particular notable. Its sourceless and googling doesn't bring up any reliable sources. PROD was removed with edit summary: "Removed the note for deletion, for this page is to be used for providing small references related to the game and otherwise, for it is to be experiencing a revival" - I have no idea what that means. It has also been previously deleted as "nn/spam". Delete as failing WP:ATT. Wickethewok 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done, can my updated version be fasttracked in? --Basique 16:42, 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 to delete, default keep -- although the arguments for keeping were more thoroughly documented. Now suggest that all references mentioned are placed in the article. Bubba hotep 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evol Intent[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC. A quick Google search failed to reveal the group's significance, and they have not been on any charts. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well ... JUSTAPOLICY is just an essay, an opinion statement from a handful of editors no more or less pertinent than yours or my opinion. That being said, what criteria listed in WP:BAND do you claim this group has met? Just signing onto a label or "releasing material" doesn't suffice, by a long shot. RGTraynor 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said before, I'm abstaining from voting. I'm not making a claim about anything regarding the band -- I just wanted to point out that the AfD is meant to be a conversation, not a straight up vote. And right now, it's just a vote. People are just citing a policy but not what's IN the policy, and although WP:JUSTAPOLICY is just an essay, that doens't mean it's wrong. That's all. Rockstar915 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


many tours in various countries including america, france, england, switzerland, slovenia, germany, and austria. http://www.evolintent.com/banners/evolintentloveseurope.jpg

  • Lacks a reliable source. The band's own website does not qualify.

renegade hardware. http://www.discogs.com/release/557675 human imprint. http://www.discogs.com/release/297538

  • The album listed on the second link has no content by Evol Intent.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A21300 creative loafing is one of the most established local happenings journals in atlanta.

  • This review from a website (whose own notability is unestablished) makes no actual claims that Evol Intent is the "most prominent representative" of the local scene. It just likes EI's music.

(BBC Radio 1)

  • No evidence of this claim submitted.

(BBC Radio 1)

  • No evidence of this claim submitted.

http://music.ign.com/articles/658/658285p1.html http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200510/N05.1013.1241.43093.htm http://xbox.about.com/od/news/a/nfsmwnews54.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ab3 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Here's verification regarding playtime on BBC. British Broadcasting is quite a large radio station.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/maryannehobbs/tracklistingarchive.shtml?20051011
Comment RinseMag is a popular magazine in the breakbeat culture. This month's issue features a cover story of Evol Intent noting the producers as a driving force in North America.
http://www.rinsemag.com/press/RNS026/
Comment This article confirms international touring.
http://www.drumandbass.ch/online/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=32
Comment This link contains information supporting a nominee for best breaks/dnb tracks in the Winter Music Conference.
http://www.wmcon.com/idmanominees06.htm Ab3 13:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
Has charted several times on BBC Radio 1.
2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
Their remixes have appeared on several gold selling albums.
3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country
Has toured in US, Canada, UK, Germany, Russia, France, and Belgium (that I am aware of).
4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
This one is hard to respond to because most people wouldnt consider even the largest selling Drum and Bass labels "a major label" or "important indie label" however they are signed to, and have had tracks published on one of the larger US and one of the larger UK DnB labels (Renegade Hardware discography, Human Imprint discography)
5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
Not applicable
6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Has become one of the most prominent names in the American Drum and Bass scene.
7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury award.
Not applicable
8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Not applicable
9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show.
Need for Speed: Most Wanted soundtrack
10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
Has seen significant rotation on BBC Radio 1
11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.
Had a 1 hour set on the Breezeblock on BBC Radio 1.

Having passed numerous criteria on WP:MUSIC, they qualify per our standards.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:43, 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 Speedy delete, blatant copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice 4 candidates[edit]

The Apprentice 4 candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Apprentice (US Season 4) from record's being inauspicious. The GFDL violation.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/Do you send mail for me?) 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/Do you send mail for me?) 00:38, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keene High School[edit]

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

Virtually no verifiable content, and no sources provided. Full of original research. --Slowking Man 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better now; I'd say to keep it. Since other users have expressed varying opinions, however, I'll leave this open. --Slowking Man 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are acceptable as additional sources, not as the main or only sources used for establishing notability. Otherwise it would be very easy to make hoaxes or false claims to get into Wikipedia (I'm not saying that that is happening here, I just want to point out that using primary sources to establish notability and to assess importance is strictly to be avoided). Fram 10:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not being used to establish notability, its being used to verify content within the article. By using your same logic you'd deny whitehouse.gov as a reliable source in an article on the White House.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been improved, has quite a few sources, its notable.LordHarris 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not original research, but that doesn't mean this article doesn't fail WP:ATT. "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." This article is not based on any published secondary sources at all, and the claims made are not only descriptive. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, and thus this article as it stands has no place here. Fram 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible" (italics mine). Nowhere does it say that articles based only on primary sources should be deleted. That is a leap of logic that is unsupported in the policy. The existence of the school is easily verifiable, therefore there is no reason to delete the article. This is a phony deletionist argument that I have seen all too often in the past. -- Necrothesp 16:14, 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 shoot in the head with an Benelli M3. Headshot!! Daniel Bryant 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seafood Network[edit]

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

Vanity article on Australian Counter-Strike server. The 1107 member figure is based on spurious info introduced by 211.30.128.188 (talk · contribs), sFn website suggests six members at most. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers displayed in article are based on recordings from the Seafood Network's counterstrike server ranking system. Suggested six members are leaders who work on inmrovement of the Seafood Network and administration of servers. There are in fact many more members than this as suggested by information from server console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.137.167 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007

  • Comment this is mostly irrelevant to the concerns being addressed, which have to do with a lack of sources. Can you provide any third party sources that talk about the group? Leebo T/C 10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete' John Reaves (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hondahead[edit]

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

DictDef, in violation of WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The term is for a "gearhead" who specializes in Hondas. In other words, there could be a Fordhead, a Toyotahead, an AmericanMotorCorporationhead, and let's not forget Headrolet. Sorry for that last one. Action Jackson IV 00:58, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq[edit]

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contains speculation, original research, non-encyclopedic, makes many claims not atributable to anyone. It was originally an article called "The Dirty Dozen" which was a made up term nobody uses and gives no sources for such a term. It also violates guidelines for living persons. Also uses weasel words. It also not a person, place, thing, or specific event requiring an entry into an encyclopedia. It is also redundant, and serves no purpose. It is basically an article for original research. Jfrascencio 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These are good points, but even though there are obvious chronological reasons to split the topmost article this way, it also results in a quasi-POV fork, with the pro-invasion group editing this article and the anti-invasion group the other, both seeking to prove their convictions correct. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rightness or wrongness of the U.S. invasion isn't going to rest on human rights violations (other factors are involved: whether the invasion works in accomplishing various goals, whether the costs outweigh the benefits or vice versa, whether the invasion had to be done to stop Saddam's regime from using or getting WMDs or being or becoming a base for terrorists -- all sorts of reasons were given by Bush and others for the war; even bringing democracy to Iraq isn't quite the same issue as how bad the human rights record there was). And there's nothing inherently POV-forkish about separating the vast subject of Iraqi human rights violations into regime periods, since the situation obviously changed with different regimes: Before Saddam human rights were in various states; during Saddam's regime that regime was responsible for a certain level of human rights; after Saddam responsibility shifted elsewhere. The subject naturally divides that way. There is no inherent contradiction in one article describing the Saddam regime's human rights record and articles that describe human rights before or after, and no benefit to combining them that I can see. There is, without a doubt, plenty of sourceable information out there. The subject of the article is too important to delete. Too bad it hasn't been cared for better. The best argument for deleting, to my mind, is that the article shows no promise of being well-edited, despite it's importance and appropriateness.Noroton 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Speculation, original research, -- It is merely the collection of published accounts, as with all good WP articles. Calling it speculation seems POV.
"non-encyclopedic" also POV -- its a subject of general interest about which factual material can be found.
'"makes many claims not atributable to anyone" -- Yes, section 1 does need specific sources for every allegation. But they are finadable, so not a reason for deletion.
"It was originally an article called "The Dirty Dozen" which was a made up term nobody uses and gives no sources for such a term." It fgives the sources, and any number of news stories could be added.
It mentions a book about "The Dirty Dozen", which then became a movie, which has nothing to do with Iraq. When referring to Iraq (Iraq's Dirty Dozen), the source of the term is U.S. officials. Just because certain national officials use a term, doesn't mean there should be an article about (i.e. The Imperialist Regime, see no article about it) --Jfrascencio 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It also violates guidelines for living persons." Sourced reports on major newsworthy criminals are not BLP violations--but agreed, it does need sources.
" Also uses weasel words." Thats about the opposite of the previous reason.
" It also not a person, place, thing, or specific event requiring an entry into an encyclopedia. " Another way of saying nonencyclopedic, and I think almost everyone would say just the opposite. That other parties in iraq may have continued some such practices is no reason to exclude this part of the story.
"It is also redundant," apparently meaning the subject is treated elsewhere. But a collected article of this sort makes sense.
"and serves no purpose. It is basically an article for original research" All said before, and all wrong.

That said, I think it is an outrageously unsourced article for a topic such as this, and there's a lot to be deleted from it. Eds. who workecd on an article on such a topic should try to make it really solid. Thats why I said "weak". And because of the title, but it's hard to think of a clearer one./ DGG 22:19, 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 - blatant hoax. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North American Maintenance of Bear-Life Association[edit]

How this hoax has managed to survive without references on Wikipedia since August 2006 is beyond me. [6] The name returns 6 hits on Google, all of which are various mirrors of the Wikipedia article. [7] We need a speedy deletion criterion for non-notable hoaxes like this, and we need one fast. RFerreira 01:55, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbridge Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Google search on name returns only 62 unique hits on 204 returns, mostly simple listings/directories outside of primary source. Conventions sponsored by group *might* be notable, but group itself does not have citations to establish notability. Delete. MikeWazowski 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and you believe this because....? Please provide at least *some* kind of citations to refute the argument posted above. MikeWazowski 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several reasons, such as its branch from the founding by an award winning author, its several conventions, and its history. This article also inherits the notability of the SFLIS (unless we create an article about them and sub Mindbridge there??) Together they're notable enough at least. Kopf1988 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Science Fiction League of Iowa Students" brings back even fewer returns (37 unique on 54 total) than does the Mindbridge Foundation. Had Haldeman actually *founded* this group, that might be one thing, but according to your text, his only connection is that he taught a class that some of the people that *did* found the group attended, plus they named it after something he wrote. How exactly does that confer notability on either the SFLIS or Mindbridge? Again, without reliable third-party sources to back up any of this, it's a *very* tenuous claim, at best, and I remain unconvinced. MikeWazowski 04:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not a reliable test on its own. As for your proof, how about some mentions here and here. I'm sure those can be construed in a variety of ways, but the easiest thing to see is that he either founded or played a large role in the founding. 'Nuff said. Kopf1988 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is nothing but a page full of links, and proves nothing about the Mindbridge Foundation. Your second, while it mentions Haldeman, does not mention the Mindbridge Foundation anywhere on the page, so I hardly see how that proves anything in regards to the notability of the Mindbridge Foundation, which is what this discussion is about. You'll also note that I'm not using the low number of Google returns as the sole basis of my decision - I'm using the fact that very few, if any, of them are from reliable sources. There is a difference. MikeWazowski 07:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from WP:ORG: "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 ... Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Lots of outfits hold conventions, and as far as Joe Haldeman goes, notability isn't contagious. RGTraynor 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:ORG is a guideline, based on consensus(which is also disputed). As such, you can go around beating people in the head with it. Kopf1988 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot come as a surprise that an encyclopedia that works on consensus has numerous guidelines that are, unsurprisingly enough, arrived upon through consensus. If you prefer, I can beat you over the head instead with WP:ATT, which is official policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source." RGTraynor 15:28, 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 07:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sawaru[edit]

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

Unreleased film, no assertion of notability. Vanity article, created by involved party (band member of Evil Adam), who has previously created vanity article on band. Full of NN redlinks. Drat (Talk) 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, not a single delete other than the nom. Steve (Stephen) talk 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Week in the Woods[edit]

A Week in the Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable children's book. Article is unsourced, other than publisher's site. This is not an independent source. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BK. True the book has won some children's awards by library consortiums, but these do not lend the book notability because the awards themselves are non-notable (they don't even have Wikipedia articles). Speedy deleted 3 times, most recent speedy overturned at Deletion review Nardman1 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Gnangarra 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian novelists[edit]

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

Nothing more than an alphabetical list that is less than the associated category, Category:Australian novelists. Unreferenced per WP:BLP; even for seemingly uncontroversial lists this is still a requirement. There are better places for redlinks such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do Delete --Steve (Stephen) talk 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a request for expansion is for - not an AfD. I'm sure people will do that if you support it, given bsnowball's pledge above. JRG 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph (artist)[edit]

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

No WP:RS, so fails WP:BIO. Google search turns up nothing, probable WP:HOAX. Leuko 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Such condescension here! "This noble creature...". For good or bad, notability needs to be established. I'm sure Joseph's art will out-live me. At the moment, however, without verifiable references, he lacks the notability to be included in an encyclopedia. That's not pretension. Freshacconci 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please sign your input to this discussion with four tildes. Might I suggest that you save the article's content so that if it gets deleted you can more easily recreate it if you get sources to back up the subjects notability? Bus stop 18:28, 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. Most of the keep arguments were based on "this exists" or "this is important" rather than addressing the reason that the article was nominated. --Deskana (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power level (Dragon Ball)[edit]

Power level (Dragon Ball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research synthesis on a concept from the Dragon Ball universe. No information drawn from reliable sources of any kind, as far as I can tell. --Slowking Man 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ex: this is the Conversation between Goku and Ginyu before they fight

Goku: Whatch my power level

Ginyu: Whats this 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000

Ginyu: 120,000 and still rising!

Ginyu: 180,000!?

Goku: Thats nothing compared to when I use my power in bursts

Ginyu: Bursts!?

Now try this version with out powerlevels

Goku: Check my Aura

Ginyu: hes turning red

Ginyu: Redder Reddest!

Ginyu: now he's really red!

Goku: This is nothing compared to when I use my power in bursts!

Ginyu: Bursts?!

see? The absense of power levels changed the whole conversation! DBZROCKS 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they acknowledge power levels does not equal importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let me explain this to you. many charecters like Nappa, Freeza and Captain Ginyu cannot sense KI/Chi so they have scouters that let them see how strong charecters are via numbers. These concepts are interwoven with Ki/Chi MAJOR AND KEY concepts to Dragonball and Dragonball Z and GT. You also state that the list of Power levels should not be there. thats like not listing how fast a rocket can go (given that the number is recorded) or how many episodes are in an anime. Its not mega important info but at the same time it is not info that no one cares about it is enyclopedic and factual not a bunch of fanon garbage. The Daizenshu in fact consulted Akira Toriyama on the stuff they put in there it wasn't a bunch of Japanese Fanboys who decided to make a dragonball Z book. The Bottom line Power Levels are important and Factual and true. Period. DBZROCKS 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Power levels are important in showing the character's current power. If they did not exist, the only difference is that no characters would KNOW your power level. Are you implying that the plot would be different without the lack of power levels? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
did you just totally ignore the 7 lines of text up there? (no offense) The plot would be differnt without Powerlevels because powerlevels are bascially showing your chi/Ki They would know ki/Chi exists because if they didn't there wouldn't be any scouters. Powerlevels are not a complete plot device; they are there to let the reader how strong a charecter is in numeracal form. We should list them for the sake of completenes. DBZROCKS 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A CONVERSATION ABOUT POWER LEVELS IS NOT IMPORTANT. And no, we should NOT list them for the sake of completeness. Under your logic, everything that ever existed or ever could exist should be listed simply to make Wikipedia complete. So what, if there were no power levels, Vegeta would have killed everyone and Freeza would rule the universe and destroy Earth before Buu or Cell could become? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok forgeting the beforementioned conversation about powerlevels what is wrong with powerlevels they are in the manga and are a key part of DB and DBZ and DBGT they help the reader understand exactly how powerful a charecter is instead of "What powerful Chi/Ki" no they don't have a direct effect on the plot they help the reader. DBZROCKS 00:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"They exist" isn't an argument for inclusion. It needs to be verified. --Deskana (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that wasn't clear. To simplify: an encyclopedia articles must cover the out of universe significance of a subject. This article does not. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that this article needs to have information about the significance of powerlevels in the real world? DBZROCKS 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should have sourced information regarding the cultural significance of Power Levels if there is any. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can see that kind of material in a lot of pages, many fictional pages do not really need this kind of info. In other words its not really worth deleting a page over. DBZROCKS 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? That does not mean that they don't require sources and OOU info. It just means no one has bothered to do anything about it, or they have none, like this page. A page is required to have them; if there's a good possibility for them, the page is kept, if not, it's deleted. Nemu 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!! I was trying to say the same thing but you beat me to it. :) --Daniel J. Leivick 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see well I guess since there are no web sites that foucus on powerlevels and the Daizenshuu isn't an internet source I Guess I'll have to give this up. Thanks for letting me see where I was going wrong. Thanks :D DBZROCKS 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is one. I'm pretty sure they have this over there already. Nemu 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-dokey then. --Merovingian ※ Talk 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this does not address the WP:V concerns. --Deskana (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manga is the principal source for the power levels until the Freeza Saga, this is a fictional page, so is hard to find more sources than the manga itself.

