< March 28 March 30 >
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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Date with a Vampire[edit]

My Date with a Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

the whole article just looks like a bunch of spoliers mashed together Gladdoubt 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. Not a dog 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JianLi 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Coalition[edit]

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

Non Notible local wrestling promotion Butttown 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Computer Technology Awards[edit]

British Computer Technology Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Somebody called this a hoax on the article's page. Checking it out I find no references to show this award exists. The web page looks like a email harvesting operation and the same user User: Andy Webster has only this edit and the addition of links to BCTA on other computer related articles. I think he is also the anon IP that has added similar links. I'm new and don't know how to track all this down, but it smells like bad fish to me. If I'm wrong I'll take my lashes. killing sparrows 00:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors that close AfD's also clean up the mess. I personally always (try to) take responsibility for cleaning up if the result is delete. I figure that if you don't clean up the red links someone is going to feel obligated to write the article and again, then we have to AfD again, then... Signed Jeepday 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stallings (model)[edit]

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

Article on a male model previously nominated for deletion and deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stallings (model). Deletion was challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23 where the result was relist for further disussion. Please read both discussions before opining. The question appears to be one of sources - which are reliable and are there enough. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion. GRBerry 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being bold and redirecting the page to Manhunt (2004 TV series)#John Stallings. Since consensus is to delete, I don't think this will be a problem.--Ng.j 05:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have boldly reverted your redirect. In future I suggest you wait longer than 4 1/2 hours before doing something similar. Otto4711 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was thinking that you would revert it if you had a problem, something that is easier than undeleting an page. Something that should be pointed out though is that you are a significant contributor to the article in question, as well as the pages that link to it. Not implying anything, I just thought it should be noted for consideration.--Ng.j 05:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not implying anything, then why bring it up in big bold letters? If no conclusions are to be drawn from my contributing to the various pages then mentioning it here has no relevance. Nor does my contributing to the articles in question have any bearing on my opinion (put Nathan Fields up for deletion and I'll vote for it) or on the fact that the subject passes both WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Otto4711 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should have stated the conflict of interest and refrained from voting. --Ng.j 06:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much for not implying anything. My opinion would be the same whether I had ever touched this article or not. Otto4711 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manhunt (2004 TV series)#John Stallings is pretty much the same as John Stallings (model).--Ng.j 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you copied the information over. Which, I suppose, qualifies you as having a conflict of interest. Otto4711 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have all sorts of articles for "losing game show contestants." His win or loss on Manhunt does not take into account his appearances on the popular JDMA program. Otto4711 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly is it a ridiculous stretch of guidelines to include articles for people who pass the guidelines? If he doesn't pass BIO and NOTE, explain exactly how he doesn't. Otto4711 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assertion of notability lies in his appearances on multiple well-known television series. Otto4711 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you're ignoring the guideline of WP:BIO and the multiple independent sources why exactly? Otto4711 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirahman Is'mail Al Jaberti[edit]

Abdirahman Is'mail Al Jaberti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and has remained in this state since its creation on February 8, 2007. A web search for this person revealed very few results, no reliable sources, and primarily copies of this article on Wikipedia mirrors. Based on this information, it is probable that no reliable sources can be obtained for this article. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road to the 76th Academy Awards[edit]

Road to the 76th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is simply a list of films and film industry people who have won awards for the same year. It appears to be nothing but an indiscriminate collection of data. Slavlin 02:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also lists of awards won prior to the Academy Awards:

Road to the 79th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road to the 78th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road to the 77th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road to the 76th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are MANY other Road to the... that I would nominate if my fingers could take it, but I cannot see how the list of awards won in the same year as the Academy Award is a useful or encyclopedic article. At best, the info should be included on each movie/director/actor page. Slavlin 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete: The above is a poor analogy, actually. Sports regular seasons have occurrences and information in of themselves. This, however, is a compilation of awards won elsewhere. Like others, I question the rationale for including some of those awards. They're potentially useful and informative lists, as such things go, but without some acceptable criteria for deciding which awards to include, this is a WP:NOR violation. Beyond that, what's this "Road to the Xth Academy Awards" nonsense? Is there a particular source for that term, or any reason to believe that the worldwide perception of each and every one of these awards is as minor-league trophies en route to the Oscars? I'd think much kindlier on List of 2006 major film awards etc. "These award presentations all lead to the 79th Academy Awards ceremony on February 25, 2007." Says who, exactly? RGTraynor 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advertising (CSD G11). WjBscribe 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majin Sharingan Presents Core[edit]

Majin Sharingan Presents Core (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spam. It has a whopping 3 google hits other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. YechielMan 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Te Ju-Jitsu[edit]

Maki Te Ju-Jitsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It doesn't seem to be notable. It was an orphaned, dead-end page when I looked at it, and I found 30 google hits - just enough to prove that it exists. YechielMan 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Acalamari 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of Extreme[edit]

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

Non Notible local pro wrestling event Butttown 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ashworth[edit]

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

Non notable pro wrestler, not on TV or on national level. Article contains zero sources. Butttown 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Err ... what did you use for a Google search, exactly? "Jake Ashworth" + "wrestling" turns up exactly 29 hits [6], most of which are for a rodeo steer wrestler, in fact. Even without "wrestling" I only see 97 hits. RGTraynor 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- Bubba hotep 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Mao[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO; non-notable; only claim to significance is that he was once a record-holder in Rubik-cube solving, which is surely insufficient for a Wikipedia article. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Influence on the Environment[edit]

Native American Influence on the Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While the article appears to be sourced, it is really an essay or actually something like Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. While I don't doubt that an interesting article could be made bearing this title, this version of it is so far removed from what we'd want to construct that we might as well delete it. Pascal.Tesson 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that comment was priceless although it felt kind of weird citing it in my deletion rationale. But still, the fact that an anonymous reader bothered to leave it is pretty indicative that the article makes Wikipedia look foolish. Pascal.Tesson 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I can imagine an interesting article with this title and this is not realy the issue. However, the present article would need such a fundamental rewrite that I'm not sure I see a better option than starting over. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reread the article, I did find that the last paragraph Post European Conolization and Beyond... appeared to be have issues with WP:NOT#CRYSTAL (and WP:SYN} so I removed it. The rest of the article appears to be expansion of the published train of thought I found and posted above and has references through out. We have established that the concept is published and that the article is referenced. I think at this point to make an argument for WP:OR or WP:SYN you would have have something showing a conflict between the references and article(where is the policy for challenging references?). Per WP:V (and ignoring the whole WP:ATT combo thing) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" and material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Jeepday 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* There is indeed something to this subject [7]. This article, however, is WP:OR and WP:SYN to the Nth degree. Delete- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nobody is really questionning the topic's value but how are we supposed to rewrite this exactly? It requires such a fundamental rewrite that we might as well delete the whole thing.Pascal.Tesson 11:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lytle and Lamb[edit]

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

This is a local radio show. I found about 50 google hits, which do not establish notability outside of Springfield, Illinois. YechielMan 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (3rd nomination)[edit]

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

Long and nasty history, this being the third AfD in as many weeks. First was closed as a delete, and later overturned at DRV. The second was closed as a no consensus, with the following comment:

On the one hand ... there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed.

The references provided to support these claims were subjected to some basic scrutiny (not particularly rigorous), and failed to stand up. Most were trivial, and did not support the statements they were being cited for; one was circular, and was effectively citing the list itself for a contentious statement; one cited a "special thanks" note to the list's founder for something entirely unrelated to the list itself; one turned out to be demonstrably false. Many of these references were added by User:Atulsnischal, who has a confirmed WP:COI with the subject. The article as of the time of this nomination is here. With the exception of the two statements tagged ((fact)), the content of this version does stand up to cursory checking.

In case the bogus references should be reinserted, I urge all participants tempted to simply glance at the article and say "Keep, well-referenced" to check the references against the invalid references listed on the talk page before committing. Chris cheese whine 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here are just two examples out of several, Staff of following are members of this list in an official capacity representing their Institutions, you can search in the Archives and see their communication:

Search for American Museum of Natural History in Archives of the List to see their posts

Atulsnischal 05:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atul, this is NOT really a place to make personal attacks against other editors who vote against you. Thanks. --Ragib 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for all your friendly advices in the past including this one Ragib Atulsnischal 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"NatHistory-India"- Notability Check on Google: Over 900 Results, "nathistory-india@PRINCETON.EDU"- Notability Check on Google: 115 Results and "Natural History of South Asia"- Notability Check on Google: 51 ResultsAtulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightborn[edit]

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

Prod was removed. A search for <lightborn eastlight> gives 40 google hits, which might give some idea about notability. He clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Also, the article is almost a copyvio of [17]. YechielMan 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this artist is not included on here then no hip hop artist should be.

Just the notable ones of whom people have heard, is all. RGTraynor 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the ones you heard of? Name five hip hop artists not on MTV. I am sure you are not an expert. You're useless.

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GI Online[edit]

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

1. all relevant info is already at Game Informer under Website 2. Blatant advertisement 3. nn web community in and of itself Chevinki 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete or merge. I and other users are working on the art, and I am in contact with Nick from GI about the page. Quatreryukami 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue isn't if it can be expanded. The issue is if it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia as set out by WP:WEB. It doesn't have multiple published works about it or any notable awards. "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." Not trying to get anyone down (I like Game Informer as a gaming mag), just trying to clean Wiki up. Chevinki 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above. This article, while it may be messy ( as i have noted myself, I added the clean up tag) there is definatly enough info available to make an art. AND Nick and I are in contact, and he will be giving me info that can be added. Does that qualify as Original Research? I hope not... also, notablility can be established with web traffic and a link to GI mag, can it not?Quatreryukami 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Notability must be established on its own accord according to WP:WEB. Web traffic doesn't count because it's WP:BIGNUMBER. Unless there have been been multiple independent publications to establish the notability of this particular forum or it's won some big awards it's nn. Just because it's a forum of a notable magazine doesn't mean the forum itself is notable. Chevinki 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' It's not just about the forum, it covers the whole website.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspects[edit]

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

No sourced claims of notability; maybe there are, but it's next to impossible to read to find them. Veinor (talk to me) 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result wasspeedy massive hoax `'mikka 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entarians[edit]

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

Blatant hoax created by User:Vunvjorhimm, who aside from creating these pages also makes nonsense edits like [19][20] about "Čosånian" or "Entarian" (which appears to be a World of Warcraft guild [21]. Otherwise terms get no google hits, except for Entari since it's a Turkish word for a kind of dress/robe.. I am also nominating the following related pages:

Entarian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Koreanic Peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Entarian Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Entarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Čosån (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks, cab 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (third and fourth articles added at 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)) (fifth article added at 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a recommendation to rename the article. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who went to heaven alive[edit]

List of people who went to heaven alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I do not believe this topic deserves an article. Putting aside the correctable issue of a misleading title, a "list of people" is inappropriate in this case. An article on the supposed phenomenon of persons entering heaven while still living may be notable and should contain examples but this is not that article and, as far as I know, that article does not exist. An online search for information reveals that there are plenty of sources about Elijah, Serach, and Enoch that mention the aforementioned entry into heaven while still alive. However, that information belongs in the individual articles. So, I propose that this article be deleted because:

  1. The article does not prove the notability of the subject by providing at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial secondary sources, and I have been unable to prove the topic's notability through my own search.
  2. The article does not provide clear standards of inclusion or exclusion, in violation of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). For instance, not too long ago, this list boasted Cheech Marin (see diff).
  3. Any listing of the handful of characters who supposedly entered heaven while still alive should be contained in an article on the phenomenon itself rather than existing as a stand-alone list.

