< March 4 March 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul wesley weber[edit]

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

(Apparently) autobiographical article that doesn't assert notability of subject until it gets near the end. The "Henry Ford II Falcon Film Fest" sounds reputable, but doesn't come up with anything relevant in Google (not even changing the wording around a bit), and there is little for "City Boi" that shows its notability. Fourohfour 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jeff Defender 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight and Dove[edit]

Article about an unpublished book series, created by the author "so when I do publish the book some people have an understanding of the book right away, and also to save me some time." An obvious deletion, but books aren't included in CSD#A7, and my prod was removed by the author. —Celithemis 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Published or not, it is not notable. Publishing a book does not make it him or the book notable until there are notable sources reporting on it.--210.49.152.114 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sophomore slump. Jersey Devil 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second album syndrome[edit]

Second album syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(taken from deletion prod) Neologism, unsourced (and my opinion) a worthless article, not sourced, untrue in places, not useful and maybe better off in a dictionary? Thedreamdied 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g11 spam, author using the article to promote his nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool webcast[edit]

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

This seems like no more than an advertisement to a myspace page. Also the idea behind such an article is implausible, "cool" and "webcast" have their own entries and their sum is no more than the combination of their parts. I would have used "speedy deletion" but this article has already been edited by several and resisted a "prod" (deleted by an anonymous editor). Eldar 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphachimp 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gossick[edit]

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

Delete Non notable game element ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Richman[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. A search through Google reveals only self-published sources, no WP:RS. Leuko 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ViridaeTalk 10:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth award[edit]

Foot in Mouth award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list of quotes with almost no content attached, possible candidate for wikiquote but not here. Vicarious 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the award would be a good place to start, since the Plain English Campaign article doesn't even mention it. A list of winners wouldn't be out of place, and if the quotes can be sourced, they might even fit. ObtuseAngle 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we leave a redirect to Wikiquote? SmokeyJoe 01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Sasquatch t|c 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Siu Wong[edit]

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

Non-notable. Minor actor. Peter Rehse 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:11Z

Anna Shulgina[edit]

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

This article's subject is unverifiable; I can't find any mention of an Anna Shulgin or Shulgina that matches the article's description on Google, outside of Wikipedia mirrors. The article makes some extraordinary claims but provides no substantiating evidence. Even if substantiated, the subject's claim to notability is somewhat dubious. --Muchness 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy gum trick[edit]

Snappy gum trick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I put a notability tag on this article in October 2006, and there have been no improvements since then. Seems to be non-notable and unencyclopedic. →EdGl 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah kill it, that product is pretty much self-explanatory if you go and buy it. Guroadrunner 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, your search above was for articles which had ANY of the three words "snappy", "gum" and/or "trick". When you search for the exact phrase "snappy gum trick" there are only 22 hits. Dugwiki 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; all this means is that (possibly) the trick isn't widely-known under that specific name. If that's the case, and a more widely-used name exists, the page could be moved, but the trick itself *is* a fairly widespread one. Fourohfour 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Programmer Dvorak[edit]

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

Non-notable minimal variation on the Dvorak keyboard. All content on this page originates from the same user; notability not asserted. No keyboards are manufactured with this layout, and all google hits seem to be for the creator's site, Wikipedia content, forums, or blogs. Krimpet 03:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kahlen Rondot[edit]

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

This is a pisspoor article which deserves to be deleted. Largely unsourced biography (and so tagged since December 06) of ANTM runner up with a pedestrian modelling career subsequent to the show. All except one of her modelling credits appears to be as a direct result of her participation in ANTM. Ohconfucius 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. It's almost pure listcruft -- certainly not worthy of inclusion. alphachimp 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemason businesses[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic listcruft. One has nothing to do with the other. MSJapan 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian erotic poetry[edit]

Australian erotic poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. An essay based on personal opinion and original research. Spends most of its time arguing that there hardly is any Australian erotic poetry, which would suggest that we don't need an article on the topic. —Celithemis 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more sources and references have been added

The suggestion for two articles makes no sense. There seems to be no good reason why there cant be an Australian erotic poetry article just as there would be no good reason why there cannot be a modern or post-modern poetry article. Why categorise the poets under Australian poets then sub categorise them under erotic poetry -makes no sense- why not just put the poets in an article dealing with Australian erotic poetry-there seems to be some unspoked issue with an article called Australian erotic poetry

Geee why does being a strange article mean it has to be deleted - this must be a purely subjective valuation . Others say the article is interesting. Tthere seems to be some unspoked issue with an article called Australian erotic poetry

GEEE you say no reliable sources yet one of my sources is straight out of the Wikipedia database- All this is getting a bit out of hand people are just pulling things out of the air to justify deleting the article It seems if someone gives a negitive valuation every one else just follows suit.I have come to the conclusion that the deletion of the article has little to do with its content but rather some other unspoken issue with the article. I draw this conclusion from viewing the range of contradictory comments: some say the article is nonsense other say it is interesting some say it is not notable other say it is moderatly notable some say it canot be sourced other say it can be sourced some say it should be rewritten other say it needs just a bit of work. All these contradictory reasons indicate to me that a lot of subjective feelings are going into the reasons for its deletion. An article cannot generate such a wide variety of opinions if it was fundamentaly flawed. A fundamentaly flawed article would have more consensus regarding reasons. Every time I answer an argument the gaol posts are moved . This indicates that people have it in their minds-for what ever reasons-that this article should be deleted and as such will just go on producing arguments no mater what counter arguments is presented-the goal posts will always be moved to accomadate their feelings about the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)

Gamahucher, regardless of any other reasons, your article consists of your own personal analysis of the subject matter (or is written in a manner that blatantly gives that impression). That there may be other flaws does not obscure the fact that it's *blatantly* original research and inappropriate for that reason alone. Fourohfour 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to colin leslie dean's erotic poetry that can be downloaded free. If this does not satify you i dont know what will-if the link is deleted after expecially asking for some examples of erotic poetry then I just throw up my hands- since it would then seem there are unspoked issue around the article topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)

There is nothing wrong with creating entries that adds to the knowledge pool even if they happen to be about one person-there is no universal law saying a person canot be multitalented. You obvious obsession in hunting down such minute detail about what entries have been placed speacks volumes about what may be just personal bias and hostilty or some other unsavory human disposition. A commentator asked for some erotic poetry erxamples so i give a link and all you can do is find some problem with it GEEE have you some big problem with the erotic

This is ridiculous It like saying that because someone puts entries about Sir Richard Francis Burton in Wikipedia in such entries as anthroplogy poetry india arabian nights etc he has a vested interet in pushing him. This is all getting a bit silly and really speacks volumes about unspoken issues


I donot publish mr dean I publish topics and themes he has contributed to. This article is not about mr dean it is about erotic poetry which he has contributed to. If mr dean happens to be multitalented why does that preculded the areas he has contributed to from excluision from WikipediaMr dean did not invent Australian erotic poetry -that was created by the National Library of Australia. Are you saying that because he is not a world famous person he cannot appear on Wikipedia. ARE YOU SAYING ONLY WORLD FAMOUS PEOPLE CAN APPEAR ON WIKIPEDIA. Are you saying that mr dean canot have any entries about areas he contributes to I think that is patently ridiculous We have moved from not notable to original research to not enough sources to no examples of erotic poetry to now conflict of interest. It seem you all just jump on the next badwaggon that comes along. What next will it be perhaps becuase the the article was written with my left foot that makes it illegitment. We have moved from attacking the article to now character assinating the author-where will this all end really getting silly and speacks volumes for unspoken issues. All this new bandwaggon of cohorts simpply because I was asked for some examples of erotic poetry. Get real you asked for it I did not give it till asked -so if I was pushing dean why wait to be asked and not just give the link initialy

If I wrote articles about Sir Richard Francis Burton and owned a bookshop that sold his book would that be vested interet and exclude me from writing such articles. Are you saying bookshop owners canot wriite articles which therir books deal will Get real . If you did not want examples of erotic poetry you should have not askedNo matter if I put a small quote from mr dean all this conflict of interest would still arise. I am afriad that you have set in your mind like some world leaders a course of action and no matter how your arguments are refuted you just keep moving the goal post each time . As I say your obsession with hunting mr dean on google really speacks volumes for an obsessive mind with untoward dispositions

go to the Auslit Resourse for Australian Literature website http://www.austlit.edu.au/ and type in colin leslie dean to see that he is a notable Australian erotic poet by being listed- you may need to subscribe or your library may give you access. And as I Say if you where around in 1790 you would delete an article on romantic poetry featureing Wordsworth- notablity is no criteria for value just as being disparaged is no criteri for inablity- I recall Galileo was disparged in his time to IMr dean is also in cambridges publication 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century as an Australian poet philosopher if you have a copy have a look- if that aint notable then nothing is . If you have access to worldcat-the library database you will see mr dean has books at such univserities as yale Harvard and the library of congress

you harp on about notablity but i can see your moputh drop when you read this Mr dean is also in cambridges publication 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century as an Australian poet philosopher if you have a copy have a look- if that aint notable then nothing is . If you have access to worldcat-the library database you will see mr dean has books at such univserities as yale Harvard and the library of congress. Once again you change the goal posts. You want notablity i gave it to you and you just ignore it-once again unspoked issues 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century is not a pay for vanity publication you saying that really indicates you cant handle mr deans notablity and must try and proove to yourself by any illusion it cant be that he is notable I suppose you are going to say Yale Havard and the library of congress only put books in catalogue based upon vanity domination-GET REAL-you trying to dispage mr dean is reaching the hights of the ridiculous

Comment This AFD has turned into a bloodbath. The points that have been stated above are:
  • There is questions as to whether the two named poets are notable. I don't doubt they probably are, but Wikipedia is quite strong on *asserting* notability - i.e. you have to say in the article how the individual is notable. Cambridge's book as above may well be enough to do this so long as someone else is willing to vouch for this. I had taken this on face value, but it turns out it is simply a publisher called International Biographical Centre based in the town of Cambridge, England. The website is here. The publication is not in any state, local or university library in Western Australia and is not listed on the NLA catalogue. (Interestingly, Colin Leslie Dean's work can be found in most of the above)
  • The article this AfD is about, Australian erotic poetry, will probably be deleted per our attribution policy, which expressly states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." This article reads like an essay, and basically is one.

if you want library holdings as a giude to status As Isaid mr dean is in "Dictionary of international biography" the National Library of Australia has 3 entries and there are 227 entries ib library around australia. He is also in 2000 outstanding intellectuals of the 21st century and this is meantioned at the National Library of Australia. He is in international whos who in poetry and poets encyclopedia which is in the National Library of Australia. He is also in Whos who in the 21st century the National Library of Australia has and there are 16 entries for libraries in Australia

you all talk about original research not wanted but Wikipedias entry for International Biographical Centre is completly original research even with a long list of items foun on a google search. If it is good for one why not others-there is a bit of biased selection going on here

you say surprisingly mr dean is in a number of Australian libraries if you had of checked the sourse i give in the article you would have seen that-you all say I dont give sources, I do but you all dont even bother to look at them

  • Some editors have expressed a concern that there is a

conflict of interest as the name of the author (and main "keep" proponent on this AfD) is the same as the press which publishes one of the poets in question, and may thereby have a vested interest in promoting the work. I don't know if this is the case or not.