Where are the references in the article? --Deskana (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Influence on other series" section: Saint Seiya came before DBZ; so it be kind of difficult for DBZ's concept of "Power Level" to have an influence on it.--Nohansen 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, DB run since 1984 and saint seiya since 1986. but yes it does not influence it.

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb[edit]

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neutral for now, but it has been raised that this person may not be notable. Avi 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC) *Delete I see nothing that passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). One interview in the New Yorker does not make her body of work significant or well known. -- Avi 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this person notable? What have they done that passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? -- Avi 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to review Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. Simply having an article in the New Yorker is not grounds for notability.
Merely having an article does not fulfill this criteria. -- Avi 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject meets the first criteria as having been interviewed and then quoted by the New York as an expert on the subject of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Am I missing something? I've also removed the criteria example from the main talk space for ease of reading as it is already linked too. I hope this isn't a big deal, restore it if you wish. NeoFreak 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is dead, it seems, so there is no way to tell if she is considered a significant expert. Not every interview in the New Yorker makes someone a "significant" expert, we ALL know that by now . So not only do we not have notability, the article is unsourced! -- Avi 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the online New Yorker article was dead, but there was a way to tell what was in the article. Until someone deleted the date and title of the New Yorker article from the article, while this discussion was under way. Which version of the article are people voting on? (SEWilco 03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It is still there under reference #1. Even so, that one article does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. -- Avi 11:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "still there". It is there again, after being re-created after deletion. (SEWilco 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You seem to have a different conception of notability standards than does wikipedia itself. Being that this is wikipedia, and not anyone's personal website, we should conform to wiki's guidelines, barring exceptional circumstances, which in my opinion there is no reason for here. -- Avi 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. I just think all this is an immense waste of time that'd be better spent trying to improve the articles themselves. Under "Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." a redirect to a Criticism sub-heading under Hezbollah may be best. --MBHiii 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google finds 23,000 results for her name. Anyone find more information in there? (SEWilco 18:38, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Gaulton[edit]

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

non notable hockey player, not much google wise,[9] an ip editor removed the prod tag without a reason. don't meet notability for Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) Paloma Walker 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are founded in policy and guidelines, the "keep" arguments boil down to variants of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL, and specious arguments that the process isn't valid ("no reason given for deletion" when a reason was plainly stated at the top here, and "it was kept in the past" when consensus can change). >Radiant< 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party minigames[edit]

List of Mario Party minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a game guide article that is much better suited for a gaming/fan wiki. Explaining how to play each and every mini-game isn't a notable subject for Wikipedia. It should be noted: many of these Mario Party lists were in AFD about a month ago (with a result of no consensus). Since then: there has been little improvement to keep them looking like game guides/how to play guides. RobJ1981 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the majority shouldn't rule; voting is evil. Instead, consensus will be determined. –Llama mantalkcontribs 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it. Also, superior reasoning is another factor. This is a discussion, not a poll. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I was just suggesting a resolve to this dispute. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "majority". I'm sorry, but I don't think dozens of posts from one or two users to express a certain point of view is superior to the good-faith opinion of various editors. I don't think that's how you reach consensus. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that LttP and I are possibly getting somewhere. We're probably not going to reach an agreement, but I think we're understanding each other better. There is a truth, and we're trying to reach it. McKay 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was hoping for. Sorry about the previous comments. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some, if it was unnecessary, it would be rated as stub class, but, in both WPNintendo and WPCvG it is start class. Henchman 2000 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's necessary; heck, I could write a list of references to Chuck Norris, and it wouldn't be a stub, but it wouldn't be necessary. –Llama mantalkcontribs 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (result was keep)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames (also nominated: 4, 5; result was nomination withdrawn)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames (also nominated: 6, 7; result was no consensus)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames (ongoing)
My reccomendation is that they be nominated for deletion all at once, because they're virtually identical in terms of content. If they're kept, they're all kept. It seems a little late for that in this discussion now, though. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can I improve this article to remove "game guide" content? 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I could suggest three things offhand. First, rename the title to "Mario Party minigames". Second, add more prose covering the types of minigames, the lawsuit, and any other relevant topics for which there are sources. Third, remove anything that isn't purely descriptive. I will try to the third now; if I succeed, it will invalidate my WP:NOT argument. In any case, I have stricken my recommendation to delete as I believe userfying to an interested editor may be more appropriate in this case. -- Black Falcon 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion to redirect still stands. The only meaningful change is the inclusion of the bit about the lawsuit. This is already in the main article and anything that is different in this version can be merged to the main article. --- RockMFR 19:17, 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 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Find Me[edit]

Father Find Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No indication that this books comes even close to meeting the criteria of WP:BK. This is almost speediable as spam since the article concludes with "Copies are found in NC, largely in the Creedmoor area, usually located in small bookstores. To buy a copy by mail, send $9.50 to 1689 Fern Hollow Rd. Franklinton, NC 27605"! Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangutans in popular culture[edit]

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

A very crufty article that was most likely made so the Orangutan article wouldn't be bloated with cruft. This isn't how Wikipedia should be working. Trim trivia and pop culture sections: don't move them into crufty articles that aren't helpful. RobJ1981 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the list isn't to provide information on real orangutans, it's to follow how orangutans are used in cultural artifacts of whatever sort. The purpose of the list article, aside from being entertaining, is to be a serious resource for someone researching or studying or wanting to be educated about how orangutans are depicted in popular culture. That can be a serious topic, which in turn justifies the article in a serious encyclopedia.Noroton 06:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps editors keenly encouraging a merge might like to look a bit more carefully at the talk page and the edit history of this and the parent article before so keenly encouraging a merge.SatuSuro 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. Indeed - there is a history behind the seperation of this article and Orang utan. There was disagreement over whether this info should be in the article, a third party broke the dead lock by creating this one which was acceptable to both disagreeing parties.Merbabu 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.The implied criticism by the nominator needs addressing very carefully. This isnt how Wikipedia should be working - good to see the idealism, but practically every animal that exists on wikipedia has enthusiastic watchers of tv culture, obscure books and pc game culture providing unalphabetically added - ad hoc- poorly written lists of information. Very few articles appear to incorporate reasonable sections regarding explanation or context of the popular culture context (then the large questions 'whose popular culture?' arises as well)

On the basis of this nomination, it might be that every article in the category 'Animals in Popular Culture would need to go through similar process - and then after that - every animal that is listed in wikipedia probably has had a similar addition. The issues that arise from one and which have a consequent precedent set for almost every animal article in wikipedia - are (a) do the enthusiastic watchers of t.v. culture and obscure p.c. games have adequate warning that their moments of genius in associating their favourite with an animal with a wikipedia article have some avenue now implicitly cut off? (b) have editors who either watch or maintain (but not Own) of course - articles about animals - to be warned and aware of popular culture articles about to be have forced merges? I strongly suspect apart from Rat - which seems to be living happily in both worlds for some odd reason - many editors find popular culture sections offensive and out of place.

(My emphasis - as most seem to be missing the point) - I believe this aFd is out of place - and the issue - as it affects at least two categories and potential edit wars regarding merges over a number of articles - should be levered higher - and perhaps a wider view needs to be made of the whole range of articles which have been created - and the overal fate of the nature of the '..in Popular Culture' tendency and habits need to be broached higher up the food chain rather than this one article...SatuSuro 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep - NOT merge. The Orang utan article should be a serious encyclopedic article on orang utans. THis on the other hand is a list of junk that has nothing to do with orang utans. One of the most common criticisms of wikipedia is it's (lazy?) over-emphasis on pop culture. Like all the other useless pop culture trivia list, does anyone really think that a mention of the video games in which orangs appear is (a) encylopedic or (b) actually assists us in understanding orang utans? The answer is surely 'no'. The insistence on such lists in serious encyclopedia articles is a serious blight on wikipedia. Me thinks it's got more to do with bored teenagers (who actually know nothin about orang utans - or whatever other subject) wanting to list their favourite cartoon or video game. 'Orang Utans' and 'Orang Utans in Pop Culture' have nothing to do with each other. However, although i think it is a junk article, i can live with it's existence IF it means that the junk doesn't get into the orang utan article (as it does for so many other topics). Once the Sydney Opera House article had a list of the most obscure films and TV shows in which it had appeared - the list was half the article. Let's put a stop to this rubbish please. Or, if we must keep it somewhere, at least keep it seperate to the real articles. Can that be our compromise? Merbabu 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murders in the Rue Morgue is the Edgar Allen Poe story in question. --Tikiwont 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except they tell us nothing about Orangutans. Apparently they use orangutans as villians. Orangutans cannot be villians, it is completly inappropiate to suggest that any animal is in some way a villian. Orangutans are orangutans and the article should be about describing them as such. Sure this sort of infomation is quite appropiate for an Animals in literature article or similar, but should not be merged back into Orangutan. -- Michael Johnson 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did not express an opinion here, but just wanted to clarify that Smerdin actually named the unnamed Edgar Allen Poe story.--Tikiwont 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(user • talk • contribs) 07:12, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The raw numbers come to about 5 Delete, 4 Keep, 7 Merge... I may not have that exactly right, but little matter as we are mainly looking at strength of argument here. But there is no clear numerical consensus for any one solution. But a Delete is out of the question as most commentors argue for keeping all or most of the material, via either Keep or Merge. So it must be Keep or Merge. I can assume that the Delete commentors would prefer Merge to Keep; if that is true we have 4 Keep, 12 Delete or Merge... but yet, can we assume that? Maybe not; Michael Johnson has an interesting and I think cogent point: "Keep or Delete but do not Merge cultural cruft into serious biology articles.". This is refuted by Black Falcon, but not decisively; I think the matter is somewhat up the air, both points of view have merit. All in all, I see a strong tendency toward some manner of Deleting the article, yet no clear consensus or winning argument over how to delete it (Delete (with or without Redirect) or Merge). I don't want to Merge the article when the argument against this (per Michael Johnson) has not been decisively refuted. Therefore we are left with NO CONSENSUS, with no prejudice against any editor adding a ((mergeto)) tag. Herostratus 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pterodactyls in popular culture[edit]

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

Yet another crufty pop culture article. This seems like another case of "It's too big, so let's just move it into a crufty trivia article". The most notable points should be in the Pterodactyl article, not in a seperate article. As a note: an unreferenced tag has been on this since July, if that's any indication on how much people care about this article. RobJ1981 03:33, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to pigs[edit]

Cultural references to pigs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced crufty article that is another example of the mass trivia cruft all these pop culture/cultural references that has invaded Wikipedia. The excuse of "it was made to help the article be less bloated" has been said many times on Wikipedia, when it comes to this. But a section (in this case, and most/all culture references) should be just trimmed: instead of moved just because it gets too big. Let's use Category:In popular culture as the root of this problem. 12 subcats, along with 81 pages in the regular part of the category. I think people assuming "because this has a pop culture page, this one should be fine too" needs to be put to rest. RobJ1981 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources provided (WP:RS), probably original research (WP:OR). Some of the statements don't even make any sense. Although this can be fixed, the current article clearly doesn't belong.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OTTO4711, you are wrong. You have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. Too many skeptics do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, OTTO4711, whether they be men's or children's, or even pop culture consumers', are little (especially pop culture consumers, come to think of it). In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, OTTO4711, there are pterodactyls. They exist as certainly as love and generosity and carnivorous terror exists, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy, and some damn fine B movies. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no pterodactyls. It would be as dreary as if there were no OTTO4711s. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance or One Million Years BC to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which The Land That Time Forgot fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in pterodactyls! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your Jimbo Wales to hire men to watch in all the World Wide Web sites to catch news reports on pterodactyl sitings, but even if they did not see pterodactyls come squawking out of some excavation site, as in London in 1856, what would that prove? Nobody sees pterodactyls, except fossilized in museums or on "The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", but that is no sign that there are no pterodactyls. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see unless they rent the right DVDs. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. (On second thought, don't answer that last question.) Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the Wikipedians that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, Netflix, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal terror and horror beyond. Is it all real? Ah, OTTO4711, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. We just have to cite references for it.
No pterodactyls! Thank God! They live, and they live forever. A thousand years from now, OTTO4711, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, they will continue to strike terror in the heart of pop culture consumers. Noroton 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I take back what I said about the nominator stretching the meaning of "cruft", apparently the nom's usage is used that way by others, as shown at Wikipedia:Fancruft, and I apologize. I will say that I think we should limit the meaning to the more restrictive sense I mention, because one editor's "fancruft" could then be another's "sciencecruft".Noroton 04:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone in and attempted to make parts of the text more discursive and less list-y. I created a section about "pigs in mythology and religion", and "pigs in folklore". Further sections might include "anthropomorphic pigs," "pigs as symbols," "pigs as metaphor", and so forth. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 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 07:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct Theory[edit]

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

Instinct theory does not site any real sources and is obviously made up. There is no book by Jacques Theroux named Instinct Theory, nor is there anyone by the name of Jacques Theroux. Eidolos

Question: What do you mean by "obviously made up"? "Instinct theory" garners approx. 44,000 exact hits on Google and is mentioned in several authoritative webpages, so there is at least such a thing. Checking the page history, many established editors have contributed to the article...it's not exactly "fake". If there's an accuracy problem, I believe this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion itself. +A.0u 04:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: There is no one by the name of Theroux, nor does the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen have anything to do with this. "Instinct theory" may get a lot of hits on google because there are theories on instincs but how many come up when you type in jacques theroux? or the name of his book? "Due to its dubious credibility, many scholars doubt Theroux's theory. Because of a sore lack of citations, and a ludicrously short bibliography, certain scholars have come forward and declared their disbelief in these ideas." Oh, come on! There is no truth behind anything that has been written if you look into it. "certain scholars" "many professionals" there is NO proof behind this. Eidolos

There's no "Joseph A. Kenkel," either... okay, enough of this. --zenohockey 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep plenty of google hits, it's got references and it's verifiable by good sources. Oh by way, congrats on putting up an afd, not exactly an easy thing for a new user I know, for your first edit. --Paloma Walker 04:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[12].--Paloma Walker 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment please see [13]. User said he created his account to get rid of this article.--Paloma Walker 05:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to vote speedy keep. This deleting a bad article is not a bad way to start editing. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did make this account to point out to the Wikipedia community that my friends made a false article. I admit to that, and there's nothing wrong with it. I also made this account to fix other errors and such as I see them. I simply had no reason to create an account before this, just to fix things anonymously. This is my first account. I did not make this one in addition to another just for this deletion. I just didn't have one before and I figured this was a good time for it. Eidolos
Comment: A joke on science? Really, how is reporting a site as false information worse than writing a false page as a joke? None of this on the page can be proven as real. This is simply a hoax with a real name, as Arkyan said. Looking at the sites you have given, every single page is a theory by a different person with different ideas, and are not a single unified scientific theory that should be given its own page. If it is decided to salvage what they can from different sites and just rewrite this page, then so be it. Eidolos
ADDED [22] Please make notice that Nagyovafan wrote nearly all of Instinct theory including the popular culture section when making a decision. If you couldn't prove Theroux's existance, then you shouldn't have written about him. Good day. Eidolos
ADDED I made several edits to the pop culture section, which you can't deny as a hoax, and I made several grammar edits, but I did not make up the Jacques Theroux story. There is such a thing as instinct theory, this page just needs a rewrite to gather all the information together in one page. - nagyovafan 12:45 PM, 21 March 2007
According to [23] you wrote the whole Beginning section which first spoke of Theroux and his "book"... If you are truly are concerned that all the information is real now, then you shouldn't have made fake things up. According to [24] you're the one that wrote "Due to its dubious credibility, many scholars doubt Theroux's theory. Because of a sore lack of citations, and a ludicrously short bibliography, certain scholars have come forward and declared their disbelief in these ideas. [citation needed]" You wrote that it had a ludicrously short bibliography... why didn't you site the sources you just sited above? Why didn't you add those sites before? Your edits in the pop culture section support the rest of the article's ideas. Seeing all of your sources you just gave, I don't see a single one about an instinct theory that compared animals to humans. If I believed that you didn't write it for a second, then why, knowing this fake information about Theroux was here, did you not change it or tell anyone? Eidolos
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King of Hearts. MER-C 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Wind[edit]