As I believe the problem to be endemic to the topic rather than the just the article, I am skipping the usual steps of tagging the article with various cleanup tags or requesting that the article's author (inactive for a month) try to fix it. -- Black Falcon 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of the changes made to the article within the past 20 hours (see diff), I am changing my recommendation to delete and now believe the article is worthy of being kept. The changes have made this a wholly different article that proves the notability of the topic, provides clear(er) standards of inclusion (as clear as we'll have with 2000 year old texts that are disputed), and addresses the general concept of ascension into heaven rather than merely listing persons who could fall in that category.
That said, I do not think this AFD should be closed early (i.e., I do not withdraw my nomination). A few editors have already suggested deletion, and even though their comments apply to the old version, a speedy close is no longer possible. Additionally, other editors may be able to contribute to the article or to the discussion regarding a new title, currently ongoing at the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a subject the list is certainly important enough for an encyclopedia. Since some explanation of which religion(s) consider certain figures to have ascended bodily into heaven is necessary to help a reader navigate through the topic, so a category would be inadequate. I haven't found any source that considers all bodily assumptions into heaven from all religions, but it seems to me it isn't origional research to simply state that the concept exists in various religions and describe how each religion treats the concept in theology and tradition. One day I expect we'll get individual articles on bodily assumption in Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, etc. Perhaps a fuller account of how assumption into heaven relates to how these people are understood is best left to the individual articles on these people, but something is needed for this concept, and I think a list with short descriptions is a worthy start. Noroton 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as problematic but salvageable. Although not a fan of lists, the nominators first two points, I think, are not valid. #1...Most, if not all, biblical person's existence and actions are attested to only through that document, all other sources derive from that and they are abundant. #2...Vandalism to an article is not a reason for deletion of that article and standards for inclusion could be addressed through a more qualifying title for the article. #3 Raises the best point but could be addressed through renaming...in Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology..., or some such way. I hope the creator of the article can tighten it up during the nomination process. killing sparrows 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My second point was not vandalism, but rather a lack of clear criteria for what consitutes "going to heaven alive". Given the vague inclusion criteria, the addition of Cheech Marin technically was not vandalism. -- Black Falcon 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. I'll add the comment that I can see the value of this list where someone reads about Enoch or Mary or Mohamed ascending to heaven and then from this list, (as a 'see also') is able to compare and contrast the phenomenom in other traditions. FWIW --killing sparrows 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATTR and WP:V Chevinki 07:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about some variation on "Ascension"? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I've posted requests for editors to look at this article and deletion discussion at WikiProject talk pages for Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and, I think, Religion hoping to get some useable insight of this general sort. But I have to respond that absolutely none of Shirahadasha's points show any reason at all to delete, only to further improve the Judaism section of the article (there's already a notice at the top of that section calling for improvements). There is a Wikipedia article, Heaven, which is linked to in the top paragraph of this article and where the Jewish concepts of the afterlife are discussed, and it would be proper to note some differences in the concept of heaven or note the absence of the belief in heaven in Judaism, if that's the case. Of course, that explanation would have to address the citations from Genesis and 2 Kings already in the article. I'm going to copy and cross post S's valuable comment above to the article's talk page and respond to other points about article content, which don't need to be addressed further here.Noroton 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under a bit of time pressure so I'll just drop a quick note. Noroton, can you discuss the pros and cons of just merging this article into Heaven? Does it really merit a separate article? --Richard 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think the only reason to separate one article from another related article is to keep article sizes manageable and help readers navigate. If this article and Heaven were smallish and couldn't be expected to grow more, then I think we could merge them. Heaven is 47 Kb long right now and, although I haven't looked closely at that article, I can easily imagine it could grow more (there's a lot of information out there). After Googling this subject, here are the areas where I know or have reason to suspect this article might grow: The entire Judaism section, which should show the significant viewpoints on ascension within Judaism, including, I assume, something on midrash; Christian views on Enoch and Elijah's ascensions; more information on Roman Catholic views, Orthodox Christian views and various Protestant views and how they differ and are alike each other; Islam's significant views on Enoch and Elijah; an adequate explanation on Islam's views on Jesus and ascension; the same for Muhammad; ascension in Polynesian religion; more information on Apollonius of Tyrana and ascension; possible ascension of Chinese emperors (I get intriguing whisps of this but can't find anything that really confirms it). All of these sections should eventually show similarities and differences. Ideally, every major part of this article would summarize better, fuller accounts in other, more specific articles, as well as discuss what reliable sources have to say about the similarities and differences of different religions and sects (this would be the best spot for that information and I'm frustrated that I haven't found it yet). This article is about ascension and belief, but it's not hard to imagine ascension in myth and ascension in fiction.Noroton 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be and have been totally rewritten. What you need to justify a vote for deletion is a case that there shouldn't be any article on the general topic, under any title, EVER. I say that because 1) there is an ongoing discussion on changing the title 2) the notability is hardly going to change and 3) if this article is deleted any future article on the topic will be liable to get speedied. A.J.A. 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Springnuts, your comments are essentially incomprehensible because you offer no explanation for them and your citations are indecipherable. Give the specific reasons and citations your strong opinion actually demands. I'll be specific: (a) what precisely is inaccurate (a serious charge in an encyclopedia); (b) where is the confusion between ascension and assumption; (c) what is incoherent. If you're going to criticize the efforts of editors who are doing their best, then it seems to me that [self edit to delete my comment. See Apologies comment below]. You might even practice a bit of your calling by helping to edit the article, but you're the best judge of where your time and effort is most needed.Noroton 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Well Noroton, not to waste a lot of time - (a) inaccuracy: the article lists Jesus as someone who entered heaven without dying, however it is a fundamental Christian belief that Jesus died on the cross. The article states "in Christian belief, the privilege of entering heaven without dying is reserved for those who are considered to have been without sin" - but most Christians do not consider Elijah sinless, yet he did enter heaven without dying ... the article states "Belief in the ascension of Christ is part of the Reformed churches tradition" but it is actually part of all orthodox tradition (b) ascension is after death (ie with dying), assumption is before death (ie without dying), (c) hence the whole thing is, imo, incoherent - and un-necessary. (self edit - remove now unnecessary comment). Springnuts 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double-ouch! Those are valid points and I wrote one of the offending sentences so I cry "Uncle!", "mea culpa" and whatever else is appropriate. We should address the issues raised by Springnuts. However, those are just arguments that the article could be improved not that it should be deleted. As stated above, one argument for deleting an article is that there should not be an article on this topic because the topic is inherently unencyclopedic. A somewhat different line of argument would assert that the topic is encyclopedic but this particular revision is so hopelessly flawed that it would be better to throw it out and rewrite it than to attempt to save it. I don't think either of these arguments is applicable here. --Richard 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies: I'm sorry. My comment was inappropriate, so I've deleted it. When I wrote it I told myself I was writing criticism, but the plain meaning of the words amounted to a personal attack. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I'm copying some of your comments onto the article's talk page (and responding to some points there), and they'll help us improve the article. I agree with Richard's comments just above and leave it to Richard to change what he wrote. Noroton 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So remove the part about Jesus and the part about sinlessness and say "Christian" instead of "Reformed". None of this shows that no encyclopedic article on the topic could ever be written, just that one doesn't exist right now. A.J.A. 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Translation (Mormonism), which in turn is then renamed and expanded to include the beliefs of other religions as well. Silly me, not reading the full text of the debate first, if I had it would have saved me the trouble of digging out my copy of Prophets and Kings to look up what it was called there. --tjstrf talk 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep but rename - This is not a joke as claimed by a self-proclaimed atheist, but a seriously held subject in the three great monotheistic religions. However 'List of' should be dropped from the title. Since it is combining various different kinds of entry into heaven (Translation, ascension, and assumption), perhaps St Paul should also ne mentioned, as he claimed to have been taken up into heaven temporarily, though he did not know if it was in the body or out of it. Some one claimed the reference to Enoch is a minor literary reference - that is true but much has been written and preached about it. The article Translation (Mormon) has nothing to do with this, and I would oppose any merge with that. Peterkingiron 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for the reasons set out in detail over several posts in the article's talk page. To summarize briefly:

  1. Mary did not go to heaven alive, her body was assumed after her death.
  2. Jesus was not a 'person,' an ordinary mortal as is meant by all other persons in this list, and experienced death prior to ascension.
  3. Elijah's status, although superficially qualifying, is subject to different interpretations as laid out in the WP articles, Elijah, and Bosom of Abraham.
  4. Translation (Mormonism) was added to the article, but this doctrine does not, as far as I can find, say anything about 'going to heaven.'
  5. Enoch and Sirach, problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is the ambiguity of Judaism on the topic of heaven in general and these personage's fate in particular.
  6. Appolonius of Tyana, not a part of Abrahamic tradition, thus use of the word 'heaven' really cannot be accepted.

What we have is a list of disparate persons arriving at arguably different 'destinations' by various means. Assumption, ascension, translation, no commonly accepted terms or processes. I supported this nomination and have spent much time looking into the persons and processes and have to say that all are covered in specific detail in the relevant articles, a list of this type would have to say something like...'List of people/dieties who went somewhere either before or after dying.' I just can't see any way to tie it together in one article. Please, no replies to specific points here. Take it to the article's talk page. killing sparrows 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (removed own edit to article talk page) Springnuts 08:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Sternick[edit]

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

An "author" who has not been published. Gets 2 Google hits. De-prodded without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Filemon[edit]

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

Non-notable band, only, cannot establish notability outside the province of Cebu. Also, sources are suspect. I'm retracting my nomination and is moving for a KEEP while giving editors time to cite sources. Apparently, down South, they do have a following, and unlike other Cebu-based bands, they do deserve their own place on WP. Who knows that they might be the next Junior Kilat? ;-)Tito Pao 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Note: unsigned edit was made by Tito Pao[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Simmons[edit]

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

Non notable junior footballer. This can be recreated if and when the subject becomes notable Mattinbgn/ talk 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Medan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO after two years. there are no reliable sources and the article has been tagged with ((unreferenced)) since November. Sefringle 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However strong policy based objections were raised by those arguing for deletion. It would appear that there is definitely a need to reconsider the list's title and the criteria for inclusion given the problem of subjectivity in what constitutes an "unusual" death. Determining this cannot be left to judgment calls by editors given WP:OR. WjBscribe 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths[edit]

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

This list defies NPOV, No Original Research, and WP's standards on Notabilty

First of all, the word "Unusual" is highly problematic as it is a very subjective word, on par with "good", "bad", and "normal". A death that may seem unusual to one person may not seem so to another, and even within different contexts of data may lose its seeming unusualness.