At all times it should be remembered this is an encyclopaedia and not a web host or publisher. As I suggested some time back in the debate, perhaps the solution is to create a category "Australian erotic poetry" and create two articles, one for each of these poets, and put them in the category. Any reliable independent sources (eg ADB if he has a listing there) could be used to construct a biography of the guy. Orderinchaos78 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you want notablity mr dean is also in these books from cambridge "2000 outstanding intellectuals of the 21st century", "Dictionary of international biography 32ed edition", "Whos who in the 21st century first edition" "international whos who in poetry and poets encyclopedia fourth edition, to name a few- any one care to check feel free YOU ALL ASKED FOR NOTABLITY AND VERIFIABLITY eat your words about an amatuer no-hoper never trust wannabes on the net forums they have not the ability to see ablity- particularly when it is not mainstream pulp

nevertheless as your link points out entry is based on merit and not a pay for entry-even if nominated you must have merit to be included - and they are not a vanity press even if entrants pay for bigger spreads they must have merit to be included -eat your words. As i say there is a lot of effort to disparage mr dean that borders on psychological obsession

One final point - I see that amongst your edits to Wikipedia is one where you edited an article on a CD of music called Erotic Poetry to include a copy and pasted section from this article [[12]], all about Mr Dean. Can you really deny that you are Mr Dean? Or that his article and every other edit you have made is designed to promote yourself? StuartDouglas 17:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you link specificaly says merit is required and there is no payment for entry -only for wanting a bigger spread or wanting to an award. But the article states merit is required and that payment is not required for entry. you contradict yourself and show your agenda when you say "the article says it is superficially true to say that there is no need to pay" then say,"they have paid to get in" I am courious you asked for examples of erotic poetry has any one gone to the link and download any free books of erotic poetry - you asked for examples so how about commenting on some. YES I pasted to the erotic poetry becuase it is obvious that this article wil be deleted so just trying to get some information about Australian erotic poetry on Wikipedia StuartDouglas has obviously a bee in his bonnet as he has intiated discussions on two of my entries Anti-poetry and Meaninglessness. These articles are not about colin leslie dean, but about areas that he happens to have contributed to It is not my problem that colin leslie dean is at the cuting edge of new ideas and new trends. There was a time when the only entry under "relativity" would have been Einstien. So dont blame colin leslie dean or accuse me of promoting him if he is one of the only ones in certian important areas -like Wordsworth or Einstein where at one stage

I am outstounded It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica . So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica. It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources.

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

The result was G10 - NYC JD (make a motion) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Leonie Wasson[edit]

Dr. Leonie Wasson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fictional character supposedly played by a real person on an Australian program called the "Newington College Show. However, I can't find any evidence that the program exists. Appears to be a character on a non-existent tv show. ArglebargleIV 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Watner[edit]

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

Not WP:Notable in any way. Carl Watner may have written a number of books and articles, but nobody actually writes about him.

Also, I asked on the talk page about his notability in October 2006, and there was no response — which I think further confirms that this person is, in fact, not notable at all, and that the article is merely a promotional blurb. Bi 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, WP isn't a source for notability. I was just suggesting that there is Wikipedia precedent for Watner's being viewed as notable within the community. Other non-WP citations of Watner by notable figures include this one by Roderick Long, this one by Murray Rothbard, and this one by David Gordon (different D.G. from the one described here). There are also his fairly numerous peer-reviewed journal articles in such journals as the Journal of Libertarian Studies and his work in the Libertarian Forum. DickClarkMises 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Hans-Hermann Hoppe lists Watner's work as "essential [anarcho-capitalist] reading" here, a Cato Institute Handbook on Policy (2005) calls his book with McElroy "recommended reading" here, and an Independent Institute work notes a journal article of Watner's here. DickClarkMises 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, in each of these Watner is merely part of a list of authors. Bi 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are lists of works described by the list compilers as being important works in the realms of discourse about which the compilers are noted as experts. According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), an academic is notable if "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources," or if "The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field." The fact that notable, recognized authorities on libertarianism/anarchocapitalism have cited Watner's works as "essential" or "recommended" seems to clearly meet these conditions. DickClarkMises 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watner is not an academic. He's not Prof. Watner or Dr. Watner, or whatever, he's just Watner. And WP:N says, "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Bi 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watner has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. If you want to argue that he can't be called an "academic" unless he works at a school, I think think you are using an overly narrow definition of the word. The editor (Long) and the editorial board of the JLS are all academics and Watner's submitted articles have apparently passed muster with them. The same is true with other journals. To your second point, I don't think it is trivial for six recognized authorities (HHH, Cato, MNR, II, Long, and Gordon) in Watner's realm of discouse to say that his writings are "recommended" or "essential." To me that means that he is a reasonable subject to cover in an encylopedia that is not paper. And just to add to those above, here is a quotation of Watner by Long in a paper presented in 1995. This academic has notably criticized Watner's theoretical work. DickClarkMises 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would additionally note that Watner's article in the March 1973 Libertarian Forum was seemingly written as a response to some history of thought writing that Rothbard did. This is noteworthy for our purposes here because Rothbard was arguably both the foremost libertarian thinker (for a while anyway) and the editor of LF. This means that Rothbard more or less thought Watner's response to his own work was valuable and notable. DickClarkMises 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the "citations" offered by DickClarkMises above. Long's reference to Watner is merely in the context of a summary of a magazine issue — if that counts as a "citation", then by jove, one may as well say that a journal's table of contents counts as a "citation"! Also, it's the references to Watner which need to be peer reviewed; and as far as I can see, Rothbard's and Gordon's essays haven't undergone any rigorous peer review process. (Well, Rothbard seems to be some sort of authority on libertarianism, but he mentions Watner only very briefly, as someone who discovered another work by someone else.) I don't think any of these add up to notability for Watner. Bi 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, Rothbard's essays have undergone extensive peer review. But that doesn't ever matter. That's not required for something to be notable. Watner is extremely notable as THE major voluntaryist of the late 20th and early 21st century. Anarcho-capitalism 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Watner is extremely notable as THE major voluntaryist of the late 20th and early 21st century." If so, then why do the references to him all seem so pathetic? Bi 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being the editor and publisher of The Voluntaryist since 1982 makes him notable. Anarcho-capitalism 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is bordering on argumentum ad nauseam. So let me put it this way: the fact that he's the publisher of The Voluntaryist is so notable that neither Long, Rothbard, nor Gordon even bothered to mention this very significant fact? Bi 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether anyone mentions it or not, it's true. He's the editor and publisher of the Voluntaryist.Anarcho-capitalism 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We're not questioning truth, we're questioning notability. Why does being editor and publisher of the Voluntaryist make him notable? There doesn't appear to be multiple, nontrivial, reputatable third party referrences to it. This is sounding suspiciously like WP:ILIKEIT. --RaiderAspect 11:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because The Voluntaryist is notable. There are large number of references to it. Take your pick in a Google search. It's in the mind of the beholder whether those references are trivial. I dont know what you mean by "reputable."Anarcho-capitalism 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Mind of the beholder"? There's a clear difference between an entire essay or an entire web site devoted to discussing a person, and just an occasional, random name drop. Give us a break. Bi 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do note my political affinities on my userpage, but what I was objecting to as a Wikipedian is that you are applying what I consider to be an unusual standard to this case. I wasn't quite sure why you would persist in favoring this AfD after the verifiable sources above were known, so I looked at your userpage, where—to your credit—you disclose that you are the proprietor of the site I linked above. I may be a libertarian, but I hadn't read anything of Watner's before, met him, or heard him speak, although I had seen him cited in the literature during my time working as librarian at the Mises Institute. This is the reason that my first sources were from there, because I already knew the guy was mentioned in a few places at mises.org since I recalled having seen his name on the front cover of the Institute's quarterly JLS and elsewhere. DickClarkMises 14:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging Voluntaryism and Carl Watner would be a mistake. Watner is a notable scholar/writer who is not the first or most notable voluntaryist. There is no compelling reason why his article, a biography, should be merged with an article about a political philosophy that he supports. DickClarkMises 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given and possible bad-faith spa nom. MER-C 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kelso[edit]

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

This is an attack article. Stratherian 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) — Stratherian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please don't encourage people to contribute to or read that overtly bias joke. Seriously, we don't want to actually drive away all the conservatives to there in the interest of keeping multiple points of view around or something. - Arch NME 16:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deletaeporn. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeoporn[edit]

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

Not only a neologism, but a neologism created yesterday. The author of this coinage is more qualified than most, and I agree with his sentiment, but a neologism with no history of use that's 2 days old at most is just not notable. Deranged bulbasaur 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:08Z

Vedic City, Iowa[edit]

Vedic City, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this truly an incorporated location? --prev. speedy by other ed.,but I think discussion needed DGG 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: AfD nominations are great for motivating people to find proper sources. --Philosophus T 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted below, this is very much about WP:V and WP:RS problems, not an issue of whether or not it is a city. The article is currently an advertisement, and contains no independent reliable sources. --Philosophus T 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify that. It was an article with no independent reliable sources. Thanks Dhartung! --Philosophus T 07:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a CDP that wasn't around during the last census, so it appears that the census has hardly any information on it. --Philosophus T 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:42Z

Marc Lemire[edit]

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

This is an attack article on a living person. Subject is not notable as there are no news articles, books etc used as sources. Stratherian 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC) — Stratherian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sources, non notable, possible WP:COI issues. Dakota 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Jane Duff[edit]

Jessie Jane Duff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotional article. Has not been improved in one year since first nomination. Non-notable. Still contains no references or sources. Btl 05:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a failure of WP:CSD G11 and WP:CORP. alphachimp 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Ranch[edit]