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

Vanity/ad page for non-notable company, created by User:True Wind Calliopejen 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is clearly against Wikipedia policy, this article can be nominated for Speedy Deletion. In addition, given that the User:True Wind's username seeks to promote a company (thus violating the username policy), I'm reporting the user to WP:AIV. +A.0u 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I nominated for speedy deletion previously, but they removed it. Calliopejen 06:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbia[edit]

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

Just a neologism that's already been transwikied. The article—even the quotes—provides no evidence the term has ever really been used. Answers.com, Oxford English Dictionary online, Google ("define:disturbia"), and Urban Dictionary all come up empty. Plus, the article is taking up space needed by an upcoming movie. --zenohockey 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN neologism. Searching Google News Archive turns up little besides references to the film and to an earlier book[25]. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since it's already been transwikied it's not needed here, especially since it's not that notable.
Weak delete as it reads like an unsourced personal essay, although it could possibly have the scope for a real article if referenced properly.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Who uses this supposed word? --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 13:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ROH shows[edit]

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

Fancruft/listcruft for a popular independent wrestling promotion. Imagine if a list for WWE existed: it would be insanely too long. These types of lists are better suited for a wrestling and/or fan wiki. As a note: from a comment on the talk page, this was deleted in the past. RobJ1981 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What was deleated in the past were several articles on different ROH events (i.e. Glory by Honor, the Anniversary Shows, Crowning a Champion). WWE does have list containing all their events, as well as different pages on the individual events; and the same goes for TNA, WCW, and the original ECW.PepsiPlunge 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhat makes this different from say, a WWE list of house shows for example, is that almost every single Ring Of Honor Show has been released on dvd, in chronological order, and there are many collectors who this page would be useful to. If this page gets deleted, they might as well delete every page about WWE, WCW, ECW and TNA pay-per-view events and video releases.207.69.139.144 05:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a huge wrestling fan, and this list has ZERO value for me.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor (talk to me) 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Rights for Young Offenders[edit]

Bill of Rights for Young Offenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a full-text document of a United Nations proposal, so it fails WP:NOT. I suggest that, if it's historically notabled, it may be transwikied to Wikisource. YechielMan 04:09, 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13 Winters[edit]

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

Non notable band, speedy deleted on 1 March 2007. The author has recreated it, which is tantamount to contesting the speedy - see the talk page. Richard Cavell 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating:

Jeff Goodine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthue Schildroth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Casey Chick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Eaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment: With all due respect, that's a crock. Band members are barely notable, true, but do me a favor and search on google. Guarenteed you'll get at least 50 results. Most of which are reviews, stores such as AMG and amazon, lyric sites such as Darklyrics.com, interviews, and videos. Also, I'd like to see you try to form a band and submit the lyrics to Darklyrics.com Seriously, try it, be cause you can't, and If you do I'd like to see it. Then and only then do you have room to talk. 13 Winters is just as, if not more notable than Demilich, or Entombed --Emevas 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't help your case though that you deleted the AfD notice which means it's unlikely that many people will come here to comment. I've restored it now, but you should bear in mind for the future that you're not supposed to delete that notice. StuartDouglas 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, Sorry about that. I over writed the page's code from a project file I was using to build the page with and didn't realize that was included with the original code I wrote over. It wasn't my intent to come off as misleading. darkvalleyrecords (UTC)
  • I'm not sure rather to be flattered or insulted by the fact that you used "Self Promotional" to describe the article. I submitted the article, I am a fan of the band, but I am in no way a member of (Nor directly affiliated with) the band 13 Winters. I havn't even met the members in person yet (As much as I'd love to). So "Self Promotional" is directly ruled out. Who would be desparate enough to stoop to such a low? --Emevas 01:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I think labelling the contributions of someone taking part in this very AFD who has behaved very civil as "self promotional" toes the line of failing to WP:AGF... it also doesn't add anything to the debate-K@ngiemeep! 02:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Also, I'm very surprised that anyone would now say they were non-notable. I don; tlike metal in any of its forms, but this band certainly seem to be notable enough examples of the genre. StuartDouglas 18:13, 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 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgecore[edit]

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

An article at this name was speedy deleted at its AfD. This is a new article by a new author on the same subject. Leuko thought it eligible for speedy as a recreation of deleted material, but I say it is not speediable because the first debate was speedied and in any case this is an entirely new article. I express no opinion on whether it should be deleted and nominate it pro forma. - Richard Cavell 05:01, 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 with Brandon, Florida. Picaroon 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Regional Library[edit]

Brandon Regional Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The library doesn't assert notability beyond your typical city library. All all libraries, like all high schools, considered notable by their existence, or are they held to the general standard? (I don't mean to raise the can of worms with WP:SCHOOL, but I'm interested in the comparison between schools and libraries. YechielMan 05:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Conner[edit]

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

This page was speedy-deleted for lack of notability. The speedy-deletion has been challenged. This is a procedural nomination. I abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find reputable sources, although Google News Archives brings up at least one article from The Age. Since it's only an article for sale, I don't know if it's just a trivial reference (and the headline doesn't indicate the story is necessarily about him). So I'll go along with delete. Noroton 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me the title, I can look it up. I have fixed the newspaper references using a citation template from WP:CITET (further help welcome). Natebailey 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Released a CD as part of the Integrity/Hosanna series that was popular about 15 years ago - see [28]. Mark Conner was the only Australian pastor to be involved in that series. Raffles mk 20:35, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latualatuka chain letter[edit]

Latualatuka chain letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was inappropriately deleted under speedy-deletion criterion G1. It is not patent nonsense in the narrow way we use that term here. The page was procedurally restored in order to list here. Rossami (talk)

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Cinema[edit]

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

Appears to be a list of mostly non notable actors.Seeing as this went up for deletion a year ago (no consensus) and hasn't improved much I figured I would nominate it again. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Without the long list of actors we have a reasonable article. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is compromise is not acceptable to some editors. I guess I will have to withdraw my withdrawal. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If individual actors are notable then by all mean they should have their own articles. If Sideshow Cinema is notable then it should have a real article that demonstrates it's notability. The Allegan Community players article should probably be deleted to and in any case the presence of worse articles is not a reason to keep. --Daniel J. Leivick 14:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this article has been sitting for a year without anyone adding any source. Instead of just saying it is notable some one should put up some references and I can withdraw the nomination. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:52, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott F Jackson[edit]

Scott F Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreated speedy delete. Obvious conflict of interest. Appears to be non notable. No sources provided and unlikely that many exist Daniel J. Leivick 06:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteKongMan created the first Jackson page which was speedied. Given the limited exposure this person has and the striking similarities between WhiteKongMan's user page and the Jackson article I don't think it is much of a stretch to assume that he is Jackson or at least a friend. In any case the article has more problems than conflict of interest and recreation issues. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. DMacks 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteKongMan WhiteKongMan 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to argue about this, the article does not meet Wikipedia policy. I was trying to clarify to DMacks why I warned you against removing the speedy tag. It appears that you have a connection to the subject of the article in question and the page posted by the subject is identical to the one that you posted awhile back. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He works for WEBN, Emerson's television network where he edits highlights and helps write the script WhiteKongMan 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Alright, what elements of WP:BIO do you and WhiteKongMan figure this chap fulfills?

"* Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers

Let us know. That being said, we now have WP:SOCK into play, seemingly, with a first time edit. Beyond that, seriously, Emerson College has no formal TV station, and a search of its website turns up no hits for "WEBN." No such call letters turn up in the Boston region at all [29]. No such station turns up on the cable provider serving Winthrop [30] A directed Google search for a "Scott Jackson" in Quincy (excluding the New York Giants, because there's a football player by that name, apparently) turns up zero hits. Anything else? RGTraynor 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, as verifiable and expanded article. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chambersburg Area Senior High School[edit]

Chambersburg Area Senior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Chambersburg Area Senior High School is the sole high school of a tiny town in rural Pennsylvania. It fails all three counts of the (not accepted) WP:Schools policy. It has not been the subject of a non-trivial work, it has no notable alumni, it has not gained recognition for special achievements, and it has no special architectural history. Moving on to the more general WP:Notability criteria, a Google search [31] reveals that there are no published works available on the Internet with Chambersburg Area Senior High School as their primary focus, except primary sources published by the school itself and its associated organizations. Finally, the article has already been merged into Chambersburg#Chambersburg Area Senior High School. Looking through Chambersburg Area Senior High School's edit history reveals that a fairly large number of the edits are vandals or non-sense. Merging the article will ensure that more people will see the content and be able to revert the vandals faster. The current article should be left as a redirect to Chambersburg. Tbjablin 06:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would advise you to examine the "improvements" in the article more closely. The first paragraph has been copied three times with minute variation to make the article appear bulkier. Notice that the school's enrollment of 1,800 is mentioned three times once in each of the article's three paragraphs. It's pretty obvious that no one is paying attention to this article. I think it would be better patrolled by maintaining it in the subsection it currently occupies in inside the Chambersburg article. Tbjablin 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Vote changed. I hadn't looked hard enough. Thanks! Noroton 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article is somewhat lengthened, there is no additional content (or any references) regarding article's primary focus, the high school. The additional material focuses on a single high school athlete, who is borderline noteworthy in her own right. Tbjablin 04:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A statewide award to the principal, a national ranking for a sports team, and national recognition for an athlete are all strong claims of notability for the school itself, with reliable and verifiable sources provided. Notability has been established to Wikipedia standards. Alansohn 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a more narrow search. The top hit of your search was [32] which has nothing to do with the high school in question. Many other news articles happen to contain the words Chambersburg, high, and school in no particular order and of no relevance to the topic. Tbjablin 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is more specific: [33]. Though many of the mentions are trivial, many aren't; it's clear this is an important icon to the community. Part Deux 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if the article was renamed to Schools in the Chambersburg Area and included data on public and private schools in Chambersburg and the surrounding area? We could move most fo the current section on schools from the Chambersburg article, which I believe may have grown overlong. (Excepting of course Wilson College which is deserving of its own article.) Tbjablin 00:26, 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 07:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of group stock characters[edit]

List of group stock characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Like Video game item clichés before it, this is just an unattributed original research. Also likely counts as an indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:41, 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman Hausherr[edit]

Tilman Hausherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Note.

AFD started: 20 March 2007

Nomination statement

This article previously survived 2 AFDs. In both the first AFD, and the 2nd AFD - the result was Keep. Recently, a discussion was brought up to merge the entire article into the article Opposition to cults and new religious movements. The discussion is at Talk:Opposition to cults and new religious movements. This AFD will serve to formally discuss the appropriateness or lack thereof of any such "Merge." Smee 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on nom statement

Comment on nom statement - While the stated purpose of this AfD as a discussion of a merge is decidedly odd and may be misuse of the AfD process, I think that there is sufficient question as to the notability of the subject to warrant this AfD, irrespective of the outcome of previous AfDs. It is odd that an AfD is being brought by a nom that thinks the article should be kept and, again, I wonder if it is a misuse of the process. It might be more appropriate if this AfD were resubmitted by an editor that feels that the article should be deleted and perhaps this AfD should be "shelved" pending such a submittal. --Justanother 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response: - No, actually it is a used practice to send an article you think is notable to AFD, in order to "test" its notability as a standalone article. This is most certainly appropriate, specifically because "Merge" discussions commonly take place within AFD discussions. Smee 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AFD discussion

OK, thanks. John196920022001 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, wasn't sure if you knew you could do that... Smee 16:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tilman, according to policy, you can provide the information, links and documentation so someone else can edit it John196920022001 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad to help to expand the article with more RSes ClaudeReigns 17:28, 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 to Human extinction. Majorly (o rly?) 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicide[edit]

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

Not notable neologism that seems to be derived from the title of a single book. Possibly advert for that book. Selket Talk 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As I understand it, omnicide is the deliberate killing of the human race by humans, while human extinction is any scenario that leads to the wiping out of the species. So, omnicide should certainly be mentioned/discussed in the human extinction article, but they are different concepts. Merge and redirect is not a bad solution. However, human extinction is getting to be a pretty long article and the normal practice is to break out individual notable elements if an article starts to get too long. Based on the references provided, it seems (at least to me) that omnicide is a sufficiently notable concept to justify a separate article with room for expansion.--Kubigula (talk) 17:45, 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 delete as non-notable junior athlete. —Doug Bell talk 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bellamy[edit]

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

Junior tennis player not yet notable although may be in the future Mattinbgn/ talk 08:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a professional sportsman, he meets WP:BIO, surely? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if he's competed at the highest level, which I don't think the "La Vie Sport Junior Cup" is. FiggyBee 15:39, 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 MERGE with Alkaline Trio. Herostratus 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Hannoura[edit]

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

non notable artist. Being in Alkaline trio is notable. Making their album sleeve art, is not. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 08:22, 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.--Wizardman 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girlsplayboys[edit]

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

non notable band. Has not yet released debut album ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 08:23, 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. In this AfD, the delete opinions are backed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines far more strongly compared to those who are attempting to retain the article. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard bailey[edit]

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

Seems to be an autobiography (uses "my" several times as an adjective). The main problem is the lack of sources, none are mentioned in the article, and I can't find any searching around. The article appears to fail WP:BIO. SilverhandTalk 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "my" was a typo. I was transcribing from an interview with him. The facts are direct from Richard Bailey himself and his rep

Yes I interviewed his through his Australian Rep (linked on the page). That was why I wrote "my" a few times.Wjwallis 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

That's why I wrote about him. There is very little information available on Richard Bailey. However, I just found some information from his NYC rep: http://www.judycasey.com/RB/artist_detail.html This has a bio on him. Despite the lack of "google" information on him he is a VERY famous photographer. Any viewing of his work will prove this Wjwallis 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto (jason)[reply]

Why do you want to delete this? part of the beauty of Wikipedia is you CAN find information on subjects that don't pop up as soon as you enter their name in Google! If you look at Richard Bailey's work and still believe he is not notable or worthy of being in Wikipedia fine. But as a photographer with 30 years worth of contributions to Australian Vogue he IS important. Please feel free to clean up my entry or make it a stub if I am referencing things incorrectly...Wjwallis 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

OK I am looking! I'll see what I can find!Wjwallis 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

  • Comment - CosmicPenguin nailed it on the head and said it better than I could. To take it one step further, lets use the comparison you made previously, David Bailey. Looking at his article, I can tell you something about his life, he is a member of the Order of the British Empire as well as his career from 1959 to present day. I can also tell you he's written or collaborated on three books and been interviewed in a fourth. He has pointers at the Internet Movie Database and has at least three published interviews. Comparatively speaking, Richard bailey is a man of mystery. There appears to be your interview, some reference to his work in Austrailian Vogue and online galleries of his art. Honestly, I think we'd all like to see an extremely well-written article for Mr. Bailey with a plethora of details on his life and career. The problem is, there isn't enough there even for a properly sourced stub. You mention other articles that are of equal stature. I won't deny that. As time moves on, all of the 1.5+ Million articles will get touched in some way. Some will go away, others will be improved. Still more will be created. Right now, it's about Richard bailey. A suggestion I might make in your sourcing is to read the most excellent article by Uncle G called On Notability. Be sure to read the entire article and don't skim it. Take it in it's entirety and read the links as well. Good luck and don't give up. Sincerely and respectfully, --SilverhandTalk 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll check it out. I admit my enthusiasm for the subject outpaces my wikipedia skills!Wjwallis 19:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto I have added a reference that cites all of my facts: Capture magazine interview Feb 2007. I can upload pdfs of it if anyone wishes? Wjwallis 03:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

Notablility?!! That's rich. Wikipedia has all sorts of trivial people with dubious notability (ie American Idol contestants etc.) who have done nothing. If you are a photographer and shoot for huge clients and shoot for Vogue for 30 years I think that makes you notable!

BTW I am not Richard Bailey! I wished I was but I am sure he has much better and more lucrative things to do with his time than this.Wjwallis 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

I have added some more facts and references Wjwallis 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wjwallis[reply]

Move to Richard Bailey. Passes WP:ATT, although the sources need some specificity cleanup, and more sources wouldn't hurt. (Wjwallis, was your interview with the subject published anywhere? Can you find some other published interviews that back up the assertions in the article? Please add links to specific articles, not just the main page of the source, or cite edition and page number, etc. See WP:CITE for instructions on how to properly cite sources.) ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 08:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clean up with references whoever did itWjwallis 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

If you're on some lame reality show apparently you are notable so why not a professional photographer who works for Vogue?