If we were to change this article's title to "List of deaths generally viewed/cited as unusual", we still would be doing original research, and this would still be only presenting a biased view.

If we were to change this article's title to "List of deaths refered to as unusual", all the remaining entries will be sourced, however, these will be hard to find, and barely representative of the subject, and be mostly lifted from published personal opinions. (Although this option will satisfy verifiability).

And if we were to change this article to focus soley on statistically unusual deaths, the whole article will have to be rewritten to include rare diseases, rare instruments of destruction, etc,etc. In addition, what aspect of the death and in what context will we look at look at to declare it statistically unusual? (Of course, this will violate NOR)

And lastly, the subject of the list itself, "unusual deaths" is hardly notable at all. It may often pop up in trivia books (which often repeat many myths and unverifiable factoids), but this subject, by itself, does not meet WP:NOTE.


In this discussion, please avoid arguments such as "It's interesting", "It's useful", "It's entertaining". For help, read WP:AADD.

I know people are very much attached to this content, but please, this does not belong on WP. There are other wikis with not such stringent guidelines that may be better places for this bit of trivia, such as [27], [28], and [29]. Blueaster 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meets notability criteria for lists under WP:BIO: “Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline.” Re: Sensationalism. Listing Isadora Duncan’s death as “unusual” may be more emotionally-involved than listing it as “road accident.” That makes it more challenging but no less valid. Actually supports NPOV: “representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” If the published sources perceived the death as unusual, the encyclopedia should respect and reflect that fact, just as is done with list of deaths by date or by cause. Category:Lists_of_people_by_cause_of_death For instance, Toilet-related Injuries are real and the subject of medical research, and the article includes a section on Famous Toilet-related Deaths and as a theme in popular culture. Re: Litvinenko death. It's unusual because poisoning by polonium is not common and was perceived as a notable way to go. Canuckle 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, you're saying we should change the article to be about Deaths refered to as unusual, of notable people? Although this will be verifiable, it still is a very narrow group defined by trivial criteria, and we would have to parse through biographies and text books and news pieces to find the authors' actual reference to the death as "odd", "strange", "quirky", "unusual", etc, as using anything else to gauge the authors' opinion would lean towards original research. Blueaster 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and clarify what you meant by "Listing Isadora Duncan’s death as “unusual” may be more emotionally-involved than listing it as “road accident.” That makes it more challenging but no less valid.".... Blueaster 07:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Grue , your reason in the first AfD was "Keep, useful list", and you didn't appear in the second vote. Are you saying that if an article has been previously AfD'd and survived it should never be deleted? Vizjim 10:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe everything that needs to be said was already discussed in the previous nominations. This article is fully verifiable, and as such has a place in our encyclopedia.  Grue  13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the reason given for the first nomination was that the list is an indiscriminate collection of information, the second nomination was for its unverifiability, and this third, more thorough nomination is because the article breaks several Wikipedia policies, as outlined above. The reasons for nomination being different, the reasons for your vote should surely change? Vizjim 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell is WP:NOT#INFO??? Can you provide some reasoning instead of copypasting others stray links?  Grue  13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The list of deaths is interesting, certainly; I enjoyed reading it. But the information in it is collected together not because it addresses a topic that is itself notable, but rather because it has entertainment value. To me, this means that WP:NOT#INFOWP:NOT#IINFO applies. (I'm not sure if you're asking what the link is or what I meant by it; that link points to the subsection of WP:NOT that I feel applies.) I don't think it's accurate to call this a stray link -- this argument is common enough in AfD discussions, and is certainly a legitimate argument for deletion, though you may well disagree about whether it applies here. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. Sorry about that; I only just noticed the typo myself. I have struck and edited it above. Grue is correct that I copied it down from a prior poster; seemed quicker than retyping it and I didn't notice the typo in the prior post. Mike Christie (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And about Wikipedia:list of unusual articles. If "Unusual deaths" is allowed to remain on the mainspace, then why don't we make a "List of unusual places", and a "list of unusual names", and a "List of unusal objects and inventions"? Those topics will never survive a week on article space, but they're just as arbitrary and POV and OR as this one. Blueaster 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusual" is a subjective quality, not an objective one. What is unusual to you may not be to me.Chunky Rice 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Worms in his gentiles, definately not. Putrefication of his genitals, possibly. Slavlin 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. It was a rather odd spelling error that I corrected. bibliomaniac15 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with a list of deaths; see Lists of people by cause of death. At least some of the articles listed there are worth keeping. The problems with this article have been discussed above and relate to subjectivity, original research, and lack of inherent notability, among other things. Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trenny Lynn Gibson[edit]

Trenny Lynn Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one really bothers me, but I can't avoid the issue. It's one thing to say "nonnotable" about a minor league rapper who's just trying to promote his recent CD on Wikipedia. It's another thing to say "nonnotable" about a young girl who disappeared in the Great Smoky Mountains 30 years ago - especially when the article is 15 minutes old and was written by a good editor. Unless there's a basic assumption that all missing people are notable, I don't see a way to justify inclusion. YechielMan 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give the article some time for someone to assert the girl's notability. Maybe there was a small media frenzy from some resultant missing pretty white girl syndrome. Blueaster 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Simon Sheppard (activist) Herostratus 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heretical (website)[edit]

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

The article's content is information that is in the Simon Sheppard article. It is meaning less to have two articles with the same info.You very nice place 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: W (Web or internet) ◄Zahakiel► 15:20, 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, WjBscribe 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Ng.j 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I typed the wrong edit summary - please ignore the edit summary which should have read "merge". Springnuts 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caveworld[edit]

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

Hoax and/or not notable Ng.j 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Demeny[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. The list of references is impressive but I don't think any of them refer to Demeny, while at least some of the text has been plagiarised from here: [30] There are also no obvious Google results for anyone called George Demeny in the Revolt, which seems strange if he really was a top commander. Maybe someone who knows the history of this in detail should check it out? Moyabrit 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Check out SteveBaker he created the article, I found it doubtful that he created a hoax article as he is an established and hard working editor. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note I did indeed create the article on Dec 26th 2006 - but only in response to an AfC request from User:Phas3d (as you can see, I clearly noted this in the very first entry to the edit history) The original AfC request (and my reponse to it) is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-12-25#George_Demeny_.28Demene.29. I noted at the time that the list of references appeared to be copy/pasted and requested that the submitter fix that ASAP. I regret that I do not recall what background checks I did to ensure that the article was 'for real' - but I'm usually fairly sceptical so I probably checked something. In retrospect, it is a little unlikely that User:Phas3d would produce such a well-referenced article as his/her very first contribution...he/she hasn't produced anything else after that. At any rate, I have no personal attachment to the article - I don't really care whether it stays or goes. My profuse apologies if I allowed junk into the Encyclopedia - that was most certainly not my goal! SteveBaker 17:08, 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, WjBscribe 04:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for twenty minutes and found no ref with connection between this person and Hungary. --killing sparrows 05:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. For one thing, the first half at least is a direct copy from here. Also, a main thrust of the article is contained in this assertion: "The Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the terminology of "the occupying power," and many researchers are confused about this aspect. In fact the conqueror is the occupying power." But is this true? Is the conqueror "in fact" the occupying power? Or is this just something the author of the article (lifting from the document at the above link) are asserting? No proof is offered that this is codified in the rules of war (in fact, the opposite is stated ("The... Conventions do not specifically define the terminology..."). I have to accept the arguments of the commentors that this a neologism and (partly) an opinion piece. Herostratus 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy occupation[edit]

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

Non-notable, nothing that wouldn't be covered under military occupation, poorly sourced. Ngchen 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Farah (author)[edit]

George Farah (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person that fails to satisfy WP:BIO. No WP:RS cited means no WP:V for even the scant claims made. Valrith 20:46, 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, WjBscribe 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Fan[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability FisherQueen (Talk) 21:21, 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, WjBscribe 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Kennedy[edit]

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

I suspect it's a hoax. It's written by a new user, the books that "Don Kennedy" has written simply do not exist, and I was not able to substantiate the claims about his college basketball career either. YechielMan 04:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Farmer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not notable. An undistinguished author published by an undistinguished publisher. His only apparent claim to legitimacy seems to be a PhD from Madison University (not to be confused with similiar sounding good schools), which is a diploma mill. Article has no value and no info about him. Arbustoo 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins in popular culture[edit]