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

Notability? Guroadrunner 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Penland[edit]

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

I want to keep his story out of personal interest, but it fails notability and the article is pretty messed up to begin with Guroadrunner 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Draft Condi movement. --Coredesat 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Dr. Rice[edit]

Americans for Dr. Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertisment. No legit notability in article. No notability in any linked persons. No references or sources. External links are all promotional. Btl 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A million? I count 183. Your count is off by about 3 orders of magnitude. --Calton | Talk 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freeorder[edit]

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

Notability, very few hits on Google, and the term is not found in online dictionary sources Guroadrunner 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Comesuntbob (talk · contribs) admits it's "mis-information". —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:03Z

Atomic Geo-Reference Standard[edit]

Atomic Geo-Reference Standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Unverified, and apparently unverifiable technology. An editor points out that the timing of its advent and its supposed origins in XML suggest a hoax. I agree. Shunpiker 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George_Noon[edit]

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

No news on his death, random text MatthiasG 06:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) http://www.debakeydepartmentofsurgery.org/home/content.cfm?menu_id=43&pageview=fac_item&fac_pk=97&view=pt_brief doesn't mention it and I don't find anything on Google News. MatthiasG 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddlebuddy[edit]

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

The article has no sources and feels like original research. Neither of the external links uses the term cuddlebuddy, or even buddy; and the more encyclopedic of the two external links doesn't use the word cuddle either. Vicarious 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. alphachimp 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hikorio the Peasant Prince[edit]

Hikorio the Peasant Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Strangely enough, all of the Google hits for this manga relate to its Wikipedia article, making it potentially non-notable. Any manga experts know if its notable? Guroadrunner 07:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Google results. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling the author turns up only this Wikipedia entry and the home page of a 12-year-old. Most likely made up in school one day. —Celithemis 09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:BIO and per Celithemis.--– Dakota 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Googled it myself, failed. Only links are to (copies of) WP article. Aside from this article, Googling "Jackson Hoult" only turns up the same page that Celithemis got. Fourohfour 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Deceased[edit]

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

Article about an unknown new band that hasn't released an album yet. Not to be confused with Deceased (band). Furthermore, the editor's username and the subject's obscurity suggests that the editor is bandmember Lazer Von Corpsegrinder, making this also a conflict of interest. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deletion by admin Rama's Arrow as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G12. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wassong[edit]

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

Direct copyvio of a biography on http://www.minyanville.com/ (scroll down) - notability questionable Guroadrunner 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The O (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Article makes claims of touring the UK and eastern US, although this is very doubtful and unproven. According to this link, their only CD release is home-made. Their website http://www.the-o.tv/ no longer active. Canley 08:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Initiatives and Marshall Bailly[edit]

Leadership Initiatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Marshall Bailly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A philantropic organisation and its founder. Reads too much like an advert. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 08:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:39Z

Muhammad saw[edit]

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

Obvious POV fork of Muhammad. On the article talk page, the creator all but admits this. I reconsidered the speedy because "screed" is specifically excluded. Deranged bulbasaur 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron bebe sukura[edit]

Does not seems to be notable Alex Bakharev 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO; a mere 71 Google hits. --Kevin Walter 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the "google hits" test is useful in assessing a musician from Ghana, as many of the sources covering him may not be online. However, I'm currently agnostic on the question of this particular entry, pending further research. JavaTenor 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Cause (Commonwealth)[edit]

Common Cause (Commonwealth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this group is at all notable. The google hits refer to it (most refer to other things) are all from its own website. At best it's the obscure work of a handful of people who have little presence outside the internet. Stringops 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a surprise that this was nominated.RepublicUK 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The members of this organisation make it notable, all 4 of the most prominent republican movements in the commonwealth of nations. Here is some evidence of notability http://www.canadian-republic.ca/common_cause_media_release_04_06_05.html http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/news&events/news.htm http://www.republic.org.uk/commoncause/index.htm RepublicUK 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Are these constitute organizations themselves notable enough to have wikipedia articles? (I didn't see them on a quick look). Bo 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Answer Yep, at least the Canadian organization is listed, so.... Bo 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Comment If they answer to the question above is 'No' then I'd suggest that the aggregate isn't notable either. If the answer to the above is 'Yes', then I'd suggest that aggregate is also notable. Bo 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Component Organizations are Notable, the fact they feel it helpful to form an alliance, and have done so is also 'notable'. Bo 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by User:Neil. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:59Z

Computer-Assisted EFL Writing Development[edit]

Computer-Assisted EFL Writing Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an essay, and includes an introduction, and conclusion. It also may be original research as a synthesis of of the other sources cited in the reference. Note that this article also exists as an entry in wikibooks. Whpq 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Buchwald[edit]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:58Z

English porno film directors[edit]

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

Since this article was created it's been bogus. Note the references to "Ben Dover", and mafias. If you read the article carefully you'll basically notice that it's crap. It's been continuously edited, making it even worse from the original. "English porno film directors", is not a reference to individual directors, but a moronic article about Ben Dover and his mafia woman.

I hope this can be deleted asap.

Beelake 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders who Beelake is! Also his motivation for wanting to suppress the truth and freedom of speech? Porn Gold by David Hebditch and Nick Anning two highly respected authors has also been suppressed it seems! The truth is that an investigation of Ben Dover and Mike Freeman and the raid on Videx Ltd will uncover corruption at extremely high levels. Where is "mafia women" mentioned? Mike Freeman, film director and former director of Videx Ltd http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/books.htm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.83.9.8 (talk • contribs)

No-one has commented on Porn Gold and perhaps to be fair they should read the references on Mike Freeman before commenting further. Porn Gold by David Hebditch and Nick Anning is a hardback and is available from libraries on request. It is also online to official librarians. Linda Pow, teacher.

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeek[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism; Violates WP:NFT.Hondasaregood 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTE: This article was deleted in a second nomination.

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

The result was no consensus, does need cleanup though. Jaranda wat's sup 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Nebeker Karhohs[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable. Sad story, but non-notable. Arbiteroftruth 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a passage from WP:N on notability --- Notability is generally permanent

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be notable in the future.

---

With that said, do we expect this person who has since departed to retain the "notability" (if we can even call it that) 6 months from now? True, her families will remember her, but people as an ordinary citizen, people like me, would most likely (pretty much certain to) move on. I don't think any Average Joe would continue to mourn this person's passing after a few weeks.

Like I said earlier, what I am doing here is unclouded by conflicts of interests, as we cannot let our emotions get in the way of editing Wikipedia. My sympathies are with the Karhohs family for their loss, but this is not, was not, and will never be, a ticket to an article on Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon, if we take emotions out of it, this article has not passed the threshold by any length. Hence, the rule that it will never pass the threshold. It never reached the standards for inclusion! Arbiteroftruth 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move the page to Karhoh's userpage, and delete the main entry on Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge, I am obviously leaving it to the editors. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Net10 Wireless[edit]

Net10 Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I created this article a long time ago, hoping that somebody would expand upon it and make it notable enough. However, it hasn't happened, and doesn't pass WP:CORP or WP:N. It's time to get rid of it. --Адам12901 Talk 06:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better if you just merge it with Tracfone given it's just an offering of the latter. --Squiggleslash 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it would be better. --Адам12901 Talk 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Smith (mathematician)[edit]

Penny Smith (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability questionable, and based on a brief media storm around a preprint that quickly died away. Does not seem fair to brand here as the mathematicians who claimed to have proved Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness but was mistaken. It was just a preprint, and preprints are not publications Billlion 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "brief media storm" seems to be limited to mostly blogs (such as Peter Woit's) and several articles, e.g. in Nature, Seed, NZZ (for nonsubscription access to the Nature article see [24]). In terms of "notability" Wikipedia: Notability would assert this coverage was enough and cannot diminish over time; however, this guideline (whose status has always been kind of dubious anyway) is at the moment heavily contested. I would like to add that feelings of sympathy ideally should not play into whether this article is kept or not. It is best to be consistent in what we decide is kept or not, regardless of how we feel about the subject. Nonetheless, in my opinion, articles like this can never be more than marginal keep. I personally think creating a whole bio on Smith because of this is rather dubious. --C S (Talk) 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That was what I meant to say in the nomination. Thankyou very well put. Billlion 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:Allen3. Majorly (o rly?) 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red wings (Sexual Act)[edit]

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

At best a definition; uncited, List of sexual slang terms cruft. Delete. ChronicallyUninspired 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect. Make sure that it gets a mention on the artiste page. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stoned[edit]

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

This is not a notable song (not a single, does not receive radio play), and the page has been deleted before. The entirety of the article is original research. –King Bee (T • C) 14:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. Well, mostly it's certainly not original research - the list of cultural references is taken straight from the lyrics. The only bit that might contravene WP:OR is the "..the song is thought to be..." part, but OTOH that's pretty obvious from the lyrics. So the remaining question is "is it a notable song?". Yep, it wasn't a single; Yep, it doesn't receive radio play (mind you, it's 11 minutes long), hmm, difficult. (Google - "Rosetta Stoned"+Tool = 92,000 Ghits.) EliminatorJR Talk 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N as applied at WP:BAND - and I'm a huge Tool fan too, just this song is not notable and even if it did receive radio play or was released somewhere, it would not become so. This is also the case with nearly the entire Tool song category. Someone needs to talk to the project guys about what WP:N means with regard to songs. Pretty much the only way a Tool song could become notable is to win a Grammy, which applies to Ænema and Schism. Orderinchaos78 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither appears to qualify it as notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Different, yes, interesting, yes, but notability means it has "been the subject of secondary sources [and] such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." Until it wins a Grammy or takes an unexpected turn into pop culture such as Dandy Warhols "Bohemian Like You" did, it probably fails WP:N. Furthermore, due to the lack of secondary coverage of it, its current incarnation appears to fail WP:ATT on original research grounds. Orderinchaos78 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Dismissed. ((sofixit)). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:57Z

San Diego Jewish Academy[edit]

San Diego Jewish Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article reads like an advertisement and frequently contains great errors with regard to history and with regard to the nature of the school. Alkdsjfjife 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of Saturday Night Live hosts[edit]