If you judge his pictures are "pretty" and "nice" that is subjective and irrelevant. The fact is he is one of the top photographers in the world and his agency (top photographers have representatives) is relevant because that is where his work is displayed!!!

This issue here is the common misconception that notability and importance are related on Wikipedia. When editor say non notable they mean that there are not sufficient sources from which to write an article. Since many reality TV stars are interviewed in magazines it is often possible to write a good biographical article about them. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Sun[edit]

7th Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

this article does not fulfill the requirements according to WP:Band#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. this article does not assert the importance of the band. this article is most likely the work of a member of the band. the_undertow talk 08:27, 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. Sourcing is not an indication of notability, on which this nomination is based. His appearance on Letterman is not an indication of the fact that he is notable, not for an encyclopedic article. What about the the Guinness World Records show, they showcase a huge number of record attempts on TV; should all the people who attempt a Guinness record be notable? The basic fact is that his "fame" is based on a trivial event, and is therefore not encyclopedic. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McAllister[edit]

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

Ludicrously trivial bid for fame: the former "Guinness World Record holder for the most t-shirts worn at one time by a single human being". No really. See also this AFD, where an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is being made based on the existence of THIS article. Calton | Talk 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - notability doesn't require one to do something of lasting impact. It only requires that the person be of note. As goofy as the record may be, it is has brought him enough attention to warrant appearances on television shows. -- Whpq 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_Leon_And_Rustin_Show[edit]

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

Non-notable, single season regional show which has no authorative sources and lots of crystal ball style 'might have beens'. All links on page go to either the author's home page or a single fan site and the DVDs mentioned (which might well suggest notability) appear home made and aren't actually available commercially, if at all StuartDouglas 09:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can order copies of the DVDs off that LRS website. That's how I even heard of the show and saw it in the first place. I have several respectable magazine articles where the show is featured or mentioned (2 of those in national publications), so apparently some of us consider it notable. Do I have to come to your houses and show you the TV show and magazines or what? (ha ha, just kidding!) Seriously though, I don't understand why this page is being picked on. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't notable or whatever. One last thing (for Stuart) - why did you say the links go to the author's homepage? I don't have a homepage listed on there. The links go to the websites of people featured on the show. You guys are getting carried away with your posts... you're doing quite a bit of that "crystal ball" gazing yourself! All the same, it's not the end of the world to me. Do what you gotta do, but I would appreciate it if you guys took a deep breath before rushing to judgment.--Brasky 20:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No-one's rushing anything or picking on anyone but I can't help but think you're not help ing your case by saying "that LRS website" as though it were not connected to you when the image (10thLRS.jpg) which is prominently displayed on the Wiki LRS page and which you uploaded is also the dvd cover on the LRS website ([45]) - and on the licensing tag for the wiki image you say "I made it myself. I willingly release it into the public domain". I don't know if this counts as COI, but pretending to be impartial when you're not isn't brilliant behaviour. There's still not a single notable source on the page either. StuartDouglas 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed a copy of the article I wrote for Wikipedia to the webmaster of that site and I previously sent them a picture I photoshopped from various clips of the show for fun. That hardly means I own the site or that I'm any more connected to it than you are. THEY chose to put it on there, not me. You're turning this into a personal thing, Stuart, maybe because you feel I'm challenging your experience or authority? You are making claims and assumptions about me, the show, and the websites without knowing ANYTHING about me, the show, or the websites. My intention is not to continually argue with you about this stuff. I agree with you that I am not an "impartial" person - I love the show and I think it is hilarious. But I did write an impartial ARTICLE about the show for Wikipedia (on behalf of myself and other fans around the country) and I think you should respect it. That all being said, I disagree strongly with you that there are no notable sources on the page. Apparently, someone at Wiki agrees with me as well because the page has never been deleted. I appreciate your input, and I respect you as a person - but I really wish you would give up your crusade against me and my article.--Brasky 21:04, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vector theory of law[edit]

Vector theory of law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article makes it clear that this is original research. andy 09:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's probably not OR, since it seems to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or by some university press publishing house, because the link in the reference section goes to a Brazilian university page. I have asked the author on the talk page of the article to clarify whether this theory was published in a peer-reviewed journal or not.--DorisHノート 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benedant 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Yes, this monograph was published officially in the mentioned University, as an end course requirement. It's there, printed and was analised by the profssors of the university and accepted as valid and unique writing. Since the book, based in the monograph, is being edited by the author and will be reliesed this year, I don't see any harm in deleting this for a while, althoug it may hinder some discussion about considering the law forces as vectors coming from a social covenant and based on a main principle of reciprocity. If passed the test of deletion, I will increment the article.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles P. Fletcher[edit]

Charles P. Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a hoax. Google returns nothing. It should also be said that this is the user's only contribution. Lampman 10:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, it looks very strongly like a hoax. Robinson weijman 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The source given can not be found on Amazon or AbeBooks, now I'm pretty sure it's a hoax. Lampman 10:34, 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 keep. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Conner[edit]

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

along with Mark Connor. Non notable self published minister, with zero reliable sources. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 10:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The published works might possibly fulfill our standards, for adoption as a text by multiple colleges has consistently been considered to make for notability. However, this hasnt been shown. The listings of the books on Amazon is not enough. If the adoption can be shown by the end of the AfD, I'll change my opinion. DGG 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. New Covenant International requires "The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, by Kevin J. Conner" for BTH301 Biblical Theology VI; 2. Maranatha Online College requires "Conner, Kevin J. The Book of Acts: Early Church History and the Ministry of the Holy Spirit. City Bible Publishing. Portland, OR, 1992 ISBN: 1-886849-02-1" for The Book of Acts; 3. International Bible College requires "Conner, Kevin J. The Church in the New Testament." for PM(G/N/E)262: Practical Church Ministry; 4 BEULAH HEIGHTS BIBLE COLLEGE suggests "“The Tabernacle of Moses" as supplemental reading for BI 240 BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY Natebailey 06:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's not the existence on Amazon I am highlighting, it is the citations (as the links show). He's been cited by over 40 other authors, including Jack Hayford and Dutch Sheets. Natebailey 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also quotes such as 'These textbooks have gone into over 80 countries and have become great resources for Ministers, teachers, preachers and Bible college students' MFI and 'A basic ecclesiology by one of the respected pioneers of the New Apostolic Reformation' GHM. Natebailey
Would you mind adding these quotes/sources to the article? I notice you are the article's creator, so you probably know more about the subject and can integrate the sources well. Thanks, Black Falcon 22:04, 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 speedily deleted by ChrisGriswold. MER-C 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Sewage Company[edit]

Acme Sewage Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. Robinson weijman 10:38, 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 keep. Delete opinions are very much in a minority. There does seem to be agreement that the content would be better presented in merged articles, but not as to the targerts of any such merges. I recommend further discussion on the relevant talkpages about possible merges. WjBscribe 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS-05A Zaku 1 Early Type[edit]

MS-05A Zaku 1 Early Type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MS-05B Zaku 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FD-03 Gustav Karl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RGM-86R GM III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RX-75 Guntank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RX-77 Guncannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The former are unsourced, unattributable and non-notable fancruft. As it stands, they are merely plot summaries with zero real world context. MER-C 11:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Also, do not that we already have a much more refeined article on MS-05 Zaku I
Delete Pure fancruft, nearly zero reference to real world context including the Gundam media that these fictional concepts come from. This might be appropriate for a Gundam wiki but not here. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all these case, please refer to WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:IDONTCARE. Do remember that Gundam is the most famous franchise in Japan, even more than Star trek and Star Wars. Furthermore, it's best to not do a WP:ALLORNOTHING here.64.180.83.71 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that's my IP addr. George Leung 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever these Gundam articles come up people always claim that they are notable because Gundam itself is notable. The problem is that these articles on individual mecha contain little real world context ie how these fictional concepts fit into the real world. Fictional characters and machinery are not really separate concepts from the media that creates them unless they have been discussed separately in some "out of universe" media. In response to the IDONTKNOWIT arguement, while I don't know that much about Gundam I did nominate and merge most of the characters from my favorite movies the Aliens series. While I love these characters and know alot about them, all the info in the articles comes from in universe sources and it was impossible to provide real world context. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of universe: Super Robot Wars George Leung 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge the Zakus into the Zaku article, the same with the GM III into the GM article, Delete the Gustav Karl, and Keep the Guntank and Guncannon as those are units used by main characters in Gundam 0079 and thus noteable. Jtrainor 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, MER-C, I would love to know why you never tag things for cleanup and instead always leap for the PROD or AFD solution. Jtrainor 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the link to this entry are red in Gustav Karl's, GM III's, Guncannon's and Guntank's article. I corrected them all, but at least play it fair next time, please? Now, back to topic...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of the STRONG KEEP!!! type comments were from single purpose accounts, and gave invalid reasons for keeping. The delete comments were mostly from more experienced users, however did not really cite much of an argument, so it's no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric the Midget[edit]

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

Somewhat of another Brian Peppers-like article. Violates WP:BLP quite severely and permanently. Article is unreferenced, the only source(s) cited are actually summaries of the radio show he "appears on". Also, there is the real possibility of failing WP:BIO. Let's not have Jimbo delete this one. MER-C 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. No factual errors, and the article utilizes primary source show summaries. There are no better citations that could possibly exist. This subject is topical and relevant and should remain as a stand alone entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.189.25 (talk) — 12.148.189.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following.

His fansites, myspace page, and SFN Forum back this one up. Additionally fans have made cartoons staring him, and songs using his dialouge. I think these qualify as a cult following. -Hoponpop69 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep If individual Pokemon are notable enough to have their own articles, a regular guest caller (live, human, non-fictional) on one of the best known radio shows in the U.S. certainly is. Riddley 12:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Howard Stern is and has been listened to by millions and is internationally popular. Eric is a frequent, often daily, or weekly, segment of the show and no mere caller. He is not just a caller he is a notable caller on a notable program. Allegations of PoV are worthless here. The article only concerns Eric qua the Howard Stern Show and in so far as he is represented in that capacity this is as neutral as possible. Indeed, since he is only notable qua the Howard Stern Show neutrality need only concern itself with this aspect of him; it is not unneutral to fail to assess Eric from the point of view of his family, friends, or non-stern related figures because the point of view of these figures is not important in relation to the notable aspect of his existence.--Matt 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eric has become a larger part of the Howard Stern Show over the past few years, and figures prominently into many daily discussions & bits. Article should be cleaned up and better referenced, but definetly kept.--BrunoRT 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This individual has become a mini-celebrity and has also been referenced on other non-Howard Stern related websites. Ecnirpnaf99 12:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP~ He is a very important part of Stern Show history!!
  • Delete Unreferenced nonsence like this has no place on wikipedia. Greatestrowerever 12:57, 23 March 2007 (GMT)

STRONGLY KEEP- he already outlived what his doctors said he would and is growing in popularity,if you do not keep this you are just a bunch of little people haters (or just hate actors)

  • STRONGLY KEEP Eric has been a near-daily-appearing show character since 2002. From 2002 through 2005 the Howard Stern show, Monday through Friday, had over 10 million listeners per day. With the Sirius/XM merger the show could in the very near future attain those type of numbers once again. The Howard Stern Show is as mainstream a piece of American pop culture as one can get speaking in the most strict, capitalist terms. I've seen wiki of dozens of programs with literally a thousanth of the audience of the Stern show per week who have seperate profiles for characters or personalties of parallel profile to what Eric has had with Howard. It takes quite a lot of moxie to judge the impact of a character or what he has meant to a show when one hasn't been a listener/viewer to it, as many of those pro-delete zealots show a clear indication of. Or even the absurd notion that Howard Stern fans can't be the best arbiters, or arbiters at all, for keeping acuracy on Howard Stern centric profiles. Do you see we Stern fans trying to create seperate profiles for every Wack Packer? It would be helpful if the people in these arguments stated their basic opinion on the show they're making judgements about BTW, I have no problem removing the mystery and acknowledging biases. Also excuse me if I assume an Englishman,Greatestrowerever, wouldn't be the best barometer for the American radio atmosphere and who it registers with in the American culture. Stephen's black friend 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is a crucial part of The Howard Stern Show. He's done to much for one person to deleate one's page. He makes people smile and laugh each day.

STRONGLY KEEP!!! For the simple reason that he should not be censored from Wiki. If someone wants to learn about Eric, they should be able to find valid information about him.

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is one of the most beloved members of the WackPack. His calls to the show are the stuff of legend and he has truly separated himself from average WackPackers. He is and always will be a lexicon of The Howard Stern Show and rightly deserves special recognition for his contributions and works. --Sir Brentallica-- Knights of the SFN

STRONGLY KEEP. Eric the Midget is a very big part of the Howard Stern Radio Show. If this post were to be deleted, you would also have to delete other members of his show. This Wiki should not be censored, or otherwise it loses validity and becomes biased.

  • strongly keep ETM is arguably the most popular and influential little person in popular culture today. His influence is starting to extend beyond the realm of the Stern show and into the area of music, wrestling and organized crime. Sti571 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)sti571[reply]

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is a member of the Howard Stern Wack pack. He contributes to the show frequently. He should have a page as other members of the Wack Pack have theirs. 67.149.130.107hp242

  • Delete. For the love of God, delete it. Why we need to have articles on people who only appear on nationally aired talk shows is a major mystery to me. It's different for someone like Stuttering John, who has notability outside of the show. But it's just ridiculous in this case. He isn't notable just for being on the show alot. It doesn't work that way. And to whomever closes this, good luck counting the votes. I wish non-Wikipedia users wouldn't flood AfDs like this. It's counter productive. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Eric is a huge part of one of the most popular and influential radio shows in history.Xpendersx 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is notable enough for an article. I know of him, and I never even listen to Howard Stern. --musicpvm 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I came here specifically for knowledge about eric the midget. It's not like the internet is running out of disk space.
  • Keep, I have an issue with some of the comments made in this discussion, as I think everyone deserves a BIO page, regardless of what their claim to fame is, or even if they have none. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia for everything that has ever been, and everyone has had some kind of impact on society and the way of the world. Eric is no exception to this. Eric is a real person, who has a life and has had an impact on society, just like everyone else who has a BIO. Having said that, I do admit that the article reads less like a BIO and more like an article about "Eric's antics on the Howard Stern show". Maybe a new article should be created for *that* topic, and those portions of the BIO can be moved out of the BIO page and onto that topic page. Then, people can argue about whether *that* page should be deleted. But the BIO page itself should remain, if for no other reason, than out of respect for Eric. Mikeguz 02:32, 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 07:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strawpedo[edit]

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

Combination of a dictionary definition and a how-to guide, boh failing WP:NOT. No good sources per WP:ATT (both Urban dictionary and Everything.com are wikilike). It exists, but it has no encyclopedic value, no notability. Fails WP:ATT for lack of reliable secondary sources. Fram 12:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dvora E. Weisberg[edit]

Dvora E. Weisberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Is she more notable than any regular professor, to wit, does she pass WP:BIO? I'm not certain. Avi 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC) I do not think so. -- Avi 01:55, 22 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, Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:06, 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 and redirect to Pokémon Mystery Dungeon#Possible sequel. WjBscribe 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon 2[edit]

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Khukri 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until we get some pics and some info on the game, then make an article about it. You Are Ooglay 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect until we get real confirmation, then recreate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge try to merge this in with the original one until more information is revealedBluebrody7 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe Redirect IF this game is announced, and when they are some details, then it can be created (under the correct title, the person who started it didn't even bother to spell it right). TJ Spyke 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to my Japanese-speaking friend, the scan doesn't mention anything even remotely related to Pokémon (but is rather all about Ace Combat). So Delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is currently nothing truly worth mentioning of the game that isn't just speculation. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong merge. According to Duckroll (who does the "Weekly Famitsu" threads on NeoGAF and is trustworthy), the game will be as such:
  • New Pokemon Mysterious Dungeon
    • Second Chunsoft x Pokemon project
    • Slightly different format
    • There's probably be 2 versions
    • Story will be enhanced
    • Will support Wifi
  • I think that's decent enough information (for a merge). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard of Duckroll (which sounds like a pseudonym to me), Weekly Famitsu, or NeoGAF, and am not sure that many would approve of them being reliable source material. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have voted twice, so I have scratched your second one. just a comment, will be from a friend of a friend type source is not the most verifiable is it? If it's a sure fire thing then your article can be written when it is launched, as at the moment it's mostly speculation. Hence my not crystal ball reasoning. Khukri 08:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge yay, one english source and they can't even refer to the game series correctly (calling it "Mysterious Dungeon") there's hardly enough info to make a an article out of it. After more info has been released and it could pass WP:SS then it can be recreated/split -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:32, 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. Herostratus 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible conspiracy theory[edit]