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

A mix of Dawkins's TV appearances (popular culture?), along with a few other references. Non notable, his 2 TV appearances can be mentioned in his main article along with anything else that's important, this doesn't need a seperate article. Plasticbottle 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it's claimed that "merger is not an option", obviously this should be kept. Apparently some editors of the article in chief believe that the solemnity of their subject is sullied by these details of his public career. Whatever else the vague "policy" WP:NOT#IINFO might mean — your guess is as good as mine, but it nowhere defines "indiscriminate information" or "trivia", much less provide for their removal — it surely must not become a tool to ghettoize and then remove valid information about public figures like Dawkins. Wikipedia is not censored, and this misuse of a vague heading about what might be "indiscriminate information" would become just that if this were to be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger is an option, but of WP:PM, not of WP:AFD. As I said, such a merger can be proposed at Talk:Richard Dawkins, but it cannot be forced by the outcome of this AFD. That's all. Also, if this article does get deleted and you succeed in getting consensus for a merger later, an admin can undelete this and turn it into a redirect, which would give you access to the page history for merging. That's rather immaterial to the discussion here, but I offer it in case the suggestion becomes useful to you later. — coelacan — 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where did I say anything about a merger? Don't try and alter the meaning of my nomination in order to discredit it - I said his 2 TV appearances CAN be mentioned in his main article. Not should be mentioned. It was to prevent anyone saying "keep" because they don't want to lose these details. You are just attempting a poor straw man argument, but it won't work. In case anyone else became confused like Coelacan, my nomination was/is to Delete. Delete the whole thing, I have no interest in what you do to the Richard Dawkins article, just don't create any more articles like this. Plasticbottle 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why so aggressive? All he said was that he is opposed to merging and prefers the material be either deleted entirely or left in a separate article. He didn't accuse anyone in particular of favouring merging; it's simply an obvious possibility that he felt moved to comment on. (read "she" thoughout if Coelacan happens to be female.) Metamagician3000 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coelacan did accuse me of favouring merging quite clearly; this AFD has been proposed apparently as a merger. I wasn't being aggressive, I was being assertive to make sure there was no possible doubt over my original nomination. Plasticbottle 03:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wrong on that point. Conceded and corrected; apologises for my error. He did say it was proposed as a merger. All the same, your language was not merely assertive. In talking about attempts to "alter the meaning", and to try "to discredit it" you were assuming ulterior motives, with no real foundation for doing so. That is quite aggressive language that you used, and hardly in keeping with the requirement to assume good faith. Metamagician3000 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Plasticbottle, I'm sorry if it seemed I was trying to discredit you, this was not at all my intention. Your nomination is within the sphere of AFD. It did, however, read to some (myself included) like it carried along with it a merge proposal. Above, for example, Smerdis of Tlön has changed their !vote to keep after I made it clear that a delete result here would not necessarily result in the information being included at Richard Dawkins. So it's probably good that I made that clear, at least from that editor's perspective. As to your proposal to delete, I do not oppose it. I have said keep or delete is fine; I am abstaining from that question. I am glad that you have also now made it clear that there is no merge proposal from you. I did misread your intention somewhat, but I think it's all clear now and I apologize for amplifying my misunderstanding. — coelacan — 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Find a site with a database of Dawkins in popular culture;
  2. Include a sentence stating "Dawkins has been featured in popular culture on numerous occasions....[1]"
  3. Ref or external link that site
  • Comment There is a consensus of editors on Richard Dawkins that this material does not belong there. Therefore editors should not vote for deletion in the belief that merger is an option. -- Michael Johnson 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response In the discussion pages on Richard Dawkins there are two relevant sections and a debate, but not, as I read it, a consensus. Points such as that made by Smerdis of Tlön below are not universally dismissed. Springnuts 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as a regular at the main Dawkins article, I'd most certainly say there is a consensus not to include trivia. If someone disagrees with this consensus, please feel free to (a) read the talk archives and (b) try to convince us that some of the material is important enough to be in the article. Mikker (...) 11:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem is that there are parts of this article — at least, the use as a central character of two episodes of the long running and (in)famous cartoon South Park — that are noteworthy in the highest degree and ought to be in the article in chief. Indeed, they ought to be there even if a separate "in popular culture" article is kept. Unfortunately, putting the words "in popular culture" in an article's title seems to be like waving a red flag at a bull, certain to attract unwanted attention. Since neither Dr. Dawkins nor some of his admirers were much pleased with his treatment on the cartoon. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard to see in what way a cartoon series is "noteworthy in the highest degree". Are we to use cartoons as a source on Wikipedia? Consulting Disney when writing natural histories of mice or deer, perhaps? I think it fair to say there are two groups of editors, those who edit the article and don't want trivia, and those who want to add trivia but do not otherwise edit the article. --Michael Johnson 06:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense --Merzul 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon Creek Elementary School[edit]

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

Contested prod, no assertion of notability, elementary schools are generally not notable, thus delete unless notability is established. Iamunknown 05:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedied as A7, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.. Sarah 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Anderson (Australian Rules Footballer & Academic)[edit]

Scott Anderson (Australian Rules Footballer & Academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject not notable enough to include on Wikipedia Biting mammal 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Capitalistroadster 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clog foot[edit]

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

This page is marked merge to Trench foot. I would support thismerge, but Clog Foot contains absolutely no sources or means of verification. It has been marked orphaned since Sept 2006. Google for Clog Foot turns up wikimirrors and some dude trying to impress a girl.
DELETE unsourced unverifiable information. Replace with REDIRECT to Trench foot ZayZayEM 06:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-TEC Corporation[edit]

S-TEC Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unable to find any WP:RS that indicate that this company passes WP:CORP. Leuko 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created to provide information on S-TEC which is a well known entity in General Aviation. The only previous article with mention of S-TEC was about the Daewoo S-TEC engine. The parent company, Meggitt has an article in Wikipedia. I feel it is appropriate to create this article to demonstrate that there is more than just an engine called S-TEC. Handment 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Merge It is possible to include this information as a subheading of Meggitt. Handment 21:55, 21 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, WjBscribe 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One non-independent reference is used to site where the company is located. The company asserts its location is as published, why would this be disputed? [33] is one link of hundreds from the FAA that state the company's location (with more unrleated material). The other non-independent link is to support that the company is a part of the bigger company. Both company's websites make this claim. Why should this be disputed? Neither reference could be deemed independent.63.64.214.151 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Bennett[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable per WP:PROF Mwelch 09:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate WrestleZone Tournament[edit]

Ultimate WrestleZone Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website poll. Proposed deletion removed, so I'm placing it under AFD.  Oakster  Talk  09:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To be fair here, I can see from your user contribution history that you've visited Wikipedia:Introduction. On the "Learn More About Editing" page there it advises you to visit WP:5P and WP:NOT to check out policies. The following are reasons why the this article should be deleted WP:NOT#SOAP point 2; WP:NOT#IINFO point 5; and WP:N "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Suriel1981 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, is there any basis for your statement of the website's reputation? Suriel1981 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Alsfeld[edit]

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

Person does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. Dcflyer 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Subject is a non-notable college student in a university election. -- Dcflyer 10:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 major improvements made to ensure compliance of verifiability. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Sankaran[edit]

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

Despite confident assertions to the contrary in the last AfD, the article still doesn't assert notability, and no evidence for his notability has ever been provided. Indeed, it's practically at speedy delete level at the moment because of this. Certainly, if there's actual evidence that fits WP:RS and so on that shows he's notable, and we can use them to improve the article, he shouldn't be deleted, but no such evidence exists in the article, and, even in the last AfD, none was ever provided.

Allow me to summarise the current article, because it might help anyone objecting to the deletion see why it needs improved:

Rajan Sankaran is educated as a homeopath, and has a business he inherited from his father. He developed a few theories about homeopathy, and self-publishes books [34] (note the company site is a subpage of his website) and has a computer program for sale [35]. He has learned an effective way to get information from patients - just like every new practitioner of any form of medicine, conventional or alternative, does after a time.

If there's more about him that makes him unambiguously notable, please, please, add it to the article. Because the current article is not showing it. Adam Cuerden talk 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE FROM NOMINATOR: Since this nomination (and after most of the votes), Abridged has improved the article significantly. The deletes and comments will need judged to see if they still apply. Adam Cuerden talk 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person has received notable awards or honors--NO
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors--YES
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique--YES, new miasms and kingdoms analysis
  • The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work (YES, see bibiolography) which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (YES--many book reviews cited in the ext links section. All of his books have been reviewed in major homeopathic journals). Abridged 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arr, just needs massive improvement, then? Adam Cuerden talk 19:47, 26 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, Majorly (o rly?) 10:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Creation of a disambiguation page. -- lucasbfr talk 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Gaming[edit]

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

contested prod. This article was originally an advert for a LAN center. The mention of the center was removed with the prod, but now it only looks like an unsourced article consisting of original research. The article is orphaned -- lucasbfr talk 10:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good job. I think it looks good now. I say that this could probably be closed if an Admin sees it and is ok with the way it looks now. Can't see any controversy with it and it seems like a likely search phrase for any of the ones now listed. Slavlin 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can probably be speedy closed since the original nomination reason no longer applies. Koweja 02:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe an AFD can only be speedy kept if there are no votes for deletion and the nominator has withdrawn his nomination. —Mitaphane ?|! 02:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Remember that these are not decided by headcount/votes. There is no official policy I am aware of for keeping a discussion open just because, espcially when the circumstances have changed. Slavlin 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Kiron Lenses. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kino precision[edit]

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

This seems like nonsense or advertising, it is also biased as it claims that this company is "legendary" without providing any other information. The format of this page is a disaster, the writer seems to need some help if this is a serious article. Unfortunately, I think that even with the proper formatting it will be very difficult to make this article seem notable. I vote to delete. Vaniac 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, potentially db as spam or empty.Cantras 18:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amaya (TV series character)[edit]

Amaya (TV series character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficently notable TV characters. No assertion of real world context or notability with respect to the show itself. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Colquhoun[edit]

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

totally non-notable, student who runs an amateur football team Placidcasual345 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Career to Remember (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Nothing here indicates notability. There has been ample opportunity to establish it but no one has. Postcard Cathy 12:50, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Great State Fair[edit]

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

As with many other articles for this show, notability has not been established. Postcard Cathy 12:51, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hastings (canadian Public Health physician)[edit]

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

Strong keep because of his contributions to public health. Besides, have to wonder about an AfD where nominator doesn't list reasons why he/she nominated the article for deletion! Postcard Cathy 14:19, 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 No consensus whatsoever. It would seem to be a plausible search term, whether or not it is an accurate description of what happened. Redirecting to one or the other article is not an option, since both have been called by this title. Cúchullain t/c 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish genocide[edit]