Statistics of Saturday Night Live hosts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

somewhat OR, redundant with barely notable SNL 5-Timers Club having it, fails WP:NOT in being an indiscriminate source of info, and doesn't need it's own page. Booshakla 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. WP:NOT#IINFO is not applicable as this is obviously neither a "list of FAQs", a "travel guide", a "memorial", an "instruction manual", an "internet guide", a "textbook", a "plot summary", or a "lyrics database".
  2. This is not OR as all of the information can be sourced either from SNL records, news articles, or (failing all else) the show itself (a primary source).
  3. WP:TRIV is a more serious argument, but one that I also believe is inapplicable here. This is not a mere collection of trivial facts, but rather provides information that can be used to determine what type of show SNL is (based on the identity of the people it hosts). -- Black Falcon 08:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you keep arguing that WP:NOT doesn't apply to these sorts of things. You know as well as I do that the list there is not exhaustive and arguing to keep something because it's not on the list is disingenuous at best. As for this being a helpful guide to the sort of show that SNL is, what specifically does this article tell us about the sort of show SNL is based on the identity of its hosts? Otto4711 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, if it's not on the list of the 8 items, then it cannot be used. If we claim that it is not "exhaustive", then I could make an equally valid argument that WP:NOT#IINFO for biographies of heads of state. How are you going to argue against that? After all, the list isn't exhaustive... . WP:NOT is a policy and, as such, should only include what consensus has determined should be excluded. Neither you nor I constitute consensus. We have to act based on what's on the list, and none of the 8 things there cover this. -- Black Falcon 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on the list of 8 would expressly forbid List of blue things but there's not a chance in hell it would withstand a challenge on the grounds of WP:NOT#IINFO. Clearly the eight consensed items are violations but there is nothing in the language of WP:NOT#IINFO that says those are the only eight things that can be considered indiscriminate collections of information. Otto4711 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken. List of blue things would fall under WP:NOT#DIR rather than WP:NOT#IINFO. According to your claim, my hypothetical argument that WP:NOT#IINFO for presidential biographies is perfectly valid. After all, it doesn't mean anything if it's not on the list list. If it's not listed there, that means there is no consensus for it, and you cannot cite that policy. If you hold a personal belief that this is indiscriminate, you may (quite validly) note that, but please don't reference the policy. That's just plain misleading. -- Black Falcon 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the vast number of articles that have been deleted as indiscriminate collections without having their article type explicitly named in the Big 8, given that there is not a single word in the policy that can reasonably be interpreted as making the Big 8 definitive and given that under the simple rationale of basic common sense a presidential biography is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's you who's being misleading by pretending that IINFO has no possible application here. Otto4711 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it has no possible application. What I'm saying is that is has no application grounded in policy. One can make a very compelling argument that something or another is indiscriminate, but no matter how fantastic that argument is, unless it's one of the Big 8, it's not grounded in policy and should not consist of a simple, unexplained link to WP:NOT#IINFO. I intend to review my position in light of Mangojuice's comment that this article is semi-redundant, but until an actual argument is made as to why this is indiscriminate (except "who gives a damn"), I cannot see WP:NOT#IINFO as applicable. -- Black Falcon 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm not certain which deleted articles you're referring to, but I should note that I supported deletion in most of the "in popular culture" and other related nominations (although often for reasons other than WP:NOT#IINFO). -- Black Falcon 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden History of Zionism[edit]

The Hidden History of Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I have a suspicion too that it is just another Protocols of the Wise of Zion, but I rather see it merged in relevant parts than being accused of being biased AlfPhotoman 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson Middle School (Arlington County, Virginia)[edit]

Thomas_Jefferson_Middle_School_(Arlington_County,_Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

1. I once went to a far more remarkable school with the same name, 1200 enrolled kids, several Honor School of Excellence awards in NC, and winning A School To Watch award along with only 107 other schools in the country. Yet nobody ever considered an article.

2. The only reason the English Wikipedia has over 1.2 Million pages is because of nonsense like this. As I said, there are much more remarkable schools that have no article or even a passing mention anywhere in Wikipedia. It has only been contributed on by 3 people or their cooresponding IP Addresses. FinalWish 02:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, I don't see notability established by mentions in secondary sources. The Washington Post might persuade me to make it a very weak keep, but then we have a school notable for a teacher playing Mah Jongg with some of her pupils during the lunch break... Huon 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The school has the second largest gymnasium in Virginia;
  2. The school is used as the location for Arlington County's annual fair;
  3. The school has been noted in a Washington Post article; and
  4. The sixth grade lobby is green, the seventh grade lobby is yellow, and the eighth grade lobby is blue. Although this last one doesn't do anything to establish notability, I find it rather (disturbingly?) strange. -- Black Falcon 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Post article is a little "people" story about the teacher who plays mah-jong with students; it is only incidentally about the school. The gymnasium is at the community center next door, it is just used by the school. Site of local annual fair - how... unexciting. But I appreciate your working with my strange demands for something interesting in the article. Anyone else? (We once moved into an apartment where all the rooms were painted different pastel colors, apparently after the colors of NECCO wafers. It was slightly disturbing, but I'm not writing a Wikipedia article about it.) --Brianyoumans 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is nothing wrong with a "people" story, given that it is about a teacher from this school. Second, what you (and admittedly I as well) find unexciting is not particularly important: a county fair is a county fair and it undoubtedly attracts significant annual local attention (see WP:LOCAL). And no offense to your (former?) apartment, but it probably has far less significance than a school which tens of thousands will attend. -- Black Falcon 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Commonwealth Society[edit]

Federal Commonwealth Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


DELETE

Can the above be correctly summarized as "Not Notable" and "NPOV Violations"? Bo 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, did you research this at all RepublicUK? You said: "*There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email." But, when I enter the "contact us" section, this is what I found:
"Federal Commonwealth Society
30 Dale Avenue, Suite 1003
Scarborough, Ontario
M1J 3N4 CANADA"
Please research something before making false claims. --Couter-revolutionary 10:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the points you made:
This is a private address, It is not registered to any organisation.
Without publishing its accounts it is not an official organisation, I do not have to prove that it is not publishing accounts, YOU have to prove that it IS publishing accounts.
It is not registered with the electoral authorities in any of the nations that it professes to be active in, all political organisations and not just political parties have to be registered.
Google is a search engine and so can't be used for referencing.
The only reference for it on the BBC website is in the 'action network' section and was written by the organisation itself and has not been updated for almost 3 years. The 'action network' section can be written by anyone and needs no proof or evidence that what has been written is true. RepublicUK 10:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do you know it is a private address, have you been there? "Suite 1003" sounds like an office to me. You have proposed it for deletion, you prove it doens't publish accounts. And yes, I too believe the proposal for deletion was in bad faith.--Couter-revolutionary 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a private address because it is a condo.

You clearly don't understand how this works, I nominated it for deletion and you have to prove that it shouldn't be. I know it doesn't publish accounts by their own admission.

  • Comment. What proof have you to say that "This is an organisation worthy of an article", it is not good enough to just state that, you must provide evidence, also on of the arguements to avoid during an AfD is "particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites" - provide evidence to prove notablility or else these words will just sound pretty hollow.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Just because there articles less notable doesn't mean that this should automatically existRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You have not provided any evidence that it has been noted in the news.
  • Comment. Less than 200 members makes an organisation unremarkable RepublicUK 15:03, 23

February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The United States Cabinet has only 15 members, is that unremarkable? Numbers aren't everything. Ben W Bell talk 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this user has made one edit! An Edwardian Sunday 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://anglosphereunionnow.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html
Comment This is a blog with no references to the FCS, It doesn't even have a single entry and hasn't been edited for 2 years.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/search/label/Churchill
Comment The only reference to the FCS is a very small link to a defunct website.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.delhiin.com/wiki-Commonwealth_of_Nations
Comment There is no reference to the FCS, there is just a link at the very bottom of the page to the FCS website. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=92732
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/links.html Bo 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a reference, It is just a website with a link to the FCS website without any info about it whatsoever.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.africancrisis.org/ZZZ/ZZZ_News_008690.asp another 'good one' Bo 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no evidence that this is anything to do with this organisation. It has a link to a website that has the same initials but a completely different name.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exactly the same as the african crisis link. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all blogs which are not independent sources.RepublicUK 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to take different views on the organization, and aren't hosted by the same group. Perhaps I'm confused on what counts as 'independent source'. Bo 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could have been written by anyone of youRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conceded - Sources listed (by me) are not Reliable, and do not met wikipedia's standard as 'citations' Bo 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


8th edit by this user. 6 of the others on the article under AfD. Tyrenius 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. Incidently How many of you are not members of this organisation?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Wiki is not a crystal ball, if it becomes notable in future then an article should be written.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you implying?RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because this is a new accountRepublicUK 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But what is YOUR reason for keeping.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Almost all of the people that have voted are members of this organisation.RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can not know that. I am not a member. It is irrelevant. - Kittybrewster 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On what basis are you making that comment.--Vintagekits 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It can't be an important movement within the commonwealth because nobody has ever heard of it
  • Comment. Please don't make assertions you cannot prove. You do not know who has/hasn't heard of it or who is/isn't a member.--Couter-revolutionary 12:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is for you to prove the Societies notablility not vice versa.--Vintagekits 12:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has only 50 members 50 out of more than 25% of the worlds population.RepublicUK 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence for this comment? A reference?--Couter-revolutionary 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree, there are signs of sockpuppetry, however, that does not prove the Societies notability. Maybe you should focus on proving notability and then we can fish out if or if not he is a sock.--Vintagekits 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Right that all well and good but where is the proof of notability?--Vintagekits 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator of this AfD is not required to challenge the opinions of each person who votes to keep (he has now posted 14 times on this page - his avid supporter Vintagekits at leats 7 times in the same vein). It is for Wiki editors to give their views and for the ajudicators to then decide. That is how the process works. Christchurch 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually that's not true, Vintagekits has it right. People on these discussions express their evidence and their opinion, the comments are not votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The comments, the manner of the comments, any evidence supplied and so on are taken into account by the admin who closes the debate, but the closing admin has the final say in the matter. There could be 15 people saying Keep, and 2 saying Delete, and it gets deleted on the basis of what is supplied, not how people believed they "voted". Just for future reference. Ben W Bell talk 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please, Ben W Bell, could you have the democracy bit put on Wikipedia's home page please. This seems to me important as the founders seem to think it is a democracy. David Lauder 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Ben W Bell talk 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.No, how wiki works is on proof! When you state something even just an opinion you should be able to back that up with proof. So far NOT ONE EDITOR who has stated "Keep" has provided EVIDENCE of notability.--Vintagekits 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saying that, maybe it shall become true.--Couter-revolutionary 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd edit by this user, who has a very similar IP address to User:81.151.155.249 who has already !voted "keep" above. Tyrenius 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Comment We have a lot of votes here calling this organization "notable," but there is zero assertion of notability in the article. If you're considering using "notable" as your reason for saying this article should be kept, then please review Wikipedia:Notability first to see what "notable" actually means in the context of Wikipedia. If the criterion here is notability, the article as it stands right now fails. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, OK then, what written text/books provide proof that it is notable. All we need is Major Bonkers and we have the full set.--Vintagekits 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vintagekits. You seem very busy on this issue.--Major Bonkers 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside and to be honest, I found that last exchange very amusing. Tyrenius 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As my dear friend Vintagekits says, printed sources would be absolutely wonderful. I don't see any in your comment here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirded. Incidentally, "there might be printed sources that make it notable" is definitely not a justification for keeping an article. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without wishing to criticise anyone or Wikipeida itself, I feel bound to say that by some of the strictures outlined above that the Encyclopaedia Britannica whould have to shed most of its content. There are far far less important and non-notable organisation/group pages on Wikipedia. At least this one has a profile and a purpose. David Lauder 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EB has different criteria to WP. It relies on the judgement of experts. WP can be edited by anyone, so verification is mandatory. Tyrenius 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The Society seems notable to me- I remember them being quoted by Sky News on Commonwealth Day in 2006. Astrotrain 10:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment If you can provide a supporting reference that is verifiable for their notability I will happily change my opinion, but I haven't managed to locate one. Remember, verifiability not truth (and I'm an Inclusionist). Ben W Bell talk 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their website doesn't seem to even exist anymore. Will people still argure that they are notable?