Bible conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nomination: This is a reluctant nomination. The article has potential but is hampered by serious problems with WP:ATT. It is very long article with almost no citations (there is exactly one as of the time of this nom.) I have no doubt that these theories exist, but without citations to show who says what, the entire article comes across as being OR. I have made repeated requests for citations on the talk page, and about a month ago I tagged both the article and specific sentences, with no response. I am more than willing to withdraw the nom if work is done, but as it stands now the article must be nominated at least. Blueboar 12:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the problems mentioned are real, but not reasons to delete. --Martin Wisse 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting article, and I don't usually go for conspiracy theory stuff... perhaps a better title for this article might be "alternate theories" or something. At any rate, while referencing is bad currently, I have added 1 personally, and most of the items on the list are hardly out of the blue, they mention books and scholars who support the ideas in question, but just lack the formality of inline citations just yet. Thus I think it's clear this article just needs improvement, not deletion. --W.marsh 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These theories definitely exist, but to keep an article titled "Bible Conspiracy Theories" requires that collectively they be a topic of debate. There's no citation to underly that claim, which in any case is not really asserted in the article. As it stands, the article is OR - interesting but disqualified for Wikipedia. (I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I don't expect it.)-- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but the nominator has valid concerns that apparently have failed to be addressed for some time. I would recommend that Blueboar or another editor with similar concerns add [citation needed] tags where appropriate, and maybe their presence there will get under the skin of someone who can provide sources. ◄Zahakiel► 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I thought that the whole point of having the ((references)) tag was to avoid having every other sentence flagged with ((fact)) tags. My other option would be to invoke WP:RS and simply delete everything that is unsourced - which would leave, at most, two disconnected paragraphs. By the way... I thank those who are actually adding sources to the article instead of simply saying "keep it" but not helping to aleviate the problems. Blueboar 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - I understand, but there is a difference between a general, "This article has no citations" notice, and specifying this needs a source, this needs a source, this needs a source (and I don't know of any policy stating they can't both be used where necessary). The effect may be only psychological, but it can be considerable, especially since your concerns haven't been addressed previously. ◄Zahakiel► 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK... if only to demonstrate exactly how bad this article is. I still feel that if there isn't significant work done on this front, the article should be deleted. Blueboar 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The articles does not have enough sources, but that is no reason to delete it. The theories do exist and citations for many statements can be found. Some of the things mentioned, such as the apocryphas are common knowledge and there is no consensus yet that common knowledge statements need to have a source. AfD is not the place to deal with this kind of problem. --DorisHノート 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it also needs mention of Scientology's claim that the bible's whole stuff was the result of brainwashing that Xenu did 75 million years ago. SakotGrimshine 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is really a claim by Scientologists, then add it with citation. Blueboar 12:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is what they claim.. It says so in one of the scientology articles. SakotGrimshine 12:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, it is what ex-Scientologists say the Scientologists claim. Xenu is considered secret by Scientologists and the whole "space opera" stuff is only made available to OT III members after they sign all sorts of waivers. --Richard 07:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is informative and that alone suffices. There are enumerable Wikilinks and some external links to other sources for those who want to follow up. Anyone who sees any potential stretch can add a "citation needed" tag. Use those, not deletion, for informative, well written articles. --MBHiii 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable subject, and the article is useful. But he individual entries have to be sourced directly or indirectly, and not all of them are. The ones not sourced are , in my personal opinion, the more unusual ones that I'd want to know more about. I am also unsure about the article title, but cannot immediately think of a better.DGG 01:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The problem with citations is a red herring. Ignore it. The real problem is that this article is a mish-mash of articles that are only tangentially related through their alternative views of what constitutes the "true Bible". Each individual topic may be encyclopedic but there is no Bible conspiracy theory, at least not one that unifies the various theories. Most of these theories are not "conspiracy theories" per se. They are just theories about what is or is not the "true Bible". At the very minimum, this article needs a new title that is more descriptive of its content. Better yet, merge this into an existing Bible-related article. --Richard 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 38.100.34.2 22:06, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Desktop[edit]

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

Reason Warteck 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the link on the article itself - I am guessing they thought it was non-notable. They seem to be rather new. GreenReaper 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wrote that article and most of the others, on my own time. I did become an employee of Stardock - after writing most of them - but it was not as a result of writing those articles, nor was I compensated for them.
To address the general question of notability: Stardock is, as noted in their main article, a leader in the area of customizing desktop environments, and turn-based strategy gaming. Its latest game expansion, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, won Editors' Choice awards from well-known review sites such as GameSpy and IGN. Object Desktop, and in particular WindowBlinds, IconPackager, ObjectBar and DesktopX are all well known in the customization industry - the package as a whole dates back to 1995, and OS/2, although it moved to Windows in 1998. The company also maintains a website, WinCustomize, which is popular enough to qualify for its own article under WP:WEB (though that article has problems which could do with resolving as well - I'm not a regular on the site, so I've mostly avoided it).
As to this particular product - I would have merged it into a bigger article like Object Desktop if it was part of such a package. It is only distributed standalone at this time, though. Perhaps a merge into Stardock, or WinCustomize? (it is branded as a "WinCustomize" product, and sold via the site) GreenReaper 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ojbect Desktop. Object Desktop's components have won various awards and are certainly notable, but this component doesn't stand on it's own. However, deleting all Stardock programs and the company itself out of hand is both beyond the scope of this AFD and also a little ridiculous, since Stardock is certainly notable, as is some of their software.Chunky Rice 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable software. I didn't realize that this wasn't a part of Object Desktop. I say delete unless it can be merged into some other product line.Chunky Rice 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Avi 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Yehuda Krinsky[edit]

Chaim Yehuda Krinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete I am not certain that this person is not inherently notable outside the original research that seems to be in this article. Avi 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been inmproved to the point that I am withdrawing the nomination. -- Avi 14:33, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Duos[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails to assert [[WP:|notability]], fails the attribution policy and reasons cited by nom. NeoFreak 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes the primary criterion of WP:BIO: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (No use even addressing WP:PORNBIO since it is apparently being eliminated-- 4 points of notability have been removed within about a month-- any point she may pass there today may be gone tomorrow). Multiple magazine layouts, multiple magazine covers, multiple video appearances. Clearly an article on a celebrity, not a vanity page. To use "Notability" to delete articles on celebrities, rather than vanity pages, is an abuse of the term. Dekkappai 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Models are not independant of the magazines they appear in. The models work for the magazine. Epbr123 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This argument is absurd. Are actors independent of the films they appear in? They are studio employees. Are you planning a deletion campaign on film next? Why do you refuse to deal constructively with whatever it is that is bothering you? Why are you intentionally disrupting Wikipedia with WP:POINT AfDs? You have made over a dozen of these over the past few day, few of which are justifiable, and no doubt several of them will be deleted because editors do not have time improve each article or even to respond to each AfD before it closes. If you were really concerned about notability and sourcing, you would put a source-tag on the article, as I did with your still insufficiently sourced stub yesterday. Instead you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by wasting editor's time. You don't even put any thought into your responses at these AfDs, you just paste the same nonsense. Dekkappai 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you need to review the Notability guidline. There is nothing in this article that asserts she is any diffrent than the tens of thousands of other porographic performers. Even if it did claim so does this article meet the mandatory policy of attribution? The obvious answer is no. NeoFreak 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you need to look at the article again. Dekkappai 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you think that mens-mags.com is a reliable source and that the "reliable source" is asserting notability by demonstrating that she has been in a porn mag "X" number of times...well then I don't know what else to say to you. NeoFreak 19:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, the old "Any source on porn is unreliable if it and when mentions porn" argument... IMDB is perfectly fine for thousands of articles, but suddenly invalid if it covers a porn subject. mens-mags.com is not 'reliable' enough to prove a subject has appeared in men's mags. Scans of the model's picture on those men's mags is not 'reliable' evidence that she appeared in those men's mags, because they are men's mags... If that's the kind of reasoning you engage in, feel free to say nothing more to me. And I will return the favor. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This subject also has an article on Spanish Wikipedia. Deleting a U.S. subject from English Wikipedia while it exists in another language? What's the WP:POINT? Dekkappai 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the existance of one policy violation is justification from additional violations? I would hope the point is that we want to keep this encyclopedia inline with its policies. NeoFreak 19:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. When an article on a minor U.S. celebrity is put up for deletion from the English Wikipedia, while it exists on non-English Wikipedias, the question of whether the English Wikpedia's policies are being abused to keep out certain subjects comes to mind. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this person is notable. --Nolanuss 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term "Notability" is abused when it is used to delete articles on minor celebrities. It should be used to keep out vanity pages. This subject is clearly a celebrity. Dekkappai 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly? Funny, the notability guidline for porn actors says otherwise. If you have a problem with the guildlines and policies of wikipedia then I suggest you take that issue up on their respective pages, not at an AfD discussion. NeoFreak 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with Wikipedia policies, I have a problem when they are abused to waste editor's time, and to delete articles on subjects that some editors dislike. WP:PORN has lost half its "notability" criteria within about a month, so I go by WP:BIO which this article clearly passes. The nominator has started stubs which are completely unsourced, yet frets about sourcing in over a dozen AfDs in the past few days. Something is obviously fishy here. Dekkappai 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkappai. WP:PORNBIO and WP:N are being abused beyond their creators' intentions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't it rather odd that Epbr123 and NeoFreak have mis-spelled two words in very similar ways during this discussion?
  1. Epbr123: If you have a problem with the guildlines; NeoFreak: "If you have a problem with the guildlines"
  2. Epbr123: "Models are not independant"; NeoFreak: "So the existance"

Just asking. Dekkappai 00:01, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Vintan[edit]

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

Romanian university professor. No reliable third-party coverage. Good career (or so he claims) but not sufficiently notable. Pascal.Tesson 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this quite so negative--for most of the topics, he seems to have published a preliminary paper in a conference as well as a finished one in journal--which is not disreputable. But we'd normally count only the journal articles, and we'd expect him to make a mark in one particular area. So I went to Web of Science, which only lists 4 of his articles:
  1. Vintan L, Gellert A, Florea A, et al., Understanding prediction limits through unbiased branches LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 4186: 480-487 2006 Times Cited: 0 (but this is too recent to expect cites, & it is a very highly regarded series)
  2. Vintan LN, Florea A, Gellert A, Focalising dynamic value prediction to CPU's context IEE PROCEEDINGS-COMPUTERS AND DIGITAL TECHNIQUES 152 (4): 473-481 JUL 2005 Times Cited: 0 (Also too recent for cites--a major conference series)
  3. Egan C, Steven G, Quick P, et al. Two-level branch prediction using neural networks ,JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 49 (12-15): 557-570 DEC 2003 , Times Cited: 2
  4. Egan C, Steven G, Vintan L Cached two-level adaptive branch predictors with multiple stages LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 2299: 179-191 2002 , Times Cited: 0

WoS is known to under-represent Eastern European publications, but everything considered, an unambiguous

I have the impression that WoS underrepresents computer science in general, largely because of WoS' focus on journals while a lot of the CS literature is in conferences. And what I was complaining about isn't the preliminary-conference polished-journal thing; as I said, that's normal and expected. But it doesn't seem that we are in any disagreement about the AfD decision. —David Eppstein 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as an obvious copyvio. No conclusions as to best title for any subsequent article written on this subject. WjBscribe 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lung Association of Saskatchewan[edit]

The Lung Association of Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article lacks information on the notability. Article is an advertisement. Masterpedia 15:05, 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three of Cups[edit]

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

This is one of many articles on individual tarot cards in the "minor arcana" which many feel will never become anything more than a stub.Smiloid 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

  • Either Merge All of each suit into a single article under the name of the suit (i.e. Cups (Tarot)) or delete all. Otto4711 15:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and judging from your User talk page and some other comments on talk pages, I'd almost call this bad faith, using AfD to try and circumvent discussion. There's nothing wrong with stubs, so long as they're sourced, and they can absolutely be added to. Besides, most people are going to be looking for the "mystical" interpretation of these cards when they look them up. If there are other uses for these cards as you claim, then add them to the article, but just because you're a skeptic doesn't mean you need to declare war against the tarot. We're looking for verifiability, not truth, and the tarot is verifiable. --UsaSatsui 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all With literally centuries worth of books written about the tarot, and more arriving all the time, it seems to me that an article should be possible for every card and its various meanings and symbolism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Notable, sourcable, and moderately sourced for stubs. If not, merge to some sort of aggregation, but there's absolutely no reason to delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aggregate into suits. Cups (Tarot), Wands (Tarot), etc. ♠PMC♠ 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per above. It may be arcana, but it's notable arcana, and as noted above, there's nothing wrong with stubs or short articles as long as the info is correct and notable. I won't lose sleep if the aggregate option is chosen, but I think suit-based articles have the potential to be too lengthy. 23skidoo 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge after AFD closes. By suits as suggested by PMC seems like a good idea. And what's the story with the NPOV tags?Chunky Rice 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whadaya mean, as PMC suggested? I tell ya I get no respect, no respect at all. As far as the articles by suit being too long, none of the articles look to be more than a paragraph or two, some of which is duplicative, so merging shouldn't result in anything overly long. If one or more individual cards gets to be lengthy it can then be split out into its own article. Otto4711 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. My deepest apologies. I completely agree.Chunky Rice 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to suits per Otto4711. DCEdwards1966 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into individual suits. Things like the Four of Clubs don't have their own articles, so why should Tarot cards? It makes little sense to have a series of individual articles on this subject when it can be handily addressed in four articles. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge by suit - The arcanas may be notable, but the cards themselves are not particularly notable independently of their meaning within the overall system. I agree with the nom. that even if likely interpretations were added (and thoroughly sourced) these individual entries would not amount to more than a mass of perpetual stubs. Concerns about the resulting articles being too long can be alleviated by concise editing, and maybe the use of a table. ◄Zahakiel► 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to merged suits no need for individual articles, but the information is absolutely notable, referenced by innumerable published works in every bookstore I know of. the redirects would enable people searching for the tarot by card to find the merged lists. 69.210.52.60 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Minor Arcana. Distant second choice to merge by suit. The majority of the articles I looked at say nothing more than "The blah of blah is a Minor Arcana Tarot card." Αργυριου (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge by suits (or some other fashion). As per Αργυριου, my random sampling showed that several of these articles are little more than "Title is a tarot card. [[Image:''Title'']]". Heavy, sourced articles can be split back out. Not a delete vote -- saberwyn 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all even though it goes against my every wikinstinct; they're far more likely to be expanded than the individual entries for each album by obscure bands we happily tolerate. Iridescenti 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into a single article. Saranary 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. All of these are easily expandable into full articles. In fact, I shall prove that they can be - give me an hour or so, then have a look at (picking one at random) Ten of Cups, to see how these articles could look with a bit of TLC. AGrutness...wha? 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Just because a minor arcana tarot card is nothing but one of many pip cards in a game of tarot, it does not imply a lack of content related to the non-gaming side of the card. There is much content that can be added based upon the usage of a card for divination. There is still more that can be added about the symbolism and background of the card.--P Todd 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Otto's MERGE proposal seems most reasonable. Also, to UsaSatsui This AfD is intended to promote discussion. Despite what Bill O'Reilly may have told you, there is no "war on tarot" being conducted here. I think tarot is a fine card game played in France! Seriously, I think Ptdecker is doing good faith work with the POV concerns. However,whatever POV issues I and a few others may have raised about games and divination are not related to this proposal. My purpose is to see what the community here thinks we should do with all these stubs before any sort of work is to be done on them. Smiloid 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid if we MERGE, we will end up breaking them all out again sometime in the future. If they were merged even by suit, if each card was fully fleshed out as they should be the article would be huge. I don't think there is a "war on tarot" (nice pun, Smiloid). But, I do think by pure numbers there are many more users of tarot for esoteric purposes then users of the cards for game play. Seems like a 50%/50% balanced bias towards game play is actually a bias away from the majority of physical people (just my opinion).--P Todd 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine to break them out again when that time comes. As of right now these cards are not in any way fleshed out. I think the authors of all these individual card articles have placed the cart before the horse (excuse cliché ). There is one article on one of the suits. The other 3 suits have been neglected. Articles on the parent class should have been created prior to all these articles on individual members. Also if you look closely, Knight of Swords has an exact clone. At the very least one of those two should be merged/deleted. Again this is not for the games/esoteric debate. I am simply raising a question as to how all these cards should be treated.Smiloid 06:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Otto into 4 articles on the suitsSmiloid 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All There are multiple schools of thought and research regarding Tarot cards. They can be viewed as historical cultural symbols, they are used by some philosophical systems as spiritual or meditative icons, they are used by many in various ways as so-called "divination tools" (in both formal and informal contexts), and they are used by some for playing of games. Another consideration is that there are many systems of Tarot and the cards do not have the same meanings in each system. If we merge the articles into one larger article, then it would be likely that the merged article will contain images and discussions of many cards and would quickly become be overly long. So, although many of the individual articles are currently stubs, if we leave them be, Tarot enthusiasts and experts of all persepctives will populate the pages with interesting info. Why do we need to be in a hurry about that? Parzival418 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ought this to be transferred to a dedicated Tarot-Wiki, with a link to it from the main Tarot article ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above. - Denny 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per UsaSatsui and Andrew Lenahan. -kotra 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and develop; the articles all are rudimentary, and refer to he same two sources. There certainly is a good deal more to included, but it hasn't been included so far. Unless there is a serious effort to expand them, they will be suitable for merging.DGG 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiCommons needs more "minor arcana" images. I could make a comment that the Waite 3 of Swords is a clone of the Sola Busca 3 of swords or the ribbon on the 2 of coins Waite deck was inspired by the ribbon that carries the card makers name and date eg "Conver 1760" but I think the lack of appropriate images is one factor hampering the development of these articles.Smiloid 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for several reasons tbe article on each card may be developed further. They all share origin but since one of them is different there has to be a story on how each one of them was designed and the meaning for different groups of people. --FateClub 02:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness's proof that the stubs can be developed into full-blown articles by themselves. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All, don't merge Each of these cards represents meaning in Tarot spreads. In fact, each card represents two meanings: one if the card is right-way up, and another of the card is reversed. These plus descriptions of the artistic symbolism from popular Tarot decks more than constitutes enough content for an article, and leaving these up as individual articles encourages that that work be done.
  • Merge all per suite - this has actually already been discussed at Talk:Minor Arcana, and i think it's safe to say most people there agree to a merge. It's just no one's bothered to actually do the merging yet... --`/aksha 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wishes to coordinate efforts to improve these pages, please use the discussion page at Talk:Minor Arcana.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chioke Dmachi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Bio, NPOV, WP:Autobiography Delete Touchdown Turnaround 15:46, 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 07:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel J. Emanuel[edit]