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

This is a Dab page, bad faithly named,there are two links in the page ehich all of them are not related with the name. Must.T C 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Fernandes, Desmond (Winter 1998-1999). "The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey, 1924–1998". Armenian Forum 1 (No.4): 57-107.
    2. Filner, Bob (2004). "Congressional Record", The Kurdish Question in U.S. Foreign Policy: A Documentary Sourcebook by Lokman I. Meho. Praeger/Greenwood. ISBN 0-313-31435-7.
I can't help noticing that "American genocide" exists in two redirects: Native American genocide and American Indian genocide. NikoSilver 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those events are commonly known as "Native American genocide" or "American Indian genocide" and not as an "American genocide". -- Cat chi? 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not proposing to rename to Native Kurdish Genocide are you? NikoSilver 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. How is the term used academically? -- Cat chi? 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For how it is used academically check the two sources above. A book titled "Kurdish Genocide", and an author mentioning a "Kurdish cultural genocide". I also suspect that no one would seriously argue for RfD if there were an American genocide redirect. NikoSilver 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did I say about not using the word genocide leisurely? Please do not mention Armenian genocide unless you can point out relevant and plausible way for a connection. -- Cat chi? 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You call three independent academic sources "leisurely"? Including Mark Levene? The Turkish pov-push in (their) Armenian Genocide is not "relevant and plausible way for connection" to the current Turkish (again) pov-push for (their, again) Kurdish Genocide? And to think there are books calling Anatolia "a modern Zone of Genocide"... Or did you mistype Armenian for American (which first you brought up as comparable)? Is there really a point when such lame arguments start to bring the feeling of shame, or is this hopeless? You also removed my citation and my quotes on false grounds. Where does this stop? NikoSilver 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. Wikipedia is to abide by WP:NPOV unlike academic sources. Unless a terminology is in widespread usage, it cannot and should not be a redirect. I have not seen an overwhelming usage of "Kurdish genocide" to refer to "Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey". Even if it is under overwhelming usage we avoid certain usages. Just like how Terrorist organization of Kurdistan Workers party or Turkish Cypriot Genocide is wrong to have as redirects. -- Cat chi? 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, nice subpage... (no comments). NikoSilver 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic. Your point? -- Cat chi? 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I frankly detest organized POV push on most Turkish issues; the Armenian Genocide being a great example. I'm off the soapbox now. NikoSilver 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Turkish (I do not claim to be from any nationality/ethnicity - though I have been "declared" Turkish as well as other nationalities/ethnicities). I detest vote-stacking. -- Cat chi? 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly Niko, you have no right to be talking about organised POV pushing... --A.Garnet 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly Alf, neither do any of you; and yes, I am not an elephant. NikoSilver 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask Yannismarou to type 'Kurdish genocide' in google and see what the majority of links point to. --A.Garnet 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It is still much better known as an Al-anfal campaign. Any "Kurdish genocide" text does mention "Al-anfal campaign" (I haven't checked every url on the web) -- Cat chi? 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccurate. The term also refers to the Dersim massacre. That is why I propose the redirect to this article.--Yannismarou 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG - it refers nearly exclusively to Al-Anfal campaign, I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only the news organizations, Baris, that we are interested in. Have a look at Google Book and the relevant bibliography.--Yannismarou 09:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable.
I do not think this is proper to be discussed here. Also, unless you enjoy blocks, I suggest you to avoid WP:NPA violations in the future. -- Cat chi? 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure the article will get a lot of attention if let be and thus improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. Using euphemistic words is semantic games and POV and usually the intend of the aggressors. Sensorhip and silencing is not what wikipedia is about, otherwise it would not be open to the public. Aristovoul0s 11:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But being a serious encyclopedia is. There are no "agressors" Aristo, as I have stated before, the original AfD was proposed by an admin who is British, not Turkish. That report you have just cited was the only one present in the article to begin with, and this was discussed before - it is not about censorship, but it is also making sure that Wikipedia is not a platform to propogate minority opinions. WP:OR, Undue weight and most common name are definitely applicable in this case. I have asked all of the keep voters to show even one major news media release calling the human rights of Kurds in Turkey as "Kurdish genocide", and it has yet to happen. And nobody is fooling anyone Aristo, the only reason why there is such a debate here and why certain editors are interested here are because of the debate at Pontic Greek Genocide, thus my comment above to the administrator about this activity bordering on disruption and the turning of Wikipedia to a national battleground. Again, it is really not cool people. How many Turkish editors show up at Greece-related AfDs and consistently vote in a way that would be perceived as "getting one over the Turks"? Come on, I had really thought that we were past this between TR-GR editors in Wikipedia.. Baristarim 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baris, I really don't agree with the logic that it is not "cool" if Greek users vote here, and that Greeks are "getting over the Turks". I think we already had that discussion, and I really don't think it helps reopening it. I believe that we should focus on arguments and on the dab itself, which I see was also a subject of discussion here. Therefore, both the article's AfD and the dab's RfD have a long history where not only Greeks and Turks but other nationalities' users have been involved. Thanks!--Yannismarou 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are right. Point well taken. Baristarim 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is merely a disambiguation page at present, and can usefully remain such. I express no view as to whether the Turkish-Kurdish civil war was (or involved) genocide. If there are other alleged genoicides against the Kurds. they can of course be added. Peterkingiron 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But by having Human rights of Kurds in Turkey in that disambiguation page, we are asserting that "Human Rights of Kurds in Turkey" is a "Kurdish genocide". That does not make sense, I guess what is meant is that there was a genocide against Kurdish people in Turkey. So there is an assertion about that. Also is this any different than making disambiguation pages "X genocide" with items like Human rights of X in Y, where X can be Indian, aborigines/natives in Y, many peoples in Africa and Americas, Y, you name it, US, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc? Do we have such disambiguation pages? Why do we have this? I am not saying that Kurdish people have had no problems in Turkey, but they had presidents, prime ministers, many ministers, many many MPs (probably overrepresented) in Turkey, as well. This is not true in the cases I just mentioned. The problems stemmed in earlier years because of the abolishment of caliphacy and sultanate. Nowadays, it's because of Kenan Evren junta and Turkey-PKK conflict, and also the prevalent feudalism in the region. I don't know much about Anfal campaign, I cannot state whether it can be called a genocide or not. Currently we have basically only Desmond Fernandes who calls what happneded in Turkey a genocide. Unfortunately he does not have a Wiki-article yet. A Google search shows us that "Desmond Fernandes is the Coordinator of the Institute of Tourism and Development Studies, De Montfort University, Bedford, England"
I checked the four items Aristovoulos listed above, the last three are all works of Desmond Fernandes. The first one is about Iraq. denizTC 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again. I just found this on [39], it is relevant:
About Desmond Fernandes: Desmond Fernandes is the author of ‘The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey’ (which is to be published in 2007 by Apec Press, Stockholm) and has written a number of articles on genocide, Turkish state terror, tourism and the ‘Kurdish Question’. He was a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography at De Montfort University in Bedford from 1994 to 2006, specialising in Genocide Studies, Sustainable Development, Globalisation and Imperialism. He is currently a member of the Consortium for Research on Terrorology and Political Violence (CRTPV). CRTPV is a consortium of academics operating under the auspices of NASPIR (The Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations) and the Public Interest Research Network (PIRN) on issues relating to the ‘War on Terror’.
Apparently there is only one scholar in the whole world calling it a genocide, and he calls it a cultural genocide. denizTC 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Useful redirect, reasonable search term. Didn't we just have an AfD on this? Tom Harrison Talk 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have changed my comment accordingly. Tom Harrison Talk 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey#Kurdish genocide claims? Tom Harrison Talk 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But redirect where? That is also the other problem.. It very rarely refers to the Human right of Kurds in Turkey and much more to the Al-Anfal campaign.. Baristarim 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, maybe, to both of them per the RfD.--Yannismarou 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage (band)[edit]

Phineas Gage (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page about a band but google hits turn up for another with same name. If this page must be deleted, confirm here. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I feel the article correctly and accuratly depicts and Orlando death metal act, and the links that are continously provided make the article incorrect thus I removed them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apullin (talk • contribs).

Comment, upon further review, the links point to a bifferent band with the same name. This page needs to be rewritten, if the current version must be deleted. See [41] BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there are many unsigned bands with the same name, this band name is not owned by any label in existance so that does not disqualify any of the bands who do use the name. This band you roadied for, is probably now defunct like the other one which was brought up. The bottom line is, this tab was not occupied, and now it is listed with the correct and accurate information about a band name Phineas Gage out of Orlando Fl. Thus there is no grounds for deletion.

Believe it or not, I was making a joke. Otto4711 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus at WP:EPISODE. Cúchullain t/c 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randall's Reform[edit]

Randall's_Reform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails to establish notability. 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs) 2007/03/28 13:00:31

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against redirecting pending further development. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Friend[edit]

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

Despite sufficient time, the author and other editors have failed to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 14:03, 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 Keep as redirect → List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. The target section has more information than the current independent article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cadet (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Seriously fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no serious bar to providing more information about this episode, it's merely a case of nobody bothering to do it. FrozenPurpleCube 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: correction, that wasn't a speedy keep; it was just a keep on which someone voted speedy keep. However the comment about consistent decisions still applies. Mike Christie (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect → List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. The target section has more information than the current independent article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Up Randall (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Another Recess article that has failed to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:03, 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 Keep per precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Great State Fair; article to be expanded with episode description from List of Recess episodes#Season 6: 2001. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrifying Tales of Recess[edit]

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

One in a long string of articles for Recess show that fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:05, 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 Keep as redirect → List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. The target section has more information than the current independent article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Stinking Feeling (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability and has had a long time to improve the article but hasn't. Postcard Cathy 13:06, 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 Keep per precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Great State Fair; article to be expanded with episode description from List of Recess episodes#Season 5: 2000 - 2001. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The A.V. Kid[edit]

The_A.V._Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

article fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:09, 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 Keep as redirect → List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. The target section has more information than the current independent article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnaby Boys (Recess episode)[edit]

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

fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:13, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bet (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability - the article has been around for some time yet author has failed to improve upon this mere statement of fact. Postcard Cathy 13:19, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Break Up (Recess episode)[edit]

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

author has had sufficient time to establish notability yet has not done so. Postcard Cathy 13:21, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge (Recess episode)[edit]

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

author has failed to establish notability despite sufficient time to have done so since the article's creation. Postcard Cathy 13:22, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 5: 2000 - 2001. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Coolest Heatwave Ever[edit]

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

Author hasn't established notability despite sufficient amount of time to have done so. Postcard Cathy 13:24, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl was Trouble (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Despite sufficient time to work on article, it fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 1: 1997-1998. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Big Kid[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 14:12, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Ball (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established despite sufficient amount of time for author and other editors to do so. Postcard Cathy 14:08, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 5: 2000 - 2001. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Principals of Golf[edit]

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

Despite sufficient amount of time, this article fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A collected AfD would have been a godsend to me! FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ratings Game (Recess episode)[edit]

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

author fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 14:15, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shiner (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Author fails to establish notability despite sufficient amount of time to have done so. Postcard Cathy 14:16, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Substitute (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Despite sufficient amount of time to do so, the author has failed to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 14:07, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 1: 1997-1998. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Finster with Love[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 12:56, 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 redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 5: 2000 - 2001. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tucked In Mikey[edit]

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

As with many other Recess Episode articles, it fails to show us why the article is notable. Postcard Cathy 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per nomination. Harryboyles 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Child (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:15, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhaven Lakes[edit]

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

Non-notable place with unverified claim of world's largest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EagleFan (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Non-notable with unverified claim. EagleFan 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, not true. The only source was the private organization's own website. Hardly an independent source and does not meat wiki standards. The new source is sketchy at best, with the word "considered" in the referenced statement. EagleFan 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I am correct. See the page when you made the afd. There is a link source provided just after the claim in question. Now, a second source has been provided, one from the city, one from the state. -Seinfreak37 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hewlett-Packard for two reasons: (a) so someone can merge summary details if needed, (b) would serve as useful redirect. Otherwise would have been delete. --Bubba hotep 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP Pavilion dv8000[edit]

HP Pavilion dv8000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently notable products. Article comprises mostly of an unsourced list of specifications, which Wikipedia is not. Contested prod. MER-C 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage (band)[edit]

Phineas Gage (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page about a band but google hits turn up for another with same name. If this page must be deleted, confirm here. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I feel the article correctly and accuratly depicts and Orlando death metal act, and the links that are continously provided make the article incorrect thus I removed them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apullin (talk • contribs).

Comment, upon further review, the links point to a bifferent band with the same name. This page needs to be rewritten, if the current version must be deleted. See [46] BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there are many unsigned bands with the same name, this band name is not owned by any label in existance so that does not disqualify any of the bands who do use the name. This band you roadied for, is probably now defunct like the other one which was brought up. The bottom line is, this tab was not occupied, and now it is listed with the correct and accurate information about a band name Phineas Gage out of Orlando Fl. Thus there is no grounds for deletion.