I see what you mean, it now directs to the Toronto Transformation Party. --Couter-revolutionary 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't read too much into that, could be that their hosting company has had an issue. I've seen it happen with many websites in the past where going to the URL would send you to somewhere else hosted by the same company, probably be fixed in the next couple of days. Does make it harder to judge though, but that shouldn't be take into account I'd imagine it's just a mistake somewhere. Ben W Bell talk 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out the Forum and apparently it is a server problem. Hamiltonguy 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)hamiltonguy[reply]

Comment: Can we be clear on this. The same editors may not turn up on the same AfDs. The same or similar editors may not reach the same conclusions as each other. Is this a Wikipedia policy? "Block-voting" is your personal opinion. What have you and User:Tyrenius (who regularly support each other and vote exactly the same way) been telling other users about personal opinions? Really, I think your attitude towards other users is outrageous and wrong. David Lauder 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my take (and MrDarcy may have something different to say): editors often turn up on the same AfDs because they have the same interests. The problem occurs when those editors merely express biased opinions based on whether they approve of the subject or not, without attempting to objectively apply non-negotiable policies such as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, or guidelines such as WP:N and WP:RS. No one attempting to do this could possibly argue for the retention of this article. This does become a matter of concern and needs to be addressed. MrDarcy and I have taken the same stance on this article, because any non-biased editor would have to !vote delete, if they were following policy. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. The only thing that I would add is that I was pointing out that when those editors are expressing the SAME biased opinions, using the SAME flawed justifications, it looks like users are acting in concert to sway Wikipedia in one direction. And that, to me, is unacceptable. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folks don't forget that some of us that 'voted KEEP' have actually posted material that we thought supported the position (the Africa Crises one where someone was making fun of the FCS as a racist organization that would support an "white" South Africa in particular looked 'good' to me at the time I added to this discussion), I have of course after review conceeded that the blog in question doesn't pass the 'reliable' test... But not all the 'Keeps' are from the established opposition party. Bo 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not directed at you, because you are doing what should be done, namely searching to see if references are available to justify the article, not just saying keep based only on personal preference. However, as none of the refs are in the article to substantiate it, maybe you should reconsider your position now. Tyrenius 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We seem to have the same admins, as well.--Major Bonkers 13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost like a family. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again somebody has said it is notable but they don't say how or provide any evidence for it, also this man is a member of this orgRepublicUK 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but I can assure you I am not a member, as I am interested in politics that relate to New Zealand and the Commonwealth, I don't deny I watch with interest what they say (on their Forum etc) but I have never been involved in any business of this Society Brian | (Talk) 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RepublicUK, you really should back up a claim like that with evidence, or else you shouldn't make it at all. Brian, unfortunately we have already established that this organization is not notable. Please review Wikipedia:Notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course I disagreed, however independent sources do seem to be a bit hard to find, perhaps this could be deleted for now, with the view to recreate, when the org comes more notable. I'll change my !vote to Keep Brian | (Talk) 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He just admitted he is registered on their forum, according to the FCS or UCS as they seem to be calling themselves now, that makes him a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs)

Really? if thats the case I shall e-mail the admin now, and get my form registration removed, I can sure you, I have no conflict of interest here, however do you RepublicUK? do you want this article deleted because it is in conflict with your views? Brian | (Talk) 05:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would it be in conflict with my views?RepublicUK 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comments This bickering is quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it is in accord with anyone's views or in conflict with them. All that matters is whether it meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, namely whether WP:N can be established with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Good editors do not let their personal views dominate their editorial role. Tyrenius 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has been decided that it is not notable, why hasn't it been deleted?RepublicUK 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because you've made a mess of the AfD and overwritten the first one. This needs to be sorted out. Tyrenius 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't create this page, I merely nominated the article. I beleive it was someone called 'kafziel' who started this page so don't get bitchy with me, take it up with them'RepublicUK 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been established?--Counter-revolutionary 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 5. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200 greatest Israelis[edit]

200 greatest Israelis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Copyvio. Non-notable list, a google search for "200 greatest israelis" brings up zippo non-wiki ghits. MER-C 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Majorly (o rly?) 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIN TV Wiliamsport Tower[edit]

Woodstock Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LIN TV Wiliamsport Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kitchener Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previously nominated as part of batch which resulted in a train-wreck. These three are once again nominated. For rationale, please refer to User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. Ohconfucius 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Pokémon defense "is frequently used in error, given the amount of publicity and renown the "average Pokémon" has gotten worldwide". Pro-soccer is one of the most followed sports on earth today, and plenty of sources exist every week. In class-obsessed Britain, every person given a title of nobility is continually hounded by the British press, who often publish articles about the minutiae of their aristocratic existence. Please don't confuse compliance with WP:V with notability. Radio and TV stations may be notable, but the same cannot be said of its transmitter tower. The database information is already included in List of masts article, so a merge is pointless. I have responsible for purging wikipedia of over 300 of these hopeless stub articles with little potential for improvement, and this is but a final clean-up of those few which have not been deleted, merged, or redirected to their respective TV or radio stations. Ohconfucius 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western Australian JSHAA Member Schools[edit]

List of Western Australian JSHAA Member Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is simply a redundant list which is unencylopeadic and is currently being handled by the category WA JSHAA Members (Currently up for renaming at CfD to bring into line with relevant policy). thewinchester 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JSHAA is a notable schools organisation and categorisation just like Greater Public Schools and the like which exist all over the country. Google searches don't tell you everything. JRG 12:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wulf Zendik[edit]

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

A non-notable bio on a non-notable person. Entry claims that he's a world-reknowned philosopher, essayist, and inventor, but that most certainly remains to be seen. Little/no evidence of such are provided outside of those provided by his "new religious movement." This wiki is nothing more than a vanity page made by his followers. Rashaun 09:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.5 million Zendik magazines containing his work have been sold to date, and many books, Cds, shirts, and other art are purchased by people all over this country and the world every week, which seems to indicate that Wulf Zendik and his work are notable to them. Barnes and Nobles carries "A Quest Among the Bewildered", his auto-biographical novel. Also, sorry about the format mess-up, and sourcing and referencing are still new to me, I'll have them up soon... please bear with me... Jyre 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entry does not claim "World Reknowned" status, merely that over the last thirty years of his life his art and writing were known in countercultural circles... Rashaun seems to have a grudge against Zendik... Jyre 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jyre (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, marginal notability established per the sources provided. The articles need to be cleaned up so as it doesn't read like an advertisement. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Weekend[edit]

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

Questionable notability, no reliable sources. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 multiple third party coverage per WP:BIO, see WP:AADD. Sandstein 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optic (street artist)[edit]

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

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist) a while back as a procedural close and optional relist. In that debate, it was identified (but not held in consensus due to the logistical nightmare) that this artist was very borderline notability. I endorse this opinion, and given it appears no-one else has, I am nominating this article for deletion. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarthy[edit]

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

This is an article containing just a definition of a word. Should be put in wiktionary Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice_Wright[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated; only external source is subject's website Parsleyjones 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Australian JSHAA Member Schools[edit]

List of South Australian JSHAA Member Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, would be better handled as a sub-category under Category:JSHAA Member Schools (Currently up for renaming to reallign with policy) thewinchester 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the basis for notability? You have not successfully answered this question to justify the statement, something that has already been pointed out in the comments you have made here. While the organisation may have notable members, this does not confer Notability by default on the organisation. No person in the community at large would have any awareness of the subject matter. The article as a list is totally redundant and pointless as it links to none of the schools and the same function could easily be handled thru better categorisation of the member schools, a point which has already been proven thru the restructure of the list of WA schools that are members of the organisation. To simply move to keep something because you had some involvement in the content's creation is not enough of a reason for a keep. thewinchester 11:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had little to do with the making of this article, in fact - i only added a solitary reference. I think that the way this should be handled is that the cat:JSHAA should be like the parent category, with the ~5 sub categories to each states category of members, and those categories have links to all of the member schools. There should also be lists of the schools in each state etc etc SMBarnZy 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's what we've been trying to do the last 48 hours as part of a massive cleanup, but you keep getting in the way due to your WP:OWN issues. Instead of hindering the process, why don't you hop on board and help. thewinchester 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victorian JSHAA Member Schools[edit]

List of Victorian JSHAA Member Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, would be better handled as a sub-category under Category:JSHAA Member Schools (Currently up for renaming to reallign with policy) thewinchester 10:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the basis for notability? You have not successfully answered this question to justify the statement, something that has already been pointed out in the comments you have made here. While the organisation may have notable members, this does not confer Notability by default on the organisation. No person in the community at large would have any awareness of the subject matter. The article as a list is totally redundant and pointless as it links to none of the schools and the same function could easily be handled thru better categorisation of the member schools, a point which has already been proven thru the restructure of the list of WA schools that are members of the organisation. To simply move to keep something because you had some involvement in the content's creation is not enough of a reason for a keep. thewinchester 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This organisation has existed for ~50 years and is quite notable within the Western Australian education system. It is quite active within the education system, and facilitates a number of sporting events for member schools, alot of which are in the top schools in Western Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If it is so notable then why has only one newspaper article in its home country of Australia mentioned it in 8-10 years? DanielT5 15:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following improvements. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight blast[edit]