Ezekiel_J._Emanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Robinson (comedian)[edit]

Joe Robinson (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Local comedian; no sources provided that demonstrate subject is notable accoding to WP:BIO guidelines. Speedy deletion (due to lack of reliable sources was contested. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Here some are references, please help me. I'm ingorant about this wikipedia thing. [47] [48]
Also watch the Arlington Drafthouse link right in the article. If someone had actually clicked on that I can't imagine they wouldn't consider it a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.86.197 (talk • contribs)
None of those references appears to qualify as a reliable source. Also note that WP:BIO guidelines do not include winning a local bar's comedy competition as a criteria for establishment of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 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 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Edward Sikora[edit]

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

I think this is a hoax vanity. While there may or may not be a strongest man competition (a quick google search left me doubtful) This particular individual was no where in google - with or without the middle name. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read further. The hoax exception states that "Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous". Since the "Strongest Man in the World committee" does not exist, or is so obscure that Google hasn't heard of it, that makes the article pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He really is the worlds strongest man.
Matthew Edward Sikora is on the student roster for SUNY Brockport and it turns out that Brockport actually holds a competition called "The Strongest Man in the World" and Matt Sikora won in 2005 for his fraternity, Alpha Chi Rho] Molmdaw 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)molmdaw[reply]
Do you have a reference? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if that is the case, it still doesn't show notability. Brockport may call it The Strongest Man in the World" but that doesnt mean much--it means the strongest frat boy at Brockport, which is NN.DGG 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect, cheap and easy. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nod reaper[edit]

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

Delete: Game unit, either move to gaming wiki or delete. Also too less info and lack of sources. --Cs california 06:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nod technology of Command & Conquer FiggyBee 15:44, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific imperialism[edit]

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

The term "scientific imperialism" is not frequently used in sociological debates over science. Furthermore, the text of the article is quite messily POV, and cites many references that do not support its thesis. Skinwalker 13:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and bring up concerns on the talk page. This is about deletion, and you haven't cited a valid reason to delete the concept, except "I don't like it." Concerns need to be brought up on the talk page, or you can work on the article to bring it to a higher standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, the nominator did say, "The term [...] is not frequently used in sociological debates over science," perhaps implying non-notability, but the sources already provided and a subsequent brief search show that it's cited in some legitimate articles. It certainly isn't a neologism or anything. Content concerns should be covered on the talk pages, as mentioned above. ◄Zahakiel► 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently it's an encyclopedic expression[49]

but the article should be improved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Whilst I accept that the article is not perfect, BUT I do not think the concerns expressed comprise a sufficient cause for deleting the whole article, which seems a rather excessive reaction. It can be improved and I am happy to have a bash at doing precisely that, including deleting anything that seems unjustified or unsubstantiated. I happen to have more material that can be incorporated into the article, which I have not yet had time to work on. If it is acceptable to others, then I propose to implement these changes and then, dialogue permitting, see how it goes. thanks Peter morrell 10:08, 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 Redirect -- Bubba hotep 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 128[edit]

Super_Mario_128 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete Super Mario 128 is not a game, and likely never was. Miyamoto has stated this at the recent Game Developer's Conference in March 2007, and this should put an end to speculation. Intricate articles devoted to speculation like Super Mario 128 hurt Wikipedia's image. Klondike 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Cardile[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Bio, WP:Autobiography, very few google hits, marked for cleanup for months. Delete Touchdown Turnaround 15:49, 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 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution[edit]

Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - all information in the article is redundant to articles on the Constitution itself and List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Since the information is all preserved elsewhere there is no need to merge any of this and the unlikelihood of the article title as a search term means no redirect is needed. Otto4711 15:08, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madtsoiidae[edit]

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

Article lacks information on notability. Article reads like a personal essay Masterpedia 15:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holmen High School[edit]

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

Notability. Why should a high school be included in Wikipedia? Robinson weijman 15:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - RFD 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Trucks[edit]

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

This page was already deleted once, on March 3. This article was nominated for deletion again because it was deleted once, and then re-created. AEMoreira042281 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks (2nd nomination)

  • I do agree though, that the article could be cleaned up a bit, but that's not a good reason for deletion. If it's notable, but the article is messy, just clean the page up. Acalamari 19:33, 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 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stock phrase[edit]

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

It is impossible to determine what this article is supposed to be: is it a list of idioms? A list of catchphrases? It is impossible to confirm what a "stock phrase" is, as a Google search reveals no references to this concept outside of Everything2 and Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. — Krimpet (talk/review) 15:41, 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 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with fear of flying[edit]

First, it's trivia. Second, it's not objective - some people "don't like" planes, others panic at the very thought, so it's unclear which is meant and what the inclusion criterion for the list is. Third, it lacks sources. Trivia + speculation + no sources = delete. >Radiant< 16:15, 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 redirect to shaving. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-shaven[edit]

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

The article is basically defining the term "Clean-shaven". The article does not cite any sources and contains OR. Please see WP:DICDEF. This article is not notable but may belong in Wikitionary. Agha Nader 16:28, 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 07:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event Championship Wrestling[edit]

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

Non notable independent wrestling promotion, fails WP:CORP and WP:A One Night In Hackney303 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robocalypse_now[edit]

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

Save it for Uncylopedia Antonrojo 17:16, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hottesome[edit]

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

A neologism that got 63 google hits, and I imagine some of them were associated with this author (although I am not sure). Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:21, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of posting styles[edit]

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

Not useful or notable. Original research. — Omegatron 17:40, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earhart Environmental Magnet Elementary School[edit]

Earhart Environmental Magnet Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

reason non Notable school artcle does not say why school is impotent enough to be on here also high school like it or not in my mind are notable so they should be on here but i am sorry i always say keep the high school articles but no offenice we need to draw the line somewhere Oo7565 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the speedy delete is without prejudice to a new article being recreated. It does, however, remove the copyright material from the history, to avoid problems with the copyright holders, and allows a clean start. TerriersFan 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just done a large edit to the article and removed most of the copied text. I've tried to rewrite a lot of parts but the article still needs work. I have added a schools info box as well as three seperate references (one of which is the actual schools site). I have placed the hang on to contest the speedy deletion as this article is no longer a clear copyright violation. In the case of afd, I change to keep based on the recent edits. LordHarris 03:25, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZineWiki (2)[edit]