Believe it or not, I was making a joke. Otto4711 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Killer[edit]

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

Non-notable product. There are hundreds of history erasers and registry cleaners. We do not have articles about all of them. Also, I couldnt find a notable site advocating it except for a large number of shareware download sites. soum (0_o) 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Far stronger arguments were made for deletion of this article than those to keep it- including that the criteria for inclusion is unclear, that the list is problematic to source to the high standard that would be necessary, and that it raises serious WP:BLP issues even if carefully maintained. WjBscribe 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified[edit]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article had an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified. When challenged at deletion review the closer stated that he made an error in closing. So it is being relisted for more discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion on deletion. However, if kept it should be moved to a new title, sub-pages (with a / in them) are not appropriate in article space. GRBerry 12:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If a person makes a public statement that they are gay and then later makes a public statement that they are not, there is no implication of their privacy. And with all due respect, your ignorance about who is or isn't gay or who has or hasn't made an "issue" of their sexuality has no bearing on this discussion. The fact that you characterize the list as containing "actors and actresses" indicates to me that you didn't even bother to fully read the list before commenting. The list as it now stands consists of one actor/singer, two musicians, a professional "reparative therapist," an evangelical minister, a journalist, a writer and a retail heir. If you bother to read some of the linked articles, you would realize that their identification as formerly gay is notable, verifiable and important. Some of the people on the list made their careers denouncing homosexuality. Others make their living performing therapy designed to turn gay men straight and writing books and delivering lectures on the topic. Otto4711 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheerful Reply Hey, have you read WP:BLP, specifically the portion I pointed out? Still applies. As has been pointed out below, most of the list don't mention it in the article itself, which makes it non-applicable here. Likewise, if they've formerly denounced or otherwise attacked the LBGT community in the past that makes it MORE important that this be examined very, very carefully. My comments about it being non-notable applied specifically to Anne Heche and Tatu, in regards to the fact that Anne Heche's sexuality is not former, and Tatu are on record as never having been Lesbian. If Anne Heche's sexuality can't be sufficiently covered in her own damned article, why does it deserve a full paragraph in a topic which doesn't apply per the established criteria?Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As-Is - After reviewing the article in question, as well as the sources, I think the most responsible course of action is to remove the list due to possibly inaccurate material. Here are my concerns regarding the article, which need to be addressed promptly so as not to violate WP policy towards biographies of living persons:

1. In most cases, the main pages for the individuals do not mention the past homosexuality. This should be a prerequisite to appearing on the list.
2. The title of the article (and proposed titles) imply that the individuals self identified (ie. came out) as an alternative sexuality. As noted below, this is not the case for most people on the list (at least according to the sources provided).
-Robert Graves is only mentioned (and it is not sourced) for having "homosexual experiences in his youth". In my mind, this does not immediately make him gay, especially since no elaboration is given as to these experiences.
-Ted Haggard has never to the best of my knowledge identified as anything other than heterosexual. While it might be tempting to infer from his recent claims to be "completely heterosexual" that he once was something else, I don't believe we can make this leap.
-Russell Miller's "flirt[ing] with bisexuality" does not make him a bisexual anymore than my flirting with pot makes me a pothead.
-Lou Reed's supposed bisexuality is based around claims made by another, and was denied by Reed himself (based on what I can infer from the notes on the article in question and a bit of googling).
-t.A.T.u. "were never lesbians in the first place". This comes directly from the source given supporting their transformation.
-Worsthorne's article (when read carefully) does not state that the journalist ever identified as homosexual. It instead references how he and many of his peers preferred the simplicity of same sex company during the course of their education. Given the very abstract tone of the article, I don't feel comftorable labeling Worsthorne as any sexuality without corresponding accounts.
3. None of the sources (aside from the t.A.T.u. article and Cohen's webpage) put me at ease about the claims they support. I mentioned me concerns with the vaugeness of Worsthorne's piece. I don't have information regarding the specifice passages in the Aldrich book or New Idea article which support the claims about Bowie and Miller (respectively). I don't fully understand the reference supporting the claim about Reed. Graves has no citation at all. Finally, news articles about Haggard that I have read do nothing more than print speculation regarding Haggard's previous orientation.
4. My final concern regards the "hot" nature of this topic. Without multiple reliable references for each claim, we put ourselves in serious risk of seriously offending and damaging the images of the individuals named. While I don't think we face any libel issues (so long as we are merely repeating what others have said) I certainly do not want to ruin any lives (or, in the case of Graves, memories) by giving rise to false sensationalism.
Taking the above into stock, the only individual who I feel comftorable leaving on the list is Cohen. Since his page already contains the information, I don't see any need to duplicate it here. Given that, I offer my suggestion of delete, as given above. →Bobby← 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
In my mind, the article's content cleary constitutes unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. As a result, it seems to me like the offending material should be deleted (as Samuel Blanning attempted to do earlier). I propose we set a time period by which time sources must be provided for any currently questionable claims. If community consensus is that the article does not meet BLP standards by the end of that time, I further suggest removing any questionable material, and continuing the AfD discussion based on a page history snapshot. If nobody objects, I'd like to set the deadline for 16:00 (UTC) tomorrow (Friday, 3-30). →Bobby← 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having found sources for a number of the items through a simple Google search, I contend that your claim that sourcing is a nightmare is a bit on the hyperbolic side. Given the amount of ink that's regularly spilled when someone comes out or when they go back in, contending that the topic isn't notable is ludicrous. Otto4711 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, no sources at all, except of course for the sources that are in the article for example. Otto4711 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax, and not the only one by this user. Herostratus 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franz google[edit]

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

Obvious hoax FisherQueen (Talk) 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax. Take Susan I of Iceland... please. Herostratus 13:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toccata for Autoharp[edit]

Toccata for Autoharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this article to be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, patent nonsense, school inside joke, see also author's contribution to article talk page, which I quote: "REEEH!" NawlinWiki 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael acquilano[edit]

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

Originally listed as a speedy deletion for no claim of notability. I replaced the speedy with a PROD because I didn't feel this met the speedy threshold. Article was deprod'd by the creator. Essentially, there is nothing about this particular individual that meets WP:BIO at this time. My opinion is that the article should be deleted, but I want to afford it a community debate.Isotope23 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hoax admitted. Herostratus 02:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bëlmak[edit]

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

Unverifiable, probably hoax, but certainly fails WP:ATT. The claim that Longstaff died when taking the picture seems hardly believable since he died when he was 89 (not to discriminate octogenarians, but not many of them will be doing a one-man expedition in a remote area of Bhutan at that age...). Prod removed without improvements (except for adding the picture). Fram 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Adequately covered in Category:Fictional twins.Cúchullain t/c 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of twins in fiction[edit]

Trivia. Happens all the time in stories, generally not all that important. Characters listed are entirely unrelated. >Radiant< 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unseen characters[edit]

Trivia. Unmaintainable. Large list of largely-unimportant characters that aren't even remotely related. Old nomination here >Radiant< 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Morton[edit]

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

Nonnotable writer, no sources cited. NawlinWiki 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Rugby Club[edit]

Long Island Rugby Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a cut and paste of this page[47]. I will rewrite it, but I want to see if it passes notability guidelines first. I have no opinion on deletion. Citicat 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luboš Motl[edit]

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

This is an article about a living person with no notable accomplishments. Lubos Motl set up this article by himself (user Lumidek who created this article is identified as Lubos Motl). Then, the article was created on the Czech wikipedia based on this article. Lubos Motl claims to have published articles in Czech press, however his letters to the editors are of no or minor importance and are mostly published on web servers or by minor media. Dahramon 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AfD nomination resulted in a "Keep". It closed in January 2006.

— Dahramon (talk • contribs) has made no edits outside this topic as of 13:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC). CWC[reply]
"all PhDs are expected to publish articles" yes, and the N as an academic will depend on the number and quality and citedness. The necessary peer review of accomplishments is precisely that found in the peer review of the articles, and the later review of the body of work by academic peer committees.
The review of his work was performed by the Harvard Physics Department when they appointed him. WP just records it. I note that it was as Assistant Professor, so this is not quite automatic. DGG 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Mikhail[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY (myspace does not confer notability). I can't find evidence records have charted; record label appears to have only published this artist; non-wiki g-hits are myspace, sales sites, or trivial articles. Kathy A. 15:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to masturbation[edit]

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

An extremely indiscriminate "pop culture" trivia spinoff article that basically seeks to document every single passing reference to masturbation known to man. Includes such important tidbits as "The TV show Family Guy makes references to masturbation in at least five episodes," and a huge, completely speculative list of songs that may or may not be about masturbation, all of which is original research as well. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - found the same article previously AfD'd twice here - G4. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Paul Turner[edit]

Alexander Paul Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. Relevant Google hits == 0. Comes close to but just skirts G1 nonsense. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, This page is not a hoax. www.turnerzworld.com. Alexander Turner is the CEO of turnerzworld Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjane (talk • contribs)

Comment The website in question mentions Mr Turner zero times. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, It doesn't, I will have an editor fix that, though you can do a WHOIS on the domain name. Bobjane 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hopkovitz[edit]

Chad Hopkovitz (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 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley (Tortoise)[edit]

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

Non notable tortoise, not even notable on the show itself. Masaruemoto 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Major celebrities, every one of them. Masaruemoto 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rye Neck Middle School[edit]

Rye Neck Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just some middle school. No claim of notability. No third party sources. Found because of nonsense being added. Prodded by me, mass-deprodded by anon. Delete. Mak (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range Eleven[edit]

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

No third party coverage to rely on so the content is as far as I can tell an unverifiable first-hand account. They have two CDs but they seem to be self-released and the web finds no trace of them. Pascal.Tesson 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Bubba hotep 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours[edit]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User:Michaelbusch has prodded this article and clearly wants it deleted because it's a silly joke. I'm not sure, especially because it survived a previous AFD, so I'll let you decide. No vote. YechielMan 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours? Let him create an In Popular Culture article on Wikipedia. Plasticbottle 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep more like waste his time on afd's for stuff that clearly is notable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Baraldi[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - the artist listed is the bassist for a minor band and his page doesn't mention anything notable that can't be found on the band's page. Mary quite contrary (hai?) 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Football League[edit]

International Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No articles or information about this league found on Google 99DBSIMLR 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zarabatana Platform[edit]

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

First-person advert for a games development project. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 18:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Bubba hotep 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPIXO In Action: Mission in Snowdriftland[edit]