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

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my recommendation to Keep assuming references check out. The article now appears to be much more encyclopedic and is no long unreferenced. Thanks to Black Falcon for the clean up effort. :) Dugwiki 17:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename.--Chaser - T 11:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mini Story Library[edit]

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

Fails WP:N badly. "Thomas Mini Story Library" gives few Google hits, certainly not multiple reliable sources. Croxley 02:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Thomas Story Library (or My Thomas Story Library, which gives fewer Google hits), which is the correct (official) name for the series. These books are widely available in the UK and are a significant new development in the area of 'Thomas' merchandising. (WP:THOMAS members are currently considering how best to cover such merchandising in WP – some of the existing coverage needs considerable work/rationalisation.) As many of the stories in the range are based on the Rev. Awdry's originals, they warrant coverage within WP.
Quote from the publisher's website: "...My Thomas Story Library stories are closely based on the original books by Reverend W. Awdry, retold for a new generation of Thomas fans and accompained by realistic and detailed artwork."
EdJogg 12:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This series certainly has a level of notability, and this is growing as the books become more widely available. Besides the fact that they are, effectively, a "spin-off", from what I have seen they are being merchandised in much the same way as "Mr. Men" books are (similar size and length books, similar price, similar merchandising display...)
Support vote of Rename.
Gonzerelli 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:WEB; blogs are not reliable sources. Sandstein 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comixfan[edit]

Comixfan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Comixfan 04-03-2007.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable website, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Assertion of notability was made by adding an "Awards" section, though the awards don't seem to be notable themselves, and in some cases are not that accurate. For example, "Runner Up" is actually 7th or 10th runner up, and "Winner" was because there were no other competitors in the category. I guess using footnotes to link to every single page on the site set off my WP:VSCA radar. Contested A7 speedy and prod. Leuko 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MSJapan 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as a Webzine link here as being "one of the Web's premier comic book and pop culture resource sites".

That said, I think the main reason for retaining an article on this - and other comic news sites - has been said best here. --Daelf1969 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Links from forums really aren't WP:RS, and the other site linked from is under AfD as well for not being notable per WP:WEB. Also, a link from a link directory where you can submit your own link and description definitely is not a WP:RS. Finally, the argument that this site merits a Wikipedia article because Anna Nicole Smith has one, well what can you really say to that? Leuko 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't merely discussion forums; they're articles that are featured on the respective sites' front pages. That's how a lot of comics news Websites operate.

I'm all out of arguments on this. If you guys can't see the merit, well there's not much else I can do. Fans and professionals in the business know what the sites rep and importance is, and as such I thought it would be cool to have the site featured here.

After the amount of hassle I've had to go through just to (most probably) see my first contribution wiped, rest assured I won't bother to contribute any further articles to this or any other Wikipedia-affiliated sites. It's just not worth the time and effort. --Daelf1969 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update!: I have a link from Peter David's Blog mentioning and linking to Comixfan. Considering that Peter David has his own page here and is notable I beleive this qualifies as a reference and therefore proves that comixfan belongs on wikipedia!

I also have a link from Greg Pak's offical news page linking to comixfan. --Shaoken 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Burg[edit]

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

A very nice man in an important organization, but he is personally not notable as a rabbi to qualify for a biographical article on Wikipedia at this time. Maybe in five years time if he becomes truly famous. There may also be a touch of WP:COI (formerly WP:VANITY) in this three-lined stub. IZAK 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, page is a redirect. Already listed on RfD. --ais523 14:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkiye Devrimci Işçi Senikalari Konfederasyonu[edit]

Turkiye Devrimci Işçi Senikalari Konfederasyonu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The spelling of the redirect is wrong, hence no redirect necessary. Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Chaser T 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Harrington[edit]

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

Reads like promotional vanity, article created by SPA whose only contributions have been promoting this person. No attribution from reliable sources, and little indication this person passes WP:MUSIC. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Lunisolar Calendar[edit]

Simple Lunisolar Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: original research with no sign of attributable sources. Precedents for deletion: Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar, New Earth Calendar, Sol Calendar and The 30x11 Calendar --Pak21 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to propose new ideas unless they have been discussed at some length in the media. Mike 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I had nothing to do with the article's appearaning on Wikipedia. Delete at will. --Robert Pontisso

  • This comment is unsigned. --Greatwalk 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry (still learning). Just curious now: would a specialized mailing list count as a "source"? Robert Pontisso 18:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Lunisolar calendar. The content is based on a simple calculation as per Wiki policy (What is not original research?) and serves as a well-written example of a Lunisolar calendar, which is a main type of Calendar reform. Since we are mentioning precedents, these articles were not deleted: Symmetry454 and Pax Calendar. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pak21, the fact that precedents were mentioned at all translates (to me) as you may be referring to 'rules' that exist for you and not Wiki guidelines. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetry454 was a solid attempt at giving the community a chance to look at all of these well written articles and decide what precedents applied. You make it abundantly clear they don't deserve individual articles, yet few would support you on the concept that all reference to these calendars needs to be purged from Wiki, which you've been attempting to do every time one of these AfDs falls in your favour. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pax Calendar has secondary sources that someone found offline during the AfD discussion period...I think you might find several of these articles can be similarly supported: Peter Meyer is a respected C-programmer with an interest in calendar algorithms...truth is, you don't know how these might be sourced and there is no Wiki guideline that would prevent the use of these calendars as examples of calendar types. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one responded because you have had this same question answered several times before and have tended to ignore all prior discussion: nonetheless, I've asked for further advice and you have a response now. Regards--Greatwalk 12:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meltem İnan[edit]

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

prod was removed, thus listed here. The person does have a Turkish Wikipedia article, but the English version has no assertion of notability and no sources listed. If someone speaks Turkish, please check the notablity on the Turkish page and comment Travelbird 10:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It says Meltem İnan interviewed the 14th Dalai Lama and Richard Gere. There is a relation between those 2 individuals but I haven't found an English assertion of their link to Meltem İnan. –Pomte 01:26, 4 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?) 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Allen Group[edit]

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

Spam. Advertisement for small non-notable company in San Diego. —Ocatecir Talk 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VitaCraft[edit]