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

Article on Yet Another Wiki, sourced from blogs and internet "radio" stations (i.e. audio blogs). No evidence it has been the primary sbject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Zines are an important element of culture and counterculture alike. The zine wiki is a good resource in both the cataloguing and promotion of them. I personally discovered the zine wiki through wikipedia and it would be a shame if other people didn't have the same advantage. Besides, it's basically a sister site using wikimedia technology - you'd think that all of those wikis (certainly the well-maintained ones) would have a place on wikipedia. (Rob 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - A quick search on Google reveals hundreds of webpages linked to Zine Wiki. The site itself has many thousands of visitors. This is a social and artistic movement that is obviously of some importance. It's imperative that Wikipedia includes articles on such topics, otherwise it will become an encyclopedia that only includes articles that are commercially endorsed or sanctioned by large corporate interests, such as television shows or basketball players. Obscure episodes of television shows are not the true indicator of the culture of a society, no matter how many advertising dollars are behind them, and no matter how many articles have been written about them. Culture can emerge from the internet, from small press publications such as the type that Zine Wiki documents, and may appear to be unnoticed by the dominant culture while having a noticable effect. If Wikipedia is to reflect the culture at large, rather than just that which is commercially sanctioned (a small percentage of the cultural production that affects peoples' lives), then it must include articles such as this one. If we applied the criteria that only aspects of culture that have been throughly documented by large corporate media are to be included, then half the articles on Wikipedia will disappear, particularly many articles on topics such as Punk, and punk bands; the Arts, such as Underground filmmakers; Feminism, and Gay cultures, for just an example, all of which are 'marginalized' cultures, and all of which received little exposure in mainstream media until years after their effect had already permeated the culture at large. Even if the culture of zines and the small press does not personally affect you in particular, be assured it is having an effect on many thousands of others. Many noteworthy writers and artists are, or have been, involved in zine culture and Wikipedia carries pages on them; zine editors such as Aaron Cometbus, Mark Perry, Johanna Fateman, Kathleen Hanna, G.B. Jones, Deke Nihilson, Bruce LaBruce, Donna Dresch, Vaginal Davis and Anonymous Boy, to name but a few. Wikipedia also has pages on movements that originated in zine culture such as Riot Grrrl and Queercore, or movements in which zines were an important part such as Punk. It also devotes pages to zines such as Punk Magazine, Kill Your Pet Puppy, Sniffin' Glue, Girl Germs, J.D.s, and Fanorama, among others, all of which have not necessarily been mentioned in The New York Times, but have managed to affect the culture nonetheless. Will Wikipedia now delete all those pages as well? If so, then it's good that Zine Wiki does exist and documents precisely this culture. The importance of this article is obvious. Keep Intheshadows 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much arm-waving, I'm afraid - it's completely irrelevant how many famous people have been involved in zine culture, because this is not an article on zine culture it's an article on a wiki with just over a thousand articles and only 20,000 page views on the front page. Please add multiple non-trivial references from reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the short time since this debate began the page views of ZineWiki have already risen to 21,500 from the 20,000 you quoted.Intheshadows 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWikipedia needs to revise its definition of 'reliable sources'. It could reasonably be argued that the most significant impact on the publishing world in many years has been blogs. Bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan, to give but one example (and there are many), are regarded as credible journalists whose writing is widely dispersed in a manner comparable to syndicated columnists of the previous century and have greatly altered the publishing landscape. Wikipedia, it would appear, is one of the very few places where they aren't taken seriously. In contrast, Wikipedia touts the likes of The New York Times as being a 'reliable source' of information when only recently headlines throughout the world exposed the fact that they published false facts about an individual who had knowingly lied to them. My point is that Wikipedia is pursuing an antiquated notion of what constitutes a 'reliable source'. As Dan 10things argues, you are not the best judge of what a reliable source is. And, as Jonathon Penton asks above, why wouldn't you consider the Small Press Exchange a reliable source? A question, I note, you have not answered. Zine Wiki is quite obviously about zine culture. It is an article about a wiki that documents zines, zine editors and distributors and zine outlets. In essence, zine culture. ZineWiki is an extremely important part of that culture and will only grow in importance. All of the fanzines I mentioned previously never, in their lifetime, had a readership anywhere near the amount of readers who have visited ZineWiki and yet they influenced the culture and you have pages devoted to them. ZineWiki has in all likelihood more readers than any of those zines and is impacting zine culture and the culture at large as we speak. Its documentation of zines and zine editors, its determination to take seriously what is often denigrated as not being serious, is changing the nature of what constitutes publishing; of what is a 'free press', as Leafypie argues rightly; and most importantly, of what is 'trivial' and what is not. You pride yourself that your vanity website gets half as many page views as ZineWiki: you could also be proud of the fact that the amount of viewers of your website probably exceeds the readership of most of the zines I mentioned above. However, your vanity website has not had an impact on the culture. The zines I mentioned did. Likewise, Natalie, the town you lived in, the school you attended had an impact on your life. You wonder, in your comment, why there is not an article on Wikipedia devoted to you: it's because your life did not have an impact on your town or your school and that is why there is not an article on Wikipedia devoted to you. Zine Wiki is having an impact on the culture it is a part of, in the same way that the zines I mentioned and the zine editors I've listed above have had. Therefore, if Wikipedia has pages on those zines, however many readers they may have had, and regardless of whether or not they've been mentioned in The New York Times, then Wikipedia needs to have an article in ZineWiki.Intheshadows 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article went through a deletion nomination just four months ago, what has changed besides ZineWiki growing in content and readers? The multiple verified references from reliable sources makes this pass WP:WEB. In addition to meeting the criteria, ZineWiki appears to be the most extensive resource for zines, zine publishers and zine history available on the Web. Dan10things 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Dan10things (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (I object to being tagged as a sock puppet, I've edited Wikipedia since last year and have made contributions to 8 different articles ranging from libraries and zines to punk and musicians, the only areas I feel I have enough expertise in to contribute.)[reply]
    • Most of those citations are either blogs, internet radio, or other 'zines. The only one which I would say really matches WP:RS is the Portland Mercury one, which is just a trivial mention. —dgiestc 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Portland Mercury, Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine all match WP:RS. You're present the same argument was presented 4 months ago and did not get enough support for the article to be deleted. What new argument in support of deletion can you bring to the table? Dan10things 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, there are no reliable sources so you insist we accept unreliable ones. This is a wiki with only about a thousand articles. It is utterly insignificant, it has no obvious reliable independent external coverage. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'll try to be more clear: the argument you are presenting is the exactly what was presented four months ago and no one agreed with you. They thought the Portland Mercury article, along with the others, met notable criteria. Overwhelmingly. So presenting this recently failed argument with no extra evidence or effort makes no logical sense. What I ask of you, is what new evidence or argument can you present beyond the one that recently failed? From what I can tell, the article has only increased in notability. It's been featured on the Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine websites and it's Alexa ranking shows an increase of 300% in the past three months, an increase of 2,595,580 traffic rank based on a combined measure of page views and users. Dan10things 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Portland Mercury is a fairly large alternative paper owned by Index Papers, they also own The Stranger, Chicago Reader and a few other papers. It's home of (and partly owned by) syndicated columnist and radio host Dan Savage. They generally have a lot of paragraph sized articles and blurbs on notable national and regional subjects, which is what that was. It certainly was more than one sentence saying it exists. It's also had similar blurbs on the Punk Planet and Rivet Magazine websites. Dan10things 06:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you are completely wrong. It's unfortunate that as a Wiki editor you place so much importance on print articles, yet have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the industry you are relying on for evidence to support your opinion. You display a complete lack of understanding as to how editorial works at a large or mid-sized publication. To you when I say "blurb" it means "trivial," something without much editorial oversight and review. When I was the music editor at a mid-sized regional magazine, a website or print blurb meant an editorial highlight of the most significant, interesting, or entertaining event, band, album, etc. of the issue. Blurbs are short, usually with a 150-200 word limit in most print and web publications, but they are hardly insignificant. A blurb that runs is picked from a number of submissions by an editorial board, discussed in depth, and the most significant article is picked as the one that runs. It's edited, proofread, layed out, goes through copy editing, etc. just as every other article in a magazine. That's a blurb, it goes through the same proccess as a longer article, only it's shorter. It pains me to have to explain this in such detail, but only someone that has never worked in the media would call a blurb insignificant or trivial. Hell, that kind of talk could get you fired by your editor. If you are going to base your opinions on articles that have run in print publications, by all means, consider actually getting involved in the publishing industry so you can know what you are talking about. That way you may actually be able to contribute an informed opinion to this discussion instead of being so obviously wrong. Don't get me wrong, I love this discussion, although I feel even though I've put together a stronger and more logical argument based on experience in the subject at hand, I'm up against a small group of Wiki editors who ban together in support of one another rather than really thinking about the subject matter and it's significance. Have you actually contributed content to any articles about zines, magazines or the publishing industry? What's your depth of knowledge on the subject matter you so happily judge? Your rules put you in a very narrow and defined box that doesn't let you see the forest through the trees. And when it comes to the subject at hand, which really is zine and self publishing resources, you definitely are not the expert here on evaluating what is or is not a valuable resource. I come from the library/information science world, where experts in the field evaluate and select resources, rather than people like you, the security guards, who usually enforce rules by telling people they can't drink soda pop in library or they are talking too loud. Dan10things 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Dan10things. "The Portland Mercury one" was an article itself dedicated to letting people know about ZineWiki, that's not trivial. Also, the next print issue of Broken Pencil dedicated an entire article to ZineWiki along with an interview they did with me about the site. Which isn't on this site yet because it's not in print yet, but it will be shortly. As Dan said, we were just through this a few months ago and they didn't see fit to delete us then. The site has well over 350,000+ article views and over 550+ registered users in less than nine months of existence. Alanlastufka 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and no independent non-trivial coverage. Which means that the number of page views is irrelevant. And that's only twice as many page views as my vanity website over the same period. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the page you are talking about is less than 4 weeks old and it's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed, do you really think it's fair to use it as evidence to support your argument until it's been fully accepted? Dan10things 06:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You failed to support the answer to my question, I was really hoping for an explanation because it's unclear to me and I can tell from your profile you spend a lot of time arguing for deletion of articles and are quite passionate about getting into these discussions. Does the WikiPedia community as a whole think it's fair to use a brand new page that's currently under dispute, like primary notability criterion, as evidence to support deleting an article? Or should we wait until it's been fully established and accepted to use it as evidence? Dan10things 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searched around, pretty deeply, but alas no sources that make it qualify. Delete, recreate later on down the road if coverage increases per criteria... - Denny 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is demonstrated as notable, through reliable sources. 500 registered users is a drop in the bucket on the Internet. Natalie 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By all means, keep! Insignificant newsgroups that are less notable than ZineWiki have entries. Tiny little towns with 3 people that are less notable have entries. ZineWiki is a very valuable and respected resource, even among people who have only very little contact with zining. The effort to delete has more to do with silencing independent press than anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.138.5 (talk • contribs)
    • You might want to see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, one of the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". —dgiestc 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might want to see WP:BASH, specifically this part, "When policy and doctrine is quoted like Scripture, and arguments not founded upon this Scripture pre-emptively discounted, the process becomes more rancorous and divisive than necessary. The various policies and guidelines are meant to reflect consensus. They are not given as laws to set boundaries to consensus. To the extent that a policy or guideline fails to reflect consensus, the policy or guideline requires revision. Familiarity with various policies, guidelines, or essays is something that comes from experience with the project. Only people who have already committed themselves to fairly extensive involvement in the project get deep enough into the mechanics and politics of editing to read that material. As such, quoting them as gospel to newcomers to the project is intimidating, may be seen as hostile, and contradicts current guidelines: "Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism". It is a bad idea for us to have essays or worse, guidelines that invite administrators to treat some opinions as less equal than others. It is a bad idea to announce that opinions on these discussions will be discounted unless they are argued with reference to insider jargon." Dan10things 19:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a worse idea to use the fact that other non-notable things are included as a reason this one should be, too. -Amarkov moo! 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Something I'd like to add: I also think we should "keep" because the ZineWiki is exactly the sort of thing people might look up, and this article would very useful to them. I honestly don't see what the fuss is over "reliability", because that's clearly pretty well covered by sources that make mention of ZineWiki.4.225.137.186 22:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, SNAP! Point taken. —dgiestc 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The problem with asking for more credible sources from ZineWiki is that the Independent community has none, by your definition. We're rarely covered by the major media sources and our only history lies in what we remember and what we've recorded for ourselves in blogs and in 'zines. My question to you is; does this make it any less valid? Free media, true free media, is defined by the people and their right to free speech, to publishing underground papers and 'zines and their right to disseminate these works. Certainly, under major media attacks on the credibility of Wikimedia and its sources, one might feel the need to do away with all things which cannot meet so-called "higher standards", but one must also ask if this isn't overkill? I believe that ZineWiki is part of free media and therefore held to different standards of what can be considered credible. It's a resource to the independent community, for better or worse, and there-in lies its value. --Leafypie 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC) — Leafypie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Credible sources are a non-negotiable point. That this has only been covered by other 'zines and blogs suggests it is not notable to the wider world. Nobody is questioning people's right to free speech, but something self-published simply does not carry the same weight as one with with paid staff, editorial oversight, incorporation, etc... —dgiestc 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The print media industry is dying. Believe me, I know, I've spent the last 20 year of my life in it publishing zines, newspapers and magazines as well as working in academic libraries. While you may be an expert at Wikipedia rules, my expertise lies in information science and publishing. I've lost tens of thousands of dollars trying to keep print publications alive, but our readers are moving every day away from magazines, zines and newspapers towards websites for news and entertainment. I've watched multi-million dollar library serials budgets move from print publications to online full-test resources. This point is non-negotiable as well, the online media is already taking over the print media, who's days are numbered. At some point Wikipedia will have to deem online news resources as credible media, and honestly, the point isn't now, it was two years ago. It's amazing how far ahead of Wikipedia the academic and commercial world are in this matter. ZineWiki has currently been written about in the following credible and verifiable media resources: The Portland Mercury, Punk Planet, Rivet Magazine, the Underground Media Alliance and the Small Press Exchange. All have an extensive staff and editorial oversight. As someone that's owned, edited and published a magazine with paid staff, editorial oversight, and incorporation, I fully support the ZineWiki article. It's an amazing resource that pulls together in an encyclopedia form decades of independent publications, something you cannot find anywhere else online or in print. Obviously you are not a librarian, nor do you care about the independent press, but realize that for those of us that are and do, ZineWiki is a highly valuable resource. Dan10things 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The intrinsic value of the subject of the article is not in question. The availability of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject is. —xyzzyn 03:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Underground Literary Alliance and Punk Planet sources aren’t independent. The Small Press Exchange reference does not have any indication of reliability. The other sources are blogs (I include in this description the Flat Four Radio reference) without redeeming importance and therefore not acceptable. In particular, there is no indication that the Portland Mercury reference actually was published in that magazine. —xyzzyn 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong, the Underground Literary Alliance is absolutely independent of ZineWiki. I'm a ZineWiki editor and probably the biggest critic of the ULA (follow the alt.zines discussion if you want to see how wrong you are, it's not pretty). The Portland Mercury, Rivet Magazine and Small Press Exchange are all independent as well. You are correct on Punk Planet, it's print articles on the small press run on ZineWiki. Dan10things 10:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Portland thing is a blog entry. I don't know anything about the "ULA", but it really does not look reliable at all (it looks like a personal web site or something). Rivet thing is also a blog entry and the Small Press Exchange is a trivial listing (anyone can post their information there). Wickethewok 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused, if you admit knowing nothing about the ULA, why did you say they aren't an independent source in your reason for deletion? That was complete misinformation on your part. FYI, it's not too hard to find out about the ULA, they've grabbed headlines in the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, etc. in recent years. I'll I'd ask is that you make an informed opinion, rather than make false assumptions and statements before reaching your conclusion. Dan10things 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very top of the ULA reference, we find ‘This week's report by Alan Lastufka of Fall of Autumn’; in the article under discussion, we find ‘ZineWiki was created in July 2006 by Alan Lastufka […]’. Something written by the founder of the subject of the article is certainly not an independent source. —xyzzyn 22:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before there was the internet, there was the 'Zine. Now, to clarify, the innovation of cheap photocopying created an explosion in the 'small press' that again magnified in the years when powerful graphics capable home computers became affordable BUT the internet was still limited and expensive to get on, or to have a webpage on. This golden era, around 89-94/96 had a renissance of zines. Ah, that young idealism again. bOING bOING...anyone? Yeah, I'm personal on this, I started doing artwork to put stuff in 'zines, then made my own on the computer when I got one, but printed and photocopied them. Comics, artworks, raving rants, etc. It sure beat trying to scale down things to almost Atari 2600 level, then pushing them through a dialup modem who's speed was crippled by companies (from the big dogs to the startups) who didn't FEEL like giving good speed to 'rural' people. I never had an ISDN, it went from 1200 baud to 56k to CABLE. However, I've had stuff published in zines here and there and my zines have reached around the globe. Zines still are an important element of culture, mainly as a bridge between the "Underground" and "Mainstream" and will become quite popular again when either the government or the big companies do a real assault/takeover on the 'net. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGestalt (talk • contribs) — GreenGestalt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The bulk of contemporary publishing for the last few decades has been zines. There have been more zines published than mainstream publishing - more variety and more innovation by far. Seeing mainstream publishing of mostly bad novels by a handfull of conglomerates, as all that is, is insular thinking. The world publishes zines more than novels. Zinewiki is a reflection of zines, which are the choice of most writers today. I have edited for zinewiki, and I think it has the same reason to be as wikipedia itself - it is an encyclopedia - in this case - of independent publishing. Zinewiki contains all the entries from the Zine Hall of Fame, that Musea started. It is a 10 year celebration of the best of zines. As editor of the 15 year old zine, Musea, I think Zinewiki is the major source of documentation on the major source of publishing of our era. An online encylopedia without zinewiki is an online encyclopedia that is denying the thousands and thousands of indie publishers that have made zines the key literary movement of the last few decades. Musea 01:29, 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. While "Hoax" is not a valid speedy delete rationale, I'm exercising some judgment here and deleting this as it is borderline nonsense with no chance of being kept.--Isotope23 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amron[edit]

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

Obvious hoax. A Google search for "+Amron +Space +Goddess" returns 27 results, none of which are relevant - yes, I actually checked. WP:NFT, WP:HOAX. Maybe a BJAODN candidate. Couldn't quite bring myself to Speedy - not quite incomprehensible enough for G1, and I assume a Space Goddess of Death would be some sort of assertation of notability, thus "passing" A7. So - get your snowballs ready. Action Jackson IV 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UT

  • Fuck the guy who wrote the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:75.7.208.132 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 March 2007
You know, with a rap sheet as long as this one, it's amazing that Waverly Community Schools is allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. The number of "final warnings" is an absolute joke. --Action Jackson IV 18:42, 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 deleted as copyvio (CSD:G12) of lyrics to Les Miserables (see [50]). MCB 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javert's Suicide[edit]

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

A plot summary and lyric sheet for a single scene in a musical. I applaud the thought, the time, the effort, but WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Might be a copyvio of Sparknotes or Cliffnotes or something, but I'm happy in my ignorance. Action Jackson IV 18:37, 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 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psilodump[edit]

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

Unreferenced, unverifiable biography which violates WP:AUTO and fails WP:BIO.

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

The result was Userfied as self-evident autobiography. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dan (UK)[edit]

DJ Dan (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ignoring the sad vanity and the fact that this is an advertisement, the lack of true notability in this article's subject shines out. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 19:27, 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. Veinor (talk to me) 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of rape against United States presidents (3rd nomination)[edit]

Accusations of rape against United States presidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –
  • Note, this is the third nomination: 1st AFD & 2nd AFD, per Smmurphy's comment below.

(View AfD)

Results of 1st Nomination: (No Consensus)

  • Delete/Merge=12
  • Keep=8

Results of 2nd Nomination: (No Consensus)