UPIXO In Action: Mission in Snowdriftland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable video game. Tikiwont 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can list a ton of video games that aren't notable yet have Wikipedia pages consisting of like 2 lines of text anyway, what especially makes this one not notable? MrDrake 13:54, 21 March 2007 (GMT)
You may be right about other non notable video games in Wikipedia, but the question here is, if there exists any independent non-trivial coverage, that would make this Nintendo marketing game notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you see other worse video game articles, nominate them! The existance of worse articles doesn't mean this one gets to stay, though. See also WP:INN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I actually searched for 'UPIXO in Action' as per the first article line. For 'Mission in Snowdriftland' there are indeed many more links and I'm open to change my mind if some good sources can be selected therefrom. If kept the article should be renamed. --Tikiwont 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, if that's the actual name of the game? We shouldn't go around renaming articles for the sole reason of making Google searches more intuitively easy. RGTraynor 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things. Mission in Snowdriftland is far more common, printed in large on the inactive website, and part of the http adress.--Tikiwont 23:01, 21 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, WjBscribe 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No references or assertion of notability, essentially a dicdef. No problem with recreating if sources are provided and notability established.Cúchullain t/c 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religio Romana[edit]

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

A Latin term meaning "Roman Religion" that this stub claims is also the name of a revisionist NeoPagan group. Was Prod'd then Deprod'd. Fails all sourceing policies such as WP:ATT, WP:RS and WP:V. It makes no assertion of notability and sources were produced on "Roman religion" it would then violate WP:SYN and WP:OR. Finally it fails the notability guidline for organizations. NeoFreak 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the article should be kept on a character assement of myself instead of a review of relavent policy? Thanks for your opinion. NeoFreak 21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am inferring that your aggressive demeanor indicates you are operating with some sort of agenda which overrides your judgment. Again, the group in question is not a primarily American (english speaking) group. - WeniWidiWiki 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aggresvie? Hmm, I'd agree with that, I treasure Wikipedia and I'm very aggressive in protecting it. Wether or not my aggressive efforts are "biased" and renders me incapable of nominating an article for deletion is up to debate I suppose. If you have other language wikipedia sources I'd love to see them. NeoFreak 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links did in fact belong in the external links section (not a ref section) thanks for catching that and moving them over. I'm curious on what grounds that are rooted in policy you think this article in its current form should be kept. NeoFreak 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i said "weak" keep, I agree it is debatable, I certainly expect further sourcing. DGG 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You expect further sourcing for it to be kept yet you are advocating that it be kept in its current state? I'm afraid I don;t understand your position. NeoFreak 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. articles get improved at AfD. I will sometimes say either weak keep, but I'll change it if nothing more is added when challenged, or the opposite, Delete unless something comes in.--and so do other eds. It's not a matter of the !votes. The criterion is sourceable. I do not advocate deleting articles where the author hasn't found the material, just of deleting them if there appears to be no material to find. If this is real, I think it would be notable. Opinions about this can vary, and they do. DGG 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You and I disagree on wether or not this subject sourcable I suppose. It can be confusing when an editor makes "conditional" stances in AfD. I find it best to discuss the article as is but that's just a personal preference I suppose. Thanks for clearing t up. NeoFreak 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a majority of editors indicated that the article should be kept, there was no compelling arguments/references provided to substantiate the claims of notability. I'll be willing to restore the article conditional on notability being established by secondary sources that substantiate the claim of "champion" and/or "olympic coach". Gnangarra 13:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian King[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. No references show the person is notable enough to merit inclusion. Delete Ragib 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, Google gives a very rough idea about notability. If someone is certainly notable, then 3rd party sources should be available. Since there isn't probably any systemic bias, Google should at least provide 3rd party sources besides self promotional ones. By the way, please do not vote multiple times. Thanks. --Ragib 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aditya Kabir, I realise you have indicated the page needs to be deleted, but please don't downgrade the article to a single line again. This author's book is independently published and the author information given there is sufficient to cite as reference material for the minimal claims that had been made about this person by the editor who wrote the article. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about hiding unnecessary information (I didn't delete them, though), but how does the information on where he lives and if he is married adds to his notability? And while you take a postion for keep, please, refrain from removing tags that ask for citation (also, please, refrain from putting back the same weblink twice). Remember, most books are independently published, but are not independently cited. A citation from the vendor of the book makes neither the book nor the author notable. Aditya Kabir 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a comment on your grave allegation of downgrading an article during deletion discussion on Talk:Ian King. I DID NOT downgrade it, or else I wouldn't have linked it to other articles or asked others to upgrade it. Aditya Kabir 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trainer of Olympic athletes? Which athletes? Aditya Kabir 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know. [57] says he did. Lets leave the article alone so the contributors can figure that out. John Vandenberg 21:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just make sure that a vendor of the subject's book (i.e. amazon.com) doesn't become the sole source of his training of world class athletes and so on. And, I apologize for downgrading the article. I really hope someone figures something about the subject, apart from the books he has written. Aditya Kabir 18:45, 30 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, WjBscribe 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, since I was the only user debating for a delete, I think it was directed against me and my understanding. I am hurt. For one - I never claimed to know anything about the subject. But, that doesn't mean that I don't understand wikipedia notability standards, and I don't understand promotional sites. Unfortunately, I work in an advertising agency (affiliated with JWT) and there is a possibility that while you may know everything about the subject, I may be more knowledgeable about promotional work (though not necessarily so). As long the wikipedia standards of establishing notability is followed I have no problems with the subject. This is not a personal vendetta against a person unknown to me (apart from the fact that he is well advertised). I haver already quoted all the guidelines that stand against the article, and none of the people who know much better than I do have been able to provide anything that meets those criterion (apart from more promotional stuff, including those of a vendor of the book written by the subject). May be I haven't noticed that wikipedia is a democracy now, and AfDs have turned into voting boxes. Sorry, again for all the trouble. Keep whatever the people wants. Aditya Kabir 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, so you need to explain your reasons if you want this opinion to count. --Ragib 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was RESULT. Cúchullain t/c 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wright (politician)[edit]

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

Losing political candidate does not meet the standards for notability. JakeZ 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This cannot be compared to the Roy C. Strickland article. This is a mere stub. The Roy Strickland article is concise, thorough, and wery well-written. There is no comparison. Strickland ran for office in two states. He was a pioneer of the LA GOP. No comparison, as I see it. In addition, Strickland has an impressive business career.

Billy Hathorn 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You've misunderstood me. I'm not saying the articles are directly comparable. One of the arguments posed by two of the editors in favor of keeping Strickland is that all major party candidates for U.S. Congress should be considered automatically notable, regardless of other notability criteria. If Strickland has other item of notability, then that's applicable in his debate, but it's beside the point that I'm addressing here. The point here is that if that specific argument gains traction and indeed seems to be a consensus among editors, then that sentiment does directly affect this one. I've started a new topic on the talk page of WP:BIO to solicit input there on the issue. Mwelch 06:14, 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, WjBscribe 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I deleted his 2006 campaign website from the article because it's a dead link. EdJohnston 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 100 year test is not a generally accepted criterion--I think if it were formally proposed now it would be soundly rejected, as it makes no sense whatsoever. WP is not intended for the 22nd century, but is an encyclopedia intended for current use now, and whatever part is still relevant in 100 years will be of historical interest only.We are likely to have far more sophisticated reference sources by then.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Sorrow[edit]

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

lack of explanation or notability Djdickmutt 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to naat. I have left a note with Webkami who volunteered to do the grunt work of the merge below. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praise of Muhammad in poetry[edit]

Praise of Muhammad in poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Under a more NPOV title, like Muhammad in poetry or Muhammad in literature, this could well be a reasonably good, encyclopedically valuable article. However, at the moment, the article is just one unsources paragraph and several quotes from poetry, and it has been in its current state for pretty long. Therefore, delete, but without prejudice to it being recreated if sufficient material from reliable secondary sources is found on this topic. Beit Or 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio and not a chance in hell to survive even if rewritten (not one reliable source). Fram 09:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleak (comic book)[edit]

Bleak (comic book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Comic book that won't be published for another 2 days; no indic. of notability NawlinWiki 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Like most comic books and books for that matter they are predated because they come out after they are published. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hibbs8 (talk • contribs).


Am I correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hibbs8 (talk • contribs).

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis[edit]

Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --Nyp 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Piscura[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidendce of independent reliable sources, and fails WP:BIO even if there were One Night In Hackney303 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Saying his book is slightly incorrect, it's a book in which he's briefly quoted twice according to this. One Night In Hackney303 17:25, 24 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, WjBscribe 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionaly, with exception to his official and MySpace pages, he has profiles at Obsessed with wrestling, The Slam Report, The Dojo of Wrestling Truth and has been featured in a news article by the Akron Beacon Journal [61].
  • Comment OWW is nothing more than a glorified fan site, and as this link proves it isn't a reliable or independent source for indy wrestlers. The other links (one of which is a blog!) do not contain enough information for an encyclopedic article to be created. One Night In Hackney303 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Australian apartheid[edit]

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

Poorly sourced. One source merely warns of a potential new apartheid. Another looks at the influence Australia may have had on South African apatheid 55 years ago. Also, rather oddly named. —Ashley Y 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that notable information could be deleted within two days because it isn't well sourced enough. This is clearly notable article, because Australia's policies inspired those of South Africa-- this is in the historical record, too. Even if it was 55 years ago, it's notable for two reasons:

  1. Encyclopedias are supposed to cover the past in just as much detail as the present, when it comes to politics.
  2. The allegation is still used against Australian society today, even though it's blatantly false in my opinion. (this is comparible to the allegation of economic apartheid in the United States. to me it is blatantly false, but it is a politically notable accusation given the history involved.)

It is hypocrisy to delete this article and keep the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. So, because this is notable, the answer is to add to it, and source it, just like any other article. We shouldn't delete it because it stifles a potentially notable article from emerging. Keep.--Urthogie 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should vote for a move, then (something which is typically discussed on the talk page, not on the AFD).--Urthogie 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see where we'd move it. I think others are right that the material is already covered elsewhere. Mackan79 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Garrie, it's two days old, this article.--Urthogie
Which is why I said merge it back to where it came from. Not Delete. It should have stayed at Allegations of apartheid until it was bursting out of it's little section - not popped over to a new article as soon as you found one real reference and two tangential ones. It was a stretch for me not to say something along the lines of what Cyberjunkie said below. It is interesting to claim that a country which at one time had forced miscegenation, might also be alleged to hold apartheid laws. Garrie 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peta, this is not a vote. Please give a reason. JRG 08:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't that what's old doesn't matter but that the material should be discussed under a more accurate title, as it seems to already be. Mackan79 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deflower delete. DS 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginal coordinate system[edit]

WP:CB __Just plain Bill 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went searching for "celestial virgin" and most or all of the hits had to do with the constellation Virgo, only faintly related to the system "described" in this article. Can you put some links to the seemingly relevant results here, please? __Just plain Bill 00:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even searching for "celestial virgin" coordinate returns mostly or entirely stuff about Virgo. Anville 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that celestial virgin has to do with constellation Virgo. I knew that there is a noon virgin (intersection between autumnal meridian (12h) and equator (0°)) in Virgo. Cosmium 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy arm[edit]

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

I couldn't find this anywhere on Google. If not a hoax, at least staggeringly obscure JianLi 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical nullification[edit]

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

As explained at WikiProject Physics Talk, this page is an exercise in Original Research on a non-notable topic. Google returns 17 hits on "physical nullification", not including WP and mirrors, most of which don't refer to this topic (e.g., "the physical nullification and conjugal rape experienced by many women in the West"). Without a source indicating that Robert Forward's idea was directly based on Isaac Asimov's, then collecting them together is OR. The same goes for the part about wormholes — it's OR because we have no evidence that Forward said any of it, and it probably just stems from the imagination of 66.16.45.2 (talk · contribs), trying to connect an old SF idea with something more modern.