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

Non-notable Reads like an advertisement. Sources do not meet criteria of substantial independent work or multiple non-trivial works. —Ocatecir Talk 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, RFIQin was the first article I created and I did not read all the wikipedia guides to writing an article, so when I wrote it, it sounded like an advertisement; User:Pilotguy deleted RFIQin and then I re-wrote the article, Pilotguy approved it, and it was posted back up on wikipedia. RFIQin has more than enough sources that classify, in my opinion, as primary criterion and, in my opinion, is not written as an advertisement. RFIQin is made by Vita Craft, however it is only sold in Japan under Vita Craft Japan because there is an ongoing court case over distributing rights in the United States. When I was in Japan, I saw it featured (not as an advertisement) on two nation-wide television shows, in a magazine, and it is displayed at most major department stores; it is somewhat well known in Japan, but because it is not sold in the United States, it has only recieved a little press coverage in the United States.-ChristopherMannMcKay 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what you wrote is in qoutes
"However, the article lacks independent sourcing attesting to the notability of the company as opposed to the product" What does 'the product' mean, are you talking about RFIQin? The two following links, [35] & [36] are non trivial and completely independent from Vita Craft; furthermore, they do not reference RFIQin. They both provide substantial amount of information, more than what is required according to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, which qualifies this company as notable. I do not understand why you posted comments that are the opposite of this. Do you feel that the two companies that I referenced are trivial and somehow connected to Vita Craft? I would like to know, because to my knowledge these web sites qualify as notablity under wikipedia guidelines. -ChristopherMannMcKay 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is in Japanese so I am unable to comment upon it. The first source, from solidbizopps.com, does not, as yet, convince me as being appropriate since the role of that organisation is far from clear from their 'About Us' link. BlueValour 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)s[reply]
Comment Japanese Source Translated by Google - Here is a translated version, so you can see what the web site is about; it is hard finding sources in English, because Vita Craft is mostly sold in Japan. Please note this web site does not sell any type of Vita Craft products.
Vita Craft is on SolidBizOpps.com beacuse it is a multi-level marketing company, or a company that (in the United States) sells their products through individuals (like Cutco does). Accorinding to the web site, "SolidBizOpps.com has everything you need to succeed while starting a new business. You will find opportunities at any industry; thus, you must be ready to take advantage of them. Find everything you need to know concerning business opportunities, industries, franchises and recent news at SolidBizOpps.com. Do not let your fear overcome your strength and get ready, using the appropriate information, to build your own company." I know the web site is kind of crappy and might not get a lot of vistors, but a web site does not have to be popular or well-designed according to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, it just can't be trivial or connected to the company.
I hope this clarifies things. Please let me know if these sources do not qualify as primary criterion. ChristopherMannMcKay 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the solidbiz website does confirm this company indeed exists, it only provides directory-like information, giving nothing why this company warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory of information. —Ocatecir Talk 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I am aware Wikipedia is not a directory of information, it is an encyclopedia that references companies that are notable, which according to Wikipedia guidelines, this company is. According to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, “The secondary sources in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms.. ..except for the following: Carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.” The two sources ([37][38]) carry MUCH MORE than “directory-like information,” as Ocatecir claims. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia Guidelines, these two sources are not questionable sources because the sources do not "express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" I hope this clarifies things. -ChristopherMannMcKay 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still not convinced this company is notable. Both sources are promotional in nature and do not contain independent analysis of the company, both read like advertisements. Solidbiz seems to be trying to sell the reader on the business opportunity that is Vitacraft. Upon examination of the main website, the stated aim of Solidbizopps.com is to provide "everything you need to succeed while starting a new business."+ The fact that few articles on the company exist from any publication and the promotional nature of the provided sources (one of which is in Japanese) tell the tale of a company that is not notable.
+ Examples of advertising-like language from the Solidbizopps source:
  • "Vita Craft has grown through years of commitment and excellence."
  • "They would like to help you find the opportunity that allows you the flexibility and freedom you want and most importantly, the opportunity that suits your personality."
  • "the customers build lavish look"
These are not the words of an independent source. —Ocatecir Talk 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your right, the Solidbiz source is horrible, I will remove it. But the Japanese source ([39]) is acceptable, beacuse to my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have any guidelines for the language of primary criterion. The company's products are popular in Japan, over 90% of sales if I remember correctly; some of the products arn't even sold in the United States, so that is why there arn't many Enlgish sources.-ChristopherMannMcKay 04:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you speak Japanese? If so, could you translate the Japanese source better? Google's translation is horrible (it is a machine after all). WP:ATT on language:
—Ocatecir Talk 16:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, "Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found," which is what is happening here. I will have my girlfriend translate it because she speaks Japanese and I will provide the original and the translated version as Wikipedia guidelines state. The previous quote reaffirms my point that Japanese sources are allowed and the Japanese source I provided ([40]) qualifies as primary criterion.-ChristopherMannMcKay 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither I or most other English-Wikipedia editors are going to be able to judge that until a better translation of the article is given. Right now the only remaining source is in Japanese and the google translation gives the same type of ad-words the other sources did. Because the only source is in a foreign language we have no idea if the article 1) proves notability 2) is written by an indpendent organization 3) if that organization is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking. The format of the site makes it look like a blog (the "posted by" at the top of the article and the comments section at the bottom)—Ocatecir Talk 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeterato 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Start translation
Vita Craft, made in the United States, is a healthy cookware company that was created from as a result of research and development of two specialists from Seattle University and University of Wisconsin. The pans keep the natural taste of food and cook food in a healthy way.
Vita Craft is made on the basis of preventative medicine, “The health of the family should not be protected by taking medicine, but rather by using waterless, non oil, low temperature, and low pressure home cooking.” (Seems to be a quote from a Vita Craft spokesperson)
In other words, food can become medicine, but it can also be damaging. The type of cookware pots you use determines if you cook healthy food or damaging food.
Features of Vita Craft
-Has thermal efficiency, so the pans require less energy.
-Extensive 5-ply layer system.
-Can be used in multiple power sources, including Induction Heating of 200 volts.
-Can use cookware pans without excessive oil and can cook some items without oil.
-Can cook cakes without burning them like oven cooking often does.
-When you turn off the heat, the pans can still use heat stored inside the pans to cooke the food.
-Easy to take care of.
It has a long-term warranty of 10 years.
The most important feature of the cookware is the nutritional value that does not get destroyed because of waterless cooking. The lid to the cookware pans is designed with a vapor seal that makes it difficult for heat and moisture to escape. As a result, “waterless cooking” is possible to cook items like vegetables by using the water inside the vegetables. The loss of vitamins easily dissolves in water, likewise with waterless cooking, the loss of vitamins is held down to a minimum.
When cooking items like meat, you need less salt because the taste of the food is natural and because excessive oil is not used.
If you have not heard about Vita Craft pans until now, you might desire to buy the cookware.
You must get the price of Vita Craft from the official web site. While the cost may be high, the daily cost of energy will decrease, which will decrease costs in the long run.
Ranking of popular pots:
Gives ranking from 1 to 10 on the popularity of Vita Craft pans. (don’t think this needs to be translated).
End translation
Jeterato 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the translation. I will leave it up to other editors to decide if this is satisfactory. —Ocatecir Talk 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That 100 persons does not include any sales persons, mostly office admin and factory personal. In the U.S., Vita Craft pans are sold by individuals (not employed by the company) that recieve commission for every item they sell. Vita Craft's factory is fairly large, they produce many products that are sold in most every department store in Japan; Vita Craft is also paid to manufacturer pans for Health Craft—a company based in Flordia. -ChristopherMannMcKay 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a link for that? A government document? I think it should be kept either way, but I'd love to see what there is and have the article provide that information.--68.40.58.255 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment
  • I couldn't find government articles about how many current employees, but I found on the Kansas Department of Commerce & Housing 2002 Annual Report (page 62) a short paragraph about Vita Craft and it says 58 employees are being trained from the local community college to work in "process re-engineering, set-up reduction, project management, and effective supervisory skills" for Vita Craft.
  • Rip off Report, a consumer complaint web site, states in a reply from David Night, office manager of Health Craft, said "Our manufacturing facility Vita Craft in Kansas City has been at the same location since 1939." Furthermore, on Health Craft's Offical Web Site, it says "Our manufacturing facility, in the heart of Kansas, has been producing top quality waterless/greaseless cookware since 1939, and in 1983 created Health Craft."
-ChristopherMannMcKay 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vita Craft Corporation. John Reaves (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Craft Japan[edit]

Vita Craft Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Reads like an advertisement. Sources do not meet criteria of substantial independent work or multiple non-trivial works. —Ocatecir Talk 12:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nana's Cookie Company[edit]

Nana's Cookie Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, reads like an advertisement. Weak sources. —Ocatecir Talk 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep after reversion. NawlinWiki 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Holder[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notablity. Prod removed by creator without comment or addition of sources, creator's username (Willholder) indicates a probable conflict of interest FisherQueen (Talk) 13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deletion. Carabinieri 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youngsitymusic[edit]

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

There is no assertion of notability. The user has created other articles related to this that have been protected from recreation. Taking to AfD for a community definitive decision. Leebo86 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:54Z

Silber_(band)[edit]

Silber_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Silber.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Does not assert notability; copyvio (text copied from [41]); probably spam. Schneelocke 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:06Z

SimsTR[edit]

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

The article makes a claim to notability but does not prove it with reliable sources. It sounds like a fan site that has a lot of members, but big numbers aren't inherently notable. Leebo86 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:05Z

Walking Hormones With Super Powers[edit]

Walking Hormones With Super Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability - only 18 Google hits. The only "reference" is a link to a message board (looks like a board where users post fictional creations). Looks like a possible hoax, or someone attempting to advertise his own fictional creation. Dsreyn 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:05Z

Tamil gangs[edit]

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

Undocumented claims. Content is sufficiently inflammatory that it needs to be verifiable in order to be included on Wikipedia. Alvestrand 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Box (Nightclub)[edit]

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

No information given other than that it is a nightclub in Belfast. Not even a link to a website. Veinor (talk to me) 15:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Aggressive Fighting Techniques of America[edit]

Scientific Aggressive Fighting Techniques of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Of 60 google hits on this subject, almost all are either to this WP article or its mirrors Alabamaboy 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:53Z

Campusj[edit]

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

A Columia University newspaper. Seems to have broken one major news story and has a couple of other sources. Not sure if that makes it notable though. Sasquatch t|c 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's not a Columbia University newspaper. It has the following schools represented by individual writers:

2. It's been the subject of the following non-trivial news articles:

It's been featured in, or used a source in the following non-trivial news articles:

3.It is syndicated by the JTA, and thus appears in newspapers all over the world through that.[61]

--Urthogie 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:52Z

Mandara uchiha[edit]

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

Entirely speculative article about a fictional character from Naruto, which is in violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unattributed (WP:A); article almost reads more like fanfiction than a factual article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i beleive this article shouldnt be deleted as it gives out information about the naruto universe uchiha clan & the sharingan,alot is stated & can be used for an information on the sharingan by buddyx0

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

The result was Delete, stacked votes have been stricken and not considered on the basis of this deletion. Jersey Devil 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary peach[edit]

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

Nonnotable local sex offender. Backed by one news article, which does not support many of the details in the Wikipedia article. No reason why this criminal is significant enough for an article per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))
Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reasons why this is being considered for deletion. There is no question that this affects some people, but all Wikipedia articles must meet minimum notability requirements. Also, I would ask that if you are using multiple accounts to add "Don't Delete" votes to this discussion, you stop. We have rules about this kind of thing. -GhostPirate 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No! It's very obvious and lets have some sympathy with the person doing it! Mike 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett McAlister[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable actress, sounds like it was written by a publicity firm. GhostPirate 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salted per WP:CSD G3. GarrettTalk 06:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House Elestar[edit]

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

I do not see the notibility that will ever come of this article, this appears to be a house in the RpG Dungeons and Dragons. I do not see any notability in establishing a Wikipedia article for a non-notable organization/game place. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:MUSIC is met by the reference provided here to a French top-40 hit. I will add it to the article. Scott Davis Talk 12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Close[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC, he has worked with people who have worked with famous people, apparently has 2 albums but nothing is known about whether they have sold, he was to be the star of some show that never opened, seems a bit thin. He's from Belgium but there are no interwiki links to either a nl: or fr: article about him. Carlossuarez46 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I will happily userfy this to anyone who asks to aid in the creation of a category. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of power pop musicians[edit]

List of power pop musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is unmaintainable and a category would serve the job perfectly well. Computerjoe's talk 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:51Z

The War That Ended the World[edit]

The War That Ended the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this is probably something someone made up in school one day -- IMDB and Google searches have failed to come up with anything implying that this exists or that any of these people are actors. I asked MadMax, who created it, about it, and he said he did so just to move the information off the page for Jordan Harris (whose IMDB page doesn't mention anything about this movie), and he agrees that it's probably either made up or very NN. My search did turn up the suspicious fact that there's a school in Colorado named Stargate (the supposed setting of the movie), and a teacher at that school named Marcella Embry (one of the supposed actors).[65] Pinball22 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:03Z

Jon Allie[edit]

Jon Allie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Jon allie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Non notable Warteck 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large pathetic galaxy[edit]

Large pathetic galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

To redirect suggests that Large pathetic galaxy is an alternative name for something called the Virgo stellar stream. This isn't the case. Otherwise we could set up redirects for 'big damp city' to Manchester, 'hot red powder' for chilli and every other description possible for anything in the encyclopedia. Chrislintott 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original statement about a "a rather pathetic galaxy" attributed to Robert Lupton is now called the Virgo Overdensity,[66] or Virgo Stellar Stream. So I believe 23skidoo is correct and a redirect would be suitable. However my preference is for delete because I don't expect to see this name being used for lookups. — RJH (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look through this paper, and see no evidence that it is the same object that is described in Large peculiar galaxy. Of course, I can't read the CNN article as it has now vanished, but the paper described a cluster of red supergiants with no suggestion that said cluster was ever external to our own galaxy, or disrupted the Milky Way's structure. Chrislintott 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think I may have linked the Wikipedia entry to the cited Astrophysical Journal article through names in the CNN article or another mainstream press article. If kept, then the article would need to be revised significantly, so maybe deletion would be appropriate anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 06:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion by admin Irishguy as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G11. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Christine[edit]

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

non notable Warteck 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:01Z

Natalie Charlotte Smith[edit]

Natalie Charlotte Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable Warteck 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:00Z

Stephen McClard[edit]