  • Delete/Merge=10
  • Keep=7

The section on Jefferson includes the relationship between him and Sally Hemings, which is covered extensively on Hemings' and Thomas Jefferson's pages. The accusation of rape is merely speculative. The accusation against Ronald Reagan contains only the account by the accuser. There is simply not enough evidence for this to be considered a notable accusation, an argument which is supported by the brevity of the section. Perhaps the only notable accusation on this page is the one against Bill Clinton, but that accusation is already covered on Juanita Broaddrick's page. The accusation against Bush is a joke. The demented ramblings of a crazy person are non-notable. Because the only worthwhile accusation (made against Clinton) is already covered elsewhere, I'm nominating this page for deletion. Pablothegreat85 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think this is necessary. Any notable -- and verifiable -- information would already be covered in the applicable biographical articles, and I have WP:BLP concerns regarding the sections about living presidents. 23skidoo 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it were just 1 accusation I too would be for deletion, but it is presidents. I think this article should stay.Lilkunta 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per last AFD: Perhaps the charges are ludicrous, almost certainly the most recent is (as the article makes fairly clear). They are also notable and well-known. The article does not endorse or promote the validity of any of these charges. It does provide a neutral and well-sourced exposition of them. The issue of Jefferson and his slave is certainly speculation by its very nature, but this article does not speculate. It reports notable speculations and research of others; that's exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this is the third AFD, the first was under a different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents, and the second I linked to above. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per last AFD. Well sourced, neutral, notable. Derex 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subjects. Violates WP:NPOV because of undue weight problems, and as such, is violative of WP:BLP. Also, "allegations" and "accusations" kinds of pages are WP:OR, as they call for "connecting the dots" and synthesis of published materials in order to advance a position, which is prohibited by WP:SYNT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for every accusation and notion out there folks, let's try to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • False and slanderous. I created the article for exactly the opposite purpose. Anon's kept jamming the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton articles full of this stuff. I got sick of it and decided to spin it off to a sub-article. That avoids the undue weight problem that was in fact present in the main articles. It certainly does not disparage, but makes quite clear that there's not much evidence in any of these notable accusations. It's plainly equal-opportunity politically, so I can't imagine what soapbox you think I was standing on. "Accusation" is not OR, what a bizarre statement, there clearly was an accusation. The article reports the accusation and the evidenced adduced for it elsewhere. It does not make the accusation itself. If you care to make an argument without shrill hysteria about the nefarious motives of other authors, it would be welcome. Derex 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds to me like you were upset that anonymous users were vandalizing those pages with this stuff (as well you should be), so you created this page and filled it with the content with which these anonymous users were vandalizing the page. If this is the case (and it may not be), why would vandalism on the presidents' individual pages be acceptable for a separate page? Pablothegreat85 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said nothing of the kind. It wasn't vandalism or I would simply have deleted it. This is a perfectly legitimate subject for Wikipedia; it meets all criteria. The problems was that the material violated the undue weight section of NPOV policy given the emphasis in the main article. I created this at approximately the same time that Arbcom itself recommended the exact same remedy for the John Kerry article. The point is to keep the main article on a subject to the main points; that doesn't imply that other lesser points can't be included elsewhere in Wikipedia. If it does, we'll delete half the damn thing. Derex 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete POV fork to address vandals, undue weight, etc but POV fork nonetheless. It needs to be in the articles with apropriate weight which is less than a sentence. Or better yet, if the accuser is notable, it should be in the accusers bio and leave the details out of the presidents' bio completely. Even having an article that addresses presidential rape accusations is undue weight. --Tbeatty 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because it doesn't promote or take a POV. There's nothing at all POV about the article. Arbcom itself endorsed this approach to the John Kerry mess, which is about when I created this article, with that experience and remedy in mind. Derex 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The accusations against Clinton have never been shown to be unreasonable and there's always been a lot to them. To blather on about slander shows a partisan spirit and POV. If accusations against the other presidents have something to them or don't, we might as well present them fairly. It's a public service not to leave it only to conspiracy theorists and cranks. Noroton 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has said that the Clinton allegation is unreasonable. In my nomination, I wrote, "Perhaps the only notable accusation on this page is the one against Bill Clinton." Furthermore, no one has suggested that the allegations should be presented unfairly. The whole issue here is how to fairly present the accusations, if at all (which only the Clinton one should be). Pablothegreat85 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldn't participate in these things when I'm too tired. Noroton 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's simply not accurate. The Reagan accusation received quite wide coverage at the time, though it was not widely believed. Jefferson is hugely well known and publicized, though it is admittedly of a different character than the others (and was added by someone else). Clinton goes without saying. The Bush accusation is the most tenuous; it surely would have gone without note in the pre-internet age. However, it is in fact widely known, and the coverage here does a public service I think because neutral coverage pretty clearly implies that the poor woman was desperately ill. Many of the highly partisan sources on the web make it sound like there was a cover-up. I personally think that none of these accusations is accurate, but then the article is not titled "rapes by presidents". Derex 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can put the Clinton discussion to rest. It seems to be consensus that that accusation is notable. Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings is widely known, and it is clearly notable. What I don't like is that there is no evidence of rape in the article. Instead, the article quotes speculative sources, and in turn, appears speculative itself. I'm not sure that the Bush rape is that well-known. Should we include content every time a crazy person accuses the president of a misdeed (and I'm sure they've been accused of far worse deeds than rape)? Pablothegreat85 02:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some argue that consent is not possible between slave and owner, thus rape by modern standards. The point is arguable, but the accusation has clearly been made. If you feel the article is not clear enough about the issues, then constructive response is to edit the article to improve it, rather than delete it. Derex 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand why the article was created, but much of this is spurious and without credibility...even though it supposedly cross examines each issue. I don't think that the information in here is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Allusion to crimal acts in biographies should be avoided at all costs or all we are is a repository of indiscrimnate misinformation.--MONGO 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your AGF Mongo. I understand your concern. However, when a story has been covered by the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times as each of the Reagan, Clinton, and Jefferson cases was, it's not indiscriminate information. It's already notable, we're not adding to that. Its notability that means we have a role to play as a neutral repository of information whether or not the accusations are true. Certainly a great many of the crazy claims against the Clintons are completely unsubstantiated and meritless, and yet we have articles on those which received national coverage and rightly so. Derex 04:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Bush accusation was only printed in the Fort Bend Star, it says so in the article. What makes the Bush allegation notable? I just cannot see how it is such. Pablothegreat85 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it cannot help but give undue weight to events which are in every case admittedly not proven rapes. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any material like this we include should be presented in context in the person's biography. Tom Harrison Talk 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mongo. Add any WP:ATT reliable sources to the article on the President. As for Jefferson, if it was impossible for a slave to consent to sex, it was also legally impossible for a master to rape a slave under the applicable laws of the time. Edison 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep But needs major clean up... it seems sourced enough, but might be better off to include each section directly into each subjects' article. Support deletion if the info is merged by the closing admin to the respective articles... - Denny 17:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fork and POV playground. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Combining all these allegations together because they were made on presidents seems pretty crufty. This information should be kept on articles (or spinout articles) dealing with the individuals involved.-Andrew c 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have no particular objection to that. I object to the material being deleted. Putting them together seemed a reasonable solution at the time. Note that someone already created a Broaddrick article by cut-n-paste of the section here. Same could be done for the others, with references to each other or see-also's for context. Derex 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the Clinton and Jefferson allegations are covered in the articles on the presidents and their accusers. That just leaves the Reagan and Bush accusations. Perhaps we could create an article on Selene Walters and Schoedinger? Or perhaps these accusations aren't notable enough to merit inclusion. I understand your concern about deleting content, and I believe that creating articles on the 2 aforementioned accusers could work.-Andrew c 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to have all been covered before in other artcles. It's full of weazel words and he said/she said. I don't see the reason for it to exist as it's own article. It's like having an article called 'Actors that played Tarzan' totaly pointless. Mobile 01Talk 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV magnet and playground. The "information" is based on frivolous accusations, and the thing is the title of the article just targets United States presidents. Should it be more neutral by being titled Accusations of rape against world leaders? Even if were to be renamed as such, WP:BLP issues/concerns would make it hard to maintain. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very imformative. ==Taxico 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, soapbox. --kingboyk 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there are only these small number of accusations, the 1 or 2 notable ones are worth separate articles , and the others go into the general bios article. DGG 01:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMHO, this is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not for the sum total of all human knowledge. Content about presidents from the USA that have actually raped might be more noteworthy, but that would belong in the biographies of those presidents. — Rico 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Accusations of criminal misconduct against a US president is of historical value. --FateClub 02:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notable cases are/should be discussed in each individual bio; the rest is unencyclopedic chatter which doesn't belong on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge the relevant bits into the relevant bios as was mentioned above, otherwise it is forking, really.. Baristarim 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per majority votes in previous elections, AND clear POV fork--Sefringle 02:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI do not think that this page will promote the harm that is alledged, as long as they stay only accusations. Clay hatcher 02:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of superhero film and television series[edit]

Lengths of superhero film and television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - See first AFD here. In the six weeks since the AFD closed there has been no improvement to the article, indeed, no edits at all other than a bot-assisted disambiguation. In re-reading the discussion from that AFD it's clear to me that the "delete" arguments were far superior, especially the arguments put forth by Serpent's Choice. With theatrical releases, re-releases, special editions, director's cuts, double dipping DVD releases with previously unreleased bonus footage, etc. there is no real clear consensus as to the running times for many of these projects. Add to that the concerns with how to count various projects featuring one character or another. Much was made in the previous AFD of a BBC article that talked about Doctor Who being the longest-running sci-fi show, however, that citation indicates a fundamental misinterpretation of the BBC article. It was talking about what series had been on the air the longest with the most individual episodes, not what series, with all episodes run one after the other, would take the longest to get through. Many of the !votes to keep were based on sentiments like "it was kept the last time and that's good enough for me" (referring to a completely different AFD of a completely different article), ignoring the reality that consensus can change. Others talked about how useful or interesting the article supposedly is, which are not strong arguments for keeping. Still others compared the article to other articles to justify its existence, which again is a weak argument. Finally, consider Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lengths_of_fantasy_film_and_television_series for a similar article which was deleted. Otto4711 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure if it's a violation in principle of WP:NOR but it certainly comes off as a violation in spirit. Needs to be continually updated, and is instantly rendered inaccurate by syndication edits, local broadcast standards, etc. I support deletion of Lengths of science fiction film and television series for the same reason. 23skidoo 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's true, the people who voted keep before haven't used the previous nom as an incentive to improve the article. Also - where's Spiderman? (and many others) Masaruemoto 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate. There is no encyclopaedic topic for length of an arbitrarily chosen type of film, so a list of them is simply fancruft. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lengths of science fiction film and television series (unless someone successfully nominates that for deletion). -Sean Curtin 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would make more sense to merge it into Lengths of fantasy film and television series, but for some reason that one was deleted while the science fiction one was twice kept.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Louise[edit]

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

Questionable notability for this singer, she's released an album on an obscure label, "Starfisch Records" - most Google results for it are in connection with Karen Louise. Apart from the she was one of the support acts on a tour for a moderately successful band. I can't see that she meets WP:MUSIC Masaruemoto 20:02, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Dutchess. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clumsy (Fergie single)[edit]

Clumsy (Fergie single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No confirmation that this will be released as a single, article also titled incorrectly per naming conventions ("single" rather than "song"). Suggest redirect to the album page until confirmed. - eo 20:15, 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 redirect to The Dutchess. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestal (song)[edit]

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

No confirmation that this will be a single - crystall-ballism at best. Suggest redirect to the album article for now. - eo 20:19, 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 Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Chatter[edit]

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

Originally listed as a speedy and deleted by me as such, but after that I reversed myself and decided to give this the benefit of an AfD. There is no credible claim for this podcast meeting WP:WEB and from what I can tell, the one "reference" in the article actually makes no mention of the podcast. My opinion is Delete, but I'll let the community decide this one. Isotope23 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Few (if any) podcasts are notable. I've only seen one mention of the podcast in my 2+ years on the VFTW boards, so its importance in the AI community is disputable. Caknuck 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you were right with the speedy tag, actually - this is a fan review not an encyclopaedia article and the claim to notability is not credible - "one of the most popular" is completely unsupported by any kind of data. Plus the creator's only contribs are this and spamming podcasts to other articles. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save any help to make it a more encycopaedic article is welcome, as it is similar to 'Keith and the Girl', another podcast that is one of many listed. The new medium of podcasting will only grow, so more podcasts will need to be listed. Sound quality, production values, listenership, comments about the podcast are good enough for me. As for it being "notable"- that's highly a matter of personal opinion. Libsyn does not release figures to prove their audience, but itunes listeners have great comments about it, as do those on podcast alley.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senatorsfan (talk • contribs) — Senatorsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per above. Real96 08:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Not really sure how to use this site yet, but thought I would throw my 2 cents in. I'm a big fan of pottercast and mugglecast. This podcast may not be notable yet, but it is well on its way. I just listened to an episode and it is polished and well-produced. If it is deleted, try again next year. Or re-work the entry. --141.117.77.110 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)profplum profplum — 141.117.77.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Save I hope me not signing the note isn't bad. I didn't know how to. I will click on signature and copy what you guys have done and hope it works. And as far as spamming- I was only seeing how to add a link: it wasn't "spamming" in the sense of the word most people would associate it with- and it's not like it was numerous sites. Reconsider, or give some valuable suggestions, please. Thanks guys. Senatorsfan--Senatorsfan 03:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Note: This user has already voted. Real96 08:09, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics[edit]

List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as redundant to Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for Olympic Games (ballots). Otto4711 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree it's redundant to the previous articles. A case could be made for creating a category, however. 23skidoo 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - They're definitely redundant; not sure I particularly like the naming on either. Probably would have gone with a redirect to the latter of the two, but now that we're here, I figure we might as well get rid of the redirect as it isn't a likely search term. -- Jonel | Speak 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I dropped a mention of this nomination at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. -- Jonel | Speak 21:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Las Flores[edit]

San Jose Las Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a "city" has absolutely no information at all. It is unclear how important it is, as it could be the most insignificant little village in El Salvador. Delete! R.smithson 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prior consensus has established that named population centers are notable by default. I have no doubt that there are many source regarding this city. No reason to delete the stub it will grow some day. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:54, 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 Redvers (copyvio). --- RockMFR 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia to officially claim back Khmer Krom[edit]

Cambodia to officially claim back Khmer Krom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not so much an article as a letter to the editor. Contested prod. Delete because Wikipedia is not the place to make a point. ... discospinster talk 22:24, 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 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CART[edit]

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

1. Non-notable movie, or does not assert notability; 2. one of 30,000 entrants in a major ongoing competition, best to avoid linking to entrants until the judging is over, to avoid any suspicion of prejudice or promotion. (If the film is notable, propose removing the link). Notinasnaid 22:39, 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 speedy close - The article appears to have been deleted (speedily, presumably) even when the log entry appears to be AWOL at the moment. Judging from the deleted content it appears to be a complete and utter hoax though; not sure if we need to drag it through Process. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Dirty Briefs[edit]

Tom's Dirty Briefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this unencyclopedic?? Even if the incident is encyclopedic, does it deserve its own article?? Doctor Nigel Lewis 22:44, 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 Speedy delete, complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scooping[edit]

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

I speedied this earlier today but the author's made a potentially valid point on Talk:Scooping - since I've not got the knowledge to expand/cite it and s/he doesn't appear to be doing so I'm AfD'ing to give the 5 days to clean it up or provide material to clean it up. As I say on the talk page, if the author can provide sources I'll happily expand the article myself and request the AfD be withdrawn. Since (on User_talk:Sarahpw4444) the author says "I'm a semi-vandal too. Not so much the "obvious" stuff, just little bits here and there.", my hopes aren't that high, and I look forward to a week of reverting vandalism to my talk page... Iridescenti 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unattributed neologism or possibly a hoax, that even if it were a common phrase, would probably fall under Wikipedia is not a dictionary. By the nature of the word, a Google search is tough, but searching "scooping nipples "bean dip"" finds nothing relevant.[55]. Not even an entry at urbandictionary [56]. Awaiting sourcing with unbated breath and hoping Iridescenti (and I) won't need too big a shovel.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nonsense entry. Article was nominated for speedy by Iridescenti but article's creator removed the speedy tag.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt and the Briefs Controversy (2nd nomination)

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

The result was delete, discounting WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL votes, which is basiclly all the keep votes. Jaranda wat's sup 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of neologisms on Family Guy (2nd nomination)[edit]

List of neologisms on Family Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None of these terms are actually neologisms or even protologisms. As far as I know, Family Guy has not spawned any actual neologisms. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and specifically, it's not a collection of quotes, which is what this is (or, even worse, non-quotes that attempt to recreate humor and fail.) Only one item is sourced, and its source doesn't assign any importance to the term, nor does it establish that the term is used in the general population, but rather is used by the Family Guy writers. In fact, the only term in the list that's even used in more than one episode is "giggity", but reducing a list to a single item is stupid, and in any case that's not a neologism. 1st nom. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joie de Vivre had already stated his/her vote on 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC). 141.217.41.212 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I forgot that I had voted already, and I didn't see it in the list because it was at the very top and formatted incorrectly (indented too far). Sorry about that, it was totally an accident. Joie de Vivre 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Clemen," "dipsoluscious," "fastizio," "gatilsday," "giggity," "hic-a-doo-la," perhaps "sideboob," certainly "slappywag" and "tumorsyphilisitisosis" are all Family Guy neologisms, deserving of listing just as much as Simpsons neologisms. Even if it turns out that none of these were coined by Family Guy writers, Family Guy remains an important means of transmission and take-up for these terms and the show gets credit for them. Each item is sourced to the episode in which it appears, and prior to this second nomination, the article has had three other sources (not just "one" as the nom claims). The second source, alphabetically, [Delarte, 2005], which is mainly concerned with nitpicking Family Guy continuity, apparently finds "hic-a-doo-la" important enough to list as a "dictionary" entry (misspelled on page 29 with an extra H at the end, a correction was issued in August 2006!). [Callaghan, 2005] does indeed establish that "slappywag" is used by staff writers, not the general population. But if we limit ourselves to the main target demographic through the filter of myspace.com, Google searching gets the following number of results:

clemen 1030

dipsoluscious 4

fastizio 209

gatilsday 0

giggity 72300

hic-a-doo-la 175

sideboob 1210

slappywag 303

tumorsyphilisitisosis 4

I'm of course surprised by the lack of results for gatilsday, but even just four results for the hard-to-spell "tumorsyphilisitisosis" confirms that the general population will make an effort to take up Family Guy neologisms. In conclusion, I think it's a vulky idea to delete this article. ShutterBugTrekker 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Frank Grimes will deflate each one of my arguments in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...[reply]
will make an effort? Is this from your crystal ball? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search hits alone can't make for sources.. but even if we're estimating prominence here, 1210 isn't going to be very convincing. Mangojuicetalk 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your right, 1210 isn't impressive. but what happens when you take off the "site:myspace.com" searchfilter for "sideboob"? it goes up to "about 16,600" Numerao 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! The first result is sideboob.org. Then there's a page of Lindsey Lohan sideboob pictures (blacklisted hyperlink) with Peter Griffin strategically placed to cover her nipple, and a sound clip of him saying "Look at that sideboob!" Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:52, 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 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an argument for inclusion. --Haemo 01:14, 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 11:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golds Hill tram stop[edit]

Golds Hill tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. The actual stations have still 6 years to open! This information should be added to Wikipedia nearer the date. JameiLei 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same case:[reply]

Great Bridge tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Horseley Heath tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep. The Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension, etc.) Order 2005 appears to define the route of the city centre extension quite precisely. The order is not an act of parliament, but has the same effect as if it was. If the proposed stations are on the route defined by the order, or on a different route defined by another order of the same kind, then I would argue that stub articles about the stations are legitmate rather than crystal-balling. As well, Great Bridge tram stop discusses the former railway station at the same location. --Eastmain 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not exist yet, and when it does, it will still only be a tram stop, which is little more than a glorified lamp post. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Tram stops are no more inherently notable than mailboxes, especially future ones. However, if numerous independent reliable sources have subatantial coverage of it (it might be architecturaly significant, or poorly located, or a boon to mankind, or too expensive, etc) then an article could be created. Edison 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sadly, but a tram stop that doesn't yet exist really doesn't warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Gwernol 19:02, 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 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Yahya Laidi[edit]

Ashraf Yahya Laidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biographical article with no assertion of notability other than (unsouurced) list of newspapers he's been mentioned in. I haven't speedied it just in case he is of importance - however Google doesn't show one single hit. Iridescenti 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point (doh!) - however in this article's case, doing this has actually made me change my vote to speedy delete as it's a blatant copyvio[57] Iridescenti 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More