If you cut out the OR, there's not enough left to merit an article. The subject is without foundation in modern science (as JRSpriggs says, "The positive energy of matter and radiation is balanced by the gravitational potential energy which is negative. There is no basis for believing that any other kind of negative energy is possible. The article is pure speculation."). It's non-science, and it's not even widely known or visible non-science, the basic criterion of WP:FRINGE. Anville 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - default keep -- Bubba hotep 21:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCENE Music Festival[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be too notable. Granted, it does have some semi-famous bands that have played for it, but how notable can a festival be (outside of the town and surrounding area) if it's only performed in clubs and pubs? SeizureDog 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: M (Media and music) ◄Zahakiel► 15:16, 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, WjBscribe 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, no consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lind[edit]

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

Flunks WP:MUSIC; no references; only reliable source produced was half a sentence at the end of a college newspaper mentioning the existence of a tour, which is the very epitome of "trivial" in the WP:MUSIC standard. THF 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating related articles for similar WP:MUSIC failure:

The Ducky Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The War Back Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Compulsive Fuck Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Death or Jail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--THF 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Expired label is the red-linked non-notable Sailor's Grave Records. -- THF 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seriously, these pages have been up for over six months. And if you want to delete them then go ahead. But you will never convince me that when one were to google "Mark Lind" + "punk" and "Ducky Boys" + "punk" and got 11,000 and 71,000 results respectively, there isn't some of notability out there. You also can't tell me that a band that has toured with major bands like Dropkick Murphys and Rancid doesn't have respect in the music community. I am in no way a member of the band, nor personally know any member of the band or Mark himself. I simply am interested in their music and their strong following within the Boston Area. But if it will delight the Wikipedia "Gods" to delete this article, please go right ahead. AxYoung 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. P.S. If you were to google Sailors Grave Records, which recently folded, you would see that a number of their bands, like Bombshell Rocks and Angel City Outcasts but there is no mention of Mark Lind. AxYoung 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Notability is objective, and not subjective. If this guy is so famous, where are the reliable sources that permit a Wikipedia article? It's not just WP:Music this guy flunks, it's WP:BIO and WP:N more generally. -- THF 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swanson Middle School[edit]

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

This article is very poorly written. It is biased and shows no sign of notability. Furthermore no sources are cited and I could not find published sources confirming much of what is said in the article. Vaniac 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I know - just my personal 'policy' - a big school is generally notable to its local community, even if not to a wider community. As I say, I'd still go with delete this one, as IMO it's unexpandable. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Malcovati[edit]

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

Living writer with only one book and no other claim to notability. A prod tag has been removed three times, twice by different anons and once by the original creator of the article User:Giovanni.manganello (in his third edit ever since he created the article 7 months ago). All three gave similar reasons in the edit summary, and may be the same person. Side note: User:Complainer claims to be Leonardo Malcovati, and has edited the article moderately. Giovanni and Complainer have both been informed after I added the Prod for the first time. Overall I doubt the notability, hence delete. Chris 73 | Talk 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with a suggestion to merge to Niggor. Although there are a few sources out there, they are in the native language. I believe we have had two keep votes from speakers of that language, and as Herostratus says, the answer is in sourcing. Bubba hotep 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monteniggers[edit]

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

NN band, appears to fail WP:MUSIC, but I am not sure. I am also nominating the following page becuase he is a member of the group.

Niggor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest number paradox[edit]

Smallest number paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(1) Original research, by the original page author's own statement, and by a lack any of google hits at all. (2) This really fails to identify any genuine paradox; the reasoning is not cogent. Michael Hardy 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seamans, Yancy[edit]

Seamans, Yancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only claim of notability is that he is a "program officer" for a charitable organization. Has apparently written some scholarly papers, but there really is no notability claim in this article. Elmer Clark 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Wiki[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable wiki. There's a clear COI (the article creator is the creator of the website, he even links to his only WP userpage). Not a large wiki either and doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB and WP:ATT (its own statistics page says it has "19 pages that are probably legitimate content". PROD was removed by anon. Delete as failing WP:ATT and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFD is not a vote. If you would like to see the article retained, you must provide some sort of justification based in Wikipedia policy and/or guidelines. Wickethewok 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Girl Gone Bad[edit]

Good Girl Gone Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not only is this album, as of today, not yet titled (see [67] and [68]), but the editor who created the article did so by cutting and pasting the contents of Rihanna's third album into this new title. The redirect is useless because this is not, and never as been (as far as I can tell), the title of the album. Extraordinary Machine 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, the title has been confirmed on Rihanna's official website, and it is indeed Good Girl Gone Bad. I know I probably should have checked this, but I also know we're not trying to "scoop" other websites and publications for the latest updates, so it was better to err on the side of caution and exclude unsourced speculation about a future product. Another admin should probably close this... Extraordinary Machine 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Tell Sam Jackson He's My Bro[edit]

Just a YouTube video that has no assertion of notability. It does not have the coverage of multiple, non-trivial works that WP:WEB requires. Hbdragon88 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegan Community Players[edit]

Allegan Community Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theatre group. So they're pretty old, hardly a big deal. Just about every theatre group is going to be the oldest in some geographic location. All this really is is a list of people, 99% of them completely non-notable. A couple semi-famous people may have been associated with them over the years, but no one is famous for their association with the group. The bar where Tom Wopat washed dishes when he was in college is not notable from its association with Tom Wopat, and the same goes for this little group. R. fiend 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: O (Org., corp., or product). ◄Zahakiel► 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about some sources that assert historical importance. Don't confuse notability with importance, if no sources are available then an article fails to meet notability standards. --Daniel J. Leivick 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. Having once been part of group -- long before having been famous -- doesn't impart any notability to the group. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this Calton is a troll. I am engaged in an argument with this user over another article and he is following me to "get back at me". This proves that this user is incapable of editing Wikipedia intelligently. He lies by the way just to let you all know. Bad troll! Dwain 17:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Argument" implies an exchange of views, as opposed to, say, a vaguely coherent ranting monologue. So, no, there's no "argument" going on. --Calton | Talk 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has always puzzled me that it should not be required in all cases. The prod template provides a simple way to do it, and so could they one for afd.
Very interesting to have two Japanese speaking non-Japanese. Maybe there is some sort of "connection" between Calton and Cryptic. Hmmm. A lot to ponder there. Dwain 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dwain, it would be sensible for you to remove the personal attacks against Calton that you posted above. EdJohnston 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hold your breath. --Calton | Talk 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Interconnectivity[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no secondary sources are likely to exist on the topic, completely OR concept, only linked from I Heart Huckabees and redirects. Croctotheface 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Allwright[edit]

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

Another non-notable junior footballer. Playing for a national U/17 side is not sufficient by itself to assert notability. Mattinbgn/ talk 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says he's due internationally for trials within four weeks - maybe it should be kept till then? but definately, revisited.Garrie 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with all due respect to Mr. Allwright, the newspaper article referenced indicates he can't get a contract with an A-League club which would be the bare minimum to establish notability. Once again, if at a later date, he was to be picked up by Dundee United or another professional club, the article could be recreated. The editor who created the article may consider saving a copy of this article on his/her user page to recreate if necessary. --Mattinbgn/ talk 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the author, I've saved a copy at User:Fedgin/Joel Allwright and will consider replacing when/once any further news develops. Fedgin | Talk 08:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 substantially rewritten version. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Dietz[edit]

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

Non-notable math crank not recognized by professional establishment. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think my requesting an entry on Dietz shows that she is notable in the field of mathematics. I stumbled upon a few pages on Dietz online and requested the entry because I was hoping someone might have some information on her or her method of using polynomials to design weave patterns. I do not believe that Dietz is notable as a mathematician and can find no evidence that Dietz herself made claims to being a mathematician. Michael Slone (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[69]. If you know about her, you must know about her from somewhere.DGG 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See recent edits which offer multiple periodical sources as per WP:BIO. An annotated volume of her work is still in print a half-century later. Irene Ringworm 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nom.

Covad[edit]

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

Provides no source, no attempt to establish notability and fails WP:CORP BJTalk 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 23:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Thorn[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Mattinbgn/ talk 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Greco[edit]

Michael S. Greco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Past president of the American Bar Association, but only for one year. All sources are American Bar association (i.e. not independent). Guy (Help!) 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been around for a while, this version is new, but it's reposted (rewritten from new sources). Guy (Help!) 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. No hurry at all. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However more needs to be added to this article, this Wikipedia article is incomplete; Google readings of Greco's background and activities reveal much more to supplement this article.- Mitchell

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

The result was transwiki'd to Wiktionary, then deleted. ♠PMC♠ 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston slang[edit]

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

Already nominated once before, with no consensus. I outlined some of my concerns with the article earlier this month on the talk page. The entire article is original research and completely lacks any citations (it's been tagged as unreferenced since December 2005), and full of useless entries like "Wake - Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield". Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information also apply here, I think. I don't even want to transwiki this, simply because it's so full of OR and, I suspect, inaccurate. --Miskwito 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Davi[edit]

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

Article does not cite sources that qualify the subject's notability. HeartsThatHate 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. These articles were created by the sockpuppet of a user known for creating hoax articles. I've blocked both the sock and the puppetmaster indefinitely. Grandmasterka 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel ochoa[edit]

Israel ochoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Step In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unbroken (israel ochoa album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hoax. He doesn't exist on AllMusic and the IMDb link provided does not back up the page's claims. Also claims to have had a premiere on TRL when that's not the case. Prod removed by another editor whose last edit was in August 2006 to the movie that the author claims Ochoa to have been in. JuJube 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Butseriously states, verifiability is not the sole criterion for the inclusion of an article. Being included on a list, however reliable it may be, is not a sufficient assertion of notability. yandman 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America[edit]

Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Unnotable company. This group is not a authoritized United States accreditor, and thus its accreditation is meaningless.[70] That means this is a company. Unnotable, undescriptive, no claims of notability, etc. The website is registered to "John Doe" and has no phone number, email address, or mail address. How can you have an article without sources? Arbustoo 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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