Stephen McClard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Smcclard2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Pd7.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Pd8.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Not notable. Only 86 Google hits for name. Also appears to be a vanity / advertising page. Alabamaboy 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Nisi[edit]

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

Non-notable person; the claim of notability is that a Japanese pilot who thinks he shot him down in World War II came to find his family. Touching, but is it really encyclopedic? Veinor (talk to me) 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonestown in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete as badly indiscriminate list of trivia, almost universally unverified. Mangojuicetalk 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robersonville, North Carolina. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:55Z

Robersonville High School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Eligibility for the National Registry of Historic Places is not the same as actually being on it. MSJapan 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vfr simulations[edit]

Note: I have redirected the talk page of the AfD to here so that people don't put their opinions there (some people have done so) by mistake and have them ignored. Veinor (talk to me) 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Non-notable corporation; I can't find any independent sources for this. Veinor (talk to me) 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robersonville, North Carolina. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:53Z

Stonewall Masonic Lodge No. 296[edit]

Stonewall Masonic Lodge No. 296 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, and additionally conflates the group with the building. MSJapan 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by User:Fang Aili. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:49Z

21 militia[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about what appears to be a non-notable student film group. Didn't spot any supporting articles in google search either. Dugwiki 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kite (song) and Peace on Earth (U2 song), no consensus on the rest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kite (song)[edit]

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

I have nominated this song and others on the U2 album All That You Can't Leave Behind on the basis that that these songs, which were not released as singles nor used in any other way that that would suggest they have notability separate from the album. A lot of these articles also would appear to breach WP:NOR (and have already been tagged as such) and the listing of how many times they've been performed is little short of fancruft even for a band as big as U2. A1octopus 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other pages nominated for exactly the same reason are:
In a Little While
Peace on Earth (U2 song)
When I Look at the World
New York (song)
Grace (U2 song) A1octopus 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't think we should play around with relative notability. (ie, this song compared to that, eytc). The fact is that Bad is notable, it doesn't need to be compared. Kite (as great a song as it is) in terms of notability has nothing on Bad. Furthermore, what is actually gained by having a seperate article? What is the advantage? In fact if anything, if it helps the album article then I'm all for it. Merbabu 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:51Z

Nadia masri[edit]

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

Disputed CSD A7 and prod. This article has no references to demonstrate the subject meets WP:BIO; her sole claim to fame is working on a speculative TV show that is "planning to be pitched to both CTV and MTV in the summer of 2008". Suggest deletion as a non-notable individual.

See also related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oaks (TV Show). Muchness 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, show hasn't even been produced yet. NawlinWiki 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oaks (TV Show)[edit]

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

Article on a TV show "in the process of creation". No sources to demonstrate the show exists in more than speculative form. Suggest deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. --Muchness 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metatron in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete as indiscriminate list of trivia about, mostly, Anime and video games. As is usual for articles of this type, this one was created in October last year to remove the irrelevant "popular culture" section of Metatron which is quite a good article. PLEASE don't suggest merging it back there without actually considering how to do so. Mangojuicetalk 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist stalking[edit]

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

Original research, unsupported by citation to reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and compare websites that turn up in google searchs for 'gang stalking' and 'terrorist stalking'. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 250[edit]

The 250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neo/protologism. No sources given for this term. -- Merope 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Anna Nicole Smith. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaither Ben Thompson[edit]

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

Minor satellite in the Annanicolesmithsploitation universe. The references say it all: Every single one mentions Smith in the headline, not a single one mentions Thompson. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To wit:

"Anna Nicole link to MB well-liked

In the national media these days, his name is splashed around liberally as G. Ben Thompson.

His real name?

Gaither Benjamin Thompson, according to state and local records.

He's a local developer of some note. And you may be living in a house or development he's had a hand in..."(Myrtle Beach Sun News, 18 February 2007)

  • "G. Ben Thompson recently spoke to ET's MARK STEINES about having what he called a "short, romantic relationship" with Anna Nicole that eventually led to "a genuine friendship." (ETOnline.com , 12 February 2007)
  • "Horizons, the Bahamian oceanfront estate in which Anna Nicole lived, was purchased back in October by South Carolina real estate mogul G. Ben Thompson for $950,000... TMZ has learned Thompson and Shelly are currently interviewing brokerage firms worldwide -- firms that are interested in winning the listing." (TMZ.com, 26 February 2007)
--LeflymanTalk 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith per Angr. JoshuaZ 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Abstaining per sourcing given by Lefly, I'm not convinced he should have a separate article, but i'm not convinced he shouldn't either. JoshuaZ 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination)[edit]

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

Impossible to maintain, impossible to be exhaustive, and seems to have been created to make a point.Xnuala 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is not based on being inflammatory or divisive. It is about the list being inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource such as Wikipedia.Xnuala 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er...um...then, why do we have a list of African Americans? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.123.110 (talk)
And is that list also being considered for deletion for the same reasons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.163.3.35 (talk)
And no, it's not appropriate for the list of African-Americans to be deleted, because lists also exist for virtually every other ethnicity which lives in numbers in the United States. As I have demonstrated. Suriel1981 23:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link if anyone wants to check: [[Category:Lists_of_American_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin]] Suriel1981 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a huge meta-list, unmaintainable, would have to be extremely long to be comprehensive Mostlyharmless 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ethnic lists for the large groups are just as "Impossible to maintain, impossible to be exhaustive," as Xnuala says this Caucasian list is. The List of Italian Americans is ridiculously incomplete and could be 20 times its current length and still not be exhaustive, and I'm sure you could say that for any of the six or seven major ethnic groups in America. So what's the point of them? Noroton 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination). (It's going to get very annoying conducting this discussion in three places. . . . ) Noroton 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not only is it overly broad, but it's an obvious example of WP:POINT. (That said, even though you're not supposed to create an article to make a point, I think the person who created this article makes a strong point... I am voting for deletion of any "List of people of a particular ethnicity" unless that ethnicity is so rare that the list of notable individuals is going to be no more than like 20 or 30 people) --Jaysweet 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of African Americans[edit]

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

ridiculously racist - see similar article List of Caucasian Americans which is up for speedy delete Warteck 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, is it racist to call African Americans "Black" now? Racist?? Noroton 03:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of the longer ethnic lists are in alphabetical order like this one — those lists are usually ordered by job category, which might be somewhat useful and is certainly easier to browse through. Also, it allows the article to be broken up when individual sections become long enough. Noroton 02:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons why I'm changing from "Weak Delete" to "Strong Keep": This article should not be deleted if List of Chinese Americans and the many related ethnic lists is kept; yet this deletion discussion seems to be leaning for deletion while those are leaning toward being kept. There is no good reason to delete here and keep in that discussion, and I hope any administrator who closes this debate takes that into consideration. At the very least, if the debates continue trending as they are, they should be combined and resubmitted as a unified deletion discussion. Again, NO good reason has been given to treat this decision differently from List of Chinese Americans. The only responsible treatment of this decision is to consider everything at once or make Wikipedia look completely racist. Noroton 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
upgrade me to Strong Keep. The list of deletions Otto4711 cites does not include the African-American list in it. It is still being singled out by itself. I agree with the comments of Black Falcon below. StudierMalMarburg 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the list I linked to does not include the African American list. That's because this is the nomination for the African American list. Your complaint was that this list is being singled out. I show that it's not being singled out and your response is to want this list more? That's...not rational. Otto4711 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Not indiscriminate. How is race not a discriminating criterion? Moreover, this does not correspond with any of the 8 items listed at WP:NOT#IINFO.
  2. Not overly broad. Firstly, the purpose of the list is not to include all African-Americans, but only the notable ones. Secondly, a category will not be any less broad than this list. -- Black Falcon 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - why is this article organized alphabetically? But after looking at the article's talk page, I can see that this list isn't indiscriminate to its creators. I'd see it as less indiscriminate myself if it were organized. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, the people who create articles don't want them deleted. "The creators think it's OK" is not a particularly compelling argument. Otto4711 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant editors, not creators, but, I was referring to the discussions' giving reasons that it isn't indiscriminate, etc. I don't agree with all of their reasons, but I don't see why their points and the points at the last 2 afds aren't sufficient, or is their new reasons to delete it? Smmurphy(Talk) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of Usedup's recent nomination, it seems that the concensus of those voting delete is that the list is too broad and too large. I agree, but as some have noted, these lists are terribly useful. Especially this one, as each entry includes a few words on who the person is. From the AfD of other lists, one commenter noted, "as the anonymous parent of two Puerto Rican schoolchildren, I can assure you that this list is a primary source of information that at least one of my kids will consult on a weekly basis to do school assignments. Administrators should take into account the users' needs and, as a user, this list is invaluable!" As such, I think that we should try sorting and any category that is overlarge we should send into a sublist. Even if this list is deleted in its current form, it will probably become a super-list of lists organized by occupation. If anyone is interested, stop by User:Smmurphy/List of African Americans and do some sorting. Once its sorted, we can create sublist articles for the larger lists, and put whats left back into this article. Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Astrit Ajdarevic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor notability, non-professional player in youth team Boongoman 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then keep as per the above reference. Robotforaday 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could being the operative part. At the moment he isn't. He will only become the most expensive if he does several other things which would make him very notable in the process. Oldelpaso 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:48Z

Subreality.com[edit]

Subreality.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Subreality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This article describes a page which is merely a collection of links to other pages about comic books, stories, and some things totally unrelated. The webpage therefore does not meet the notability standards for webpages on Wikipedia and has very little potential for an article regardless. SeanMD80talk | contribs 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah M. Farah[edit]

Abdullah M. Farah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a vanity page about a non notable person Tony 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm adding the following comments for background. The persons name appears to be Abdullahi, not Abdullah as stated in the article title. The story in the article is not made up, since Google found some hits to back up the claims of winning awards:

I just wanted to eliminate fruitless searching in Google for the wrong name, for those looking for notability. Even so, despite the fact that he has won academic awards, there's an issue if this is enough to qualify for WP:BIO requirements. - Itsfullofstars 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the above sources to the article. Complicating matters in searching for notability is that he seems sometimes prefers to go by the nickname "Abdi". [71]. He seems to be an athlete as well as having artistic talent, although that is likely to have little bearing on whether the article is kept. - Itsfullofstars 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Did RoboRanks really mean to say Keep? - Itsfullofstars 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Lol i ment keepRoboRanks 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Behzad Mirkhani. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:50Z

Behzad Mirkhani Discography[edit]

Behzad Mirkhani Discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This entry duplicates content found in the Behzad Mirkhani entry. Epolk 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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