< May 9	May 11 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early due to clear consensus, see WP:SNOW, and article being currently a high profile page at least in the UK. |→ Spaully^₪† 19:57, 11 May 2007 (GMT)

Madeleine McCann[edit]

This article doesn't really meet the guidelines for a biography of some sort, and nobody would really expect to have an about a 3 year old girl (Who shouldn't really have articles built around them), even though it is a current event and such. Having an article in this is largely inappropriate as it is all based on news, and there is no point keeping it because when the incident ends, regardless of the result. The article will prove useless. Plus: Wikipedia is not a news station. This should be redirected to a wikinews report; because also when the incident has completely died down (Like a year in the future). Not many people are going to remember this. to sum up when it is over, the article becomes completely useless. Wikipedia can't keep tracking a normal 3 year old's life as she gets older (if she is found alive). Eaomatrix 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I agree that an article on the child is inappropriate so I have converted the article to one on the event rather than the child. This is an important event that has lead the news in both the UK and Portugal for a week. There are significant implications for Portuguese police methods. The article has the necessary multiple, significant, independent sources to meet WP:N etc. TerriersFan 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yet still, what happens after the event finishes. It will just be abandoned. I think the article should be deleted and redirected to wikinews. Eaomatrix 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree; Wikipedia invariably covers significant events that are in the news when there is, as here, encyclopaedic content. Just as Ben Needham is still referred to 16 years on I judge that this case will be referred to in the future. TerriersFan 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would advise you list it for deletion when that is the case. However, currently this is a very notable article on a current event which has received widespread media coverage. I fail to see how an article is "inappropriate because it is all based on news", see point 6, on What Wikipedia is not. Dave101→talk→contributions • 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As far as I can tell, no policy reason has been given for deletion.Chunky Rice 17:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily enough sources to satisfy WP:N. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The policy reason is that Wikipedia is not a news site or a blog. This is not a biography of an otherwise newsworthy person who is involved in a breaking newsworthy event, which should be included in their bio. This should be moved to Wikinews. Quakerman 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent section to WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a primary news source. It doesn't say that we can't have articles about current events. There's a "Current Events" portal link in the sidebar, in fact. I don't really understand where you're going with Wikipedia is not a blog.Chunky Rice 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the renaming. The article is now about the current event an not the individual per se. Quakerman 19:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the existence of reliable sources is our best yardstick for notability. — brighterorange (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This girl and her disappearance have received multiple coverage in reliable and notable outside sources. Her disappearance is notable, which makes her notable. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now the article has been renamed. Georgethe23rd 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki the relevant parts to Wikinews. Children disappear or are kidnapped every day without getting a Wikipedia entry. Newsworthiness does not equal encyclopedic notability. Railwayman 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does, according to WP:N. Chunky Rice 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." TerriersFan 21:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least at present - this is about the event not the person, and the event's certainly notable - it's been the lead story in every UK news organisation for six days in a row, and the only reason it won't be tomorrow is Blair's resignation — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was unsure about the notability of this article when it first appeared; since then it's been moved to a more appropriate page name and regardless there's nothing on WP:N which says it shouldn't be here. Mallocks 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with new name, it should be ok. Lemonflash ^(t)/_(c) 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Articles like this are written at least in 4 languages. Are all articles about category kidnapped children and all its subcategories and all its dozens of pages going to be shifted to Wikinews too ? - A41202813@GMAIL.COM 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the international character of this story guarantees that it will be notable (or at least notorious). I don't see the point to a rename (it's not like we need to disambiguate, and many other articles about a person known for one event are named for the person). --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: now that the article has been moved to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann it should cease to be a biographical article and become one about the incident, rather than the person. The incident is likely to remain notable. --RFBailey 22:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I disagree that the article be refered to as a biography. It is about the EVENT surrounding the girls disappearance, and not about the actual girl itself. This was discussed on the talk page, and is why the name was changed from 'Madeleine McCann' to 'Disapearance of Madeleine McCann'. Also, as for Railwayman's comments, about 'Children disappear or are kidnapped every day', yes that is true, and no they don't recieve pages, but this now a well documented event. I am sure that there are other types of articles, say for example, the sinking of the Titanic. Loads of ships have sunk, and they don't all have pages. Does this mean that we should delete the page about Titanic? No! Strong Keep Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia has a lengthy article about the identical case of Ben Needham; whatever's decided for this ought to be applied to that as well. I'd suggest moving both to "disappearance of..." with the names as redirects. Incidentally, for all those arguing that this will "soon be forgotten", the Needham story still regularly surfaces in the news sixteen years on — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After creating a Wikinews artice on the disappearance. The existence of other inapproproate articles is not a valid argument to keep an article. Also WP:N Note 3 says "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." The article was created 2 days after the disappearance. This is not intended to be a news of the week magazine, however tragic the case. See also the essay WP:NOTNEWS which reflects the views of some editors. Edison 22:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Keep per TerriersFan, Weak per Edison --St.daniel ^Talk 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/transwiki to Wikinews WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid delete rationale. Although this is notable, and there are reliable sources to prove it, this is formatted and is a news article. An article on Wikinews is more appropriate for this. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. While I can understand Eaomatrix's reasons for this nomination, this is a current event, and the outcome of that event for good or bad could decide the article's notability. If this is a simple child abduction, then regrettable as it may be, it is not WP material. If it were to lead to changes in the law, for example, then it would be distinctly notable. I suggest that - for the time being - this be kept, and reassessed once we have the opportunity to assess it with due hindsight. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It should not be held as a biography. However, the eventual outcome (assuming there is one) should also not decide whether it is kept or not. Wikipedia holds a great deal of material on historical events and, whether there is a good or bad outcome, that is what this article should depict. Wikipedia also contains a great deal of material on unfolding events that is updated regularly (such as the recent Muslim campaigns against cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed). Given that, it would be somewhat hypocritical to remove it and there is no basis for doing so. The investigation into the disappearance has shown marked differences between the laws of the United Kingdom and that of other European countries. It is also worth noting that this is not the first such disappearance of a child in Portugal. Such matters could be added to the article to flesh it out a bit.TickledPink 05:39, 11 May 2007 (GMT)
Strong keep Per comments above. The event is certainly notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia at the present time. Dave101→talk 06:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is big - I don't know how else to say it! Robinson weijman 07:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has dominated the British national news since it happened. It is far more important than the thousands of articles we keep on very minor celebrities. -- Necrothesp 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep. This article has been in the front pages of the news for over a week, certainly notable. We should get rid of the deletion template right now, as this will be a significant entry point for viewers and there is a clear consensus. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:59, 11 May 2007 (GMT)

Strong Keep This article focuses on the event, Madeleine's disappearance. Even after there is an outcome [hopefully, she is found], this article can be a reference for similar events. I hate to put it in such a cold manner, but this can be a sort of "case study". The disappearance has generated a great deal of media interest and is of enough value to deserve an article on Wikipedia. Yes, the article may be copied either in parts, or in whole to Wikinews, but it deserves a place in Wikipedia nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagmikanta (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep This is big news and a big event - an encyclopedia needs things like this. It will be created over and over again if it is deleted. Many people will read it, as they do on many cases that capture the public eye. We've got articles on the recent Suffolk Ripper case of December last year, and things like the Moors Murders and Ian Huntley and Fred West - so why shouldn't we have one on this subject. Many crime enthusiasts will enjoy this article. Lra drama 12:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see the point of the nomination, and the differences to the Wiki-News site are relativly small. But, it clearly passes WP:N, moving the article removed it from the requirements of WP:Bio; and removing it would presently be an arduous task of continually nominating and removing it - even if a redirect to the WikiNews site was implemented. Rgds, --Trident13 12:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The abduction of this little girl will form part of the historical record of our understanding of child abduction, the police investigation of child abduction, and the public / media response to child abduction. Obviously other children have been abducted and not had a Wikipedia article written about them, but my impression is that the public response to this one is unusual and may have ongoing ramifications. Rather like the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, the public reaction is irrational, but an important phenomenon in itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.167.107.66 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - This article deserves to be kept. It isn't only big in the UK and Portugal, it is a big event around the world.--Wolf ^{talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা} 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest closing this discussion as keep per WP:SNOW. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I support this proposal. Dave101→talk 18:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article 'Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' will remain of interest after the incident's resolution. AdamSebWolf 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - we have whole categories on kidnapped children and disappeared people, and this story has proved to be very newsworthy, which IMO makes it a suitable inclusion for Wikipedia in addition to Wikinews. If this article is deleted, may we as well delete the articles on Ben Needham and Jamie Bulger? I believe there is a strong case here for keeping this article, and not just for reasons of emotion or compassion. Andrew (My talk) 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Unfortunately "merge" option is not workable here per attribution rules: not a single reference of any quality.The original contributor is long gone. As a courtesy, I am copying this text into the talk page of the suggested merge target, to serve as keys for possible searches. `'mikka 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Visas for IT Workers[edit]

This scheme no longer exists, no one has shown any interest in updating it, and it is not notable enough to remain as historical information. Cordless Larry 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Immigration to the United Kingdom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderwing (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it provides valuable historical information. Let's keep in mind that "if a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the general notability guidelines, it continues to satisfy it over time". Stammer 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that this topic doesn't actually have any sources at all listed? I feel like both of these "Keep"s are just on the basis that an article shouldn't be deleted simply because it's not about a current issue, but there's so much else wrong with this article. Propaniac 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is of historical interest.Drjem3 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Thunderwing, I guess. This is a poorly-written and completely unreferenced article, written as if these schemes were still in use when apparently they're not. It makes sense that the schemes themselves should be recorded somewhere for historical interest, AS historical items, but the topic itself seems too narrow for its own article, and the content surely doesn't help to justify that. As a non-UK resident, I can't even tell if these schemes were important at all or just a small piece of bureaucracy. The article also includes an unattributed graph and some POV-junk--it's really not worth keeping, although it appears that the result of this AFD may be to keep the thing around just because nobody wants to put in an opinion on it. Propaniac 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Propaniac. This article is unsourced and unverified. If it can be sourced or verified, I would love to see it merged, but right now, I really have a hard time justifying its continued existence. --Vengeful Cynic 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unlike Propaniac, I am a UK resident, and I'd never heard of this scheme. Merge anything salvagable (probably not much) into Immigration to the United Kingdom, then delete. --RFBailey 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To be honest, I don't know anything about this subject, but where is the first place I would go if I needed to look? Wiki of course. It's of Historical interest. However, it may be relevent to Merge the article with another which tells of more current schemes. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop relisting this article. If the administrator can't decide what the consensus is, declare it a "no consensus" keep, and let it be renominated later. One relisting should be sufficient. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - it's not even a single scheme, and there's no reason for an article on UK immigration focussing solely on IT. JPD (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Thunderwing. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 14:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Immigration to the United Kingdom. Potentially useful information and historical context. Deleting would be a mistake.—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electron economy[edit]

These are two articles in one, so let address them separately:

The concept: One person's theory. A more generic form of this argument can be reliable sourced and added to hydrogen economy as criticism, but Bossel's thesis isn't notable enough for an article if its own.
The company: Fails the general relevance criteria for companies. The claim The company was notable as a prototypical example of the plight of many of the "dot com" superstars founded in the late 1990's. Boom/Bust would require confirmation from secondary sources.

Pjacobi 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither seems notable enough for an article. JulesH 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a rather high number of Ghits [1] for this term covering both uses. Moreover, there was already a redirect for the company Electron Economy leading to Intend Change. That should be fine and can either be expanded to a real article or nominated at WP:RfD if someone sees fit. Consequently, I've removed the corresponding part from Electron economy, which is now exclusively about the energy-economical concept.--Tikiwont 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep, if more reliable sources are added or smerge into Hydrogen economy, so that at least the search term remains valid and its source can be found. --Tikiwont 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above can be rephrased as merge unless reliable sources for an independednt article are found. As this currently does not seem to be the case let's merge it into Hydrogen economy. --Tikiwont 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't want act like deletion-addicted fanatic here, but pls let me explain my reasoning:
- The idea that large scale hydrogen distribution, as envisioned by the hydrogen economy, is significantly inferior to the plain old power grid is an often heard criticism of hydrogen economy and should be mentioned there. As this is also called "electron economy" it is a major factor in Google hits.
- But the more radical, or visionary, ideas from Ulf Bossel (peer-to-peer power grid, elimination of all pipelines) is a rather excotic and insignificant POV -- perhaps less than 100 Google hist if you prefer this measure (proof me wrong and find secondary sources, and I'll glady admit having been wroing).
- All the neologism parallel to hydrogen economy are somewhat problematic, as they are just sparely used marketing hype for a more general concept, so most of these should be merged IMHO.

Pjacobi 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A google search of "electron economy" finds mostly references to the company, this article, and Ulf Bossel. AS best I can tell, this fails WP:N and WP:SCIENCE, and may also fail WP:NOR as a neologism. --EMS | Talk 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of no real public attention. DGG 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete origional research--Sefringle 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per ems Bulldog123 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Petros471 08:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild In the Country (festival)[edit]

I have no idea why this failed db:Spam but it did. So, I am bringing it here. I don't see anything that indicates that it is anything OTHER than advertising. Postcard Cathy 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability and seems like an advert. andy 14:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is in no way advertising. It states an event happened, it states an event will happen, it lists the artists who performed/will perform at those events. No opinion is given as to whether it was good and, crucially, no mention that you can go there. Malla nox 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable concert. Are we planning to list all concerts? My choir is singing at a local one next week. We expect a few thousand to turn up. This doesn't make it a notable event. Gillyweed 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your choir includes: Scissor Sisters, Sasha & John Digweed, Dave Seaman, James Zabiela, Derrick Carter, Yousef, Infusion, Neneh Cherry, Jon Carter and Audio Bullies; then yeah we should list it. Malla nox 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mallanox, you are making a valid point but what is it about those performers that make THIS festival in particular different from any other concert/festival? Is it for charity, such as Live 8? Will it have any cultural significance the way Woodstock did? If it doesn't, then it is - whether you want to hear it or not - JUST ANOTHER FESTIVAL. And that, dear Mallanox, is the point Gillyweed was making. Postcard Cathy 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making, dear Cathy, is that no less than eleven acts have appeared, or are appearing and are listed in the entry. All of these eleven already have pages on Wikipedia, they're not redlink unknowns. Hundreds of festivals occur with one headliner and a load of unknowns. Renaissance, the people behind it have the clout to get all of these people to play at their festival. This isn't a one off, it's not some small affair, it's at Knebworth. All of these facts together, in my opinion, equal notability and truly set it apart from just another festival. Malla nox 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malla, thank you for making my point. There are hundreds if not thousands of festivals every year and all of them have famous acts playing them - whether it is one or many. The festival in and of itself is not notable. Based on what you have said, then the booker should be wiki worthy since they were able to get all these acts. As far as being at Knebworth, if it is like arenas in the US, then anyone with enough money can rent it and put on a show. If I were to rent it and perform, would that make it wiki worthy simply cause it was at Knebworth? STRONG DELETE 172.162.105.233 10:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS The acts you have listed are not even in the article for this year's performance and even if they were, as written the article comes across as an advertisement. If this article is to stay, it needs a major rewrite. Cathy 172.162.105.233 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lists notable entertainers, which does not make a concert or festival notable. Unless it is of unique significance (per Postcard Cathy) or an annual event that we believe has become significant we should delete.

Comment' [2] refers to the 07 as the 15th annual. I didn't check for further refs. but this does show it is an annual event. DGG 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we do have a contradiction in the article because according to the article's author, this should be the fourth since the first one was in 2004.

Strong Keep. Looks like the article needs help, but this is apparently an annual event drawing notable acts, similar to Sasquatch! Music Festival or any number of other similar festivals with articles. Does not read like an advert or spam to me either.—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I've expanded the article, tidied up a little and added references and links to the relevant official pages. Incidentally, looking at the timing, I believe the original nominator was quite right in saying this page was only added for advertising purposes - However, I also believe that the event may be notable itself. Category:British music festivals currently lists 99 music festivals, many with smaller articles and fewer notable acts than this one. I think notability for music festivals is currently a grey area of Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, WP:MUSIC does not currently cover notability of musical events. I think this is also the reason we have such a bipolar lack of consensus here. If the record company/organiser is notable, the venue is notable and many of the acts are notable – is the event notable too? I think there needs to be some consensus on this, before any verifiable and potentially notable festivals are deleted. I’ll leave a message on the WP:MUSIC talk page and see if we can generate some discussion there and perhaps come up with some much-needed guidelines. Paxse 05:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. DES ^(talk) 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crooked Fiddle Band[edit]

Non-notable band, no sources cited, not notabilty established, spam links only - Tiswas^(t) 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article stands right now it is a marketing piece. The band appears to have written the article based on the last sentence. It needs a complete rewrite. Royalbroil 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see WP:RS that they pass WP:BAND

Delete - some minimal mentions and some gigs, but looks like they need to get an album or two out and some more non-trivial refs to meet WP:BAND. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. (I just nominated it.) Copyvio from http://www.crookedfiddleband.com/about.html. Calliopejen1 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DACO/Skyline[edit]

Doesn't meet the guidelines for a notable company Russavia 19:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even remeber creating this ;-). I guess I'm opposed to deletion if a source can be found for the claim of unusual manufactering processes, but otherwise go ahead. Fine by me. (By the way, hi Russavia! It's the guy from the shootdown article! Small world, eh? Of about 10 million users plus...) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem notable to me either. Dar-Ape 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn by WP guidelines.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgair[edit]

Doesn't meet guidelines for a notable company Russavia 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There is no independent and reliable secondary source to pass notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indon has put it quite concisely. Dar-Ape 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 14:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loren DiGiorgi[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; his CDs are on his own label, there's no external coverage, and the claims to notability don't quite pass. Crystallina 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, fails WP:Music. Only valid claim to notability in article is inclusion on excercise videos but if these videos were notable by our standards then they would have pages here, which they don't, so - for the sake of this AfD - those are not notable either. Delete without predjudice against recreation if subject becomes properly notable in future. A1octopus 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't become established enough to meet WP:MUSIC as yet. It amazes me, though, how musicians are able to get so many Google hits without non-trivial references. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John kirker[edit]

Borderline notability - just being a successful programmer does not notability make - but also completely autobiographical and quite egomaniacal! Chris 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some source can be found for the claims. this is the sort of autobio that absolutely needs full documentation. DGG 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per autobiography, does not meet WP:BIO criteria and article fails manual of style. Carlosguitar 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nema[edit]

The only sources for this woman's biography are a web-published book review and her own website. She has published books, but I can't determine whether the publisher is or is not a vanity press. Many of the links leading into this page have run afoul of CSD A7. I suspect this is an occultist "walled garden". Delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some sources can be provided to establish notability. fbb_fan 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't really know what the criteria for notability are in a case like this, but a nema+magick-wikipedia Gsearch gets a surprising 19800 hits in various languages. She appears to be the acknowledged creator of "Maat Magick" (don't laugh). Probably quite notable within her community. Stammer 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Per Stammer. Her books are for sale through Amazon. Sounds kooky and granted cannot find a ton of info about the writer, but she is likely well known in her circle of influence, otherworldly it may be.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks third-party independent sources commenting on the work. The linked review of her book is a dead link. I have not done an extensive study to see if there could be evaluations of her work somewhere out on the web that ought to be added to the article. (When the article is about a lesser-known subject area, and seems rather promotional, I think it's fair to rely on the article creator to bring in the third-party comments). EdJohnston 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lewis (convicted of fraud, Ponzi scheme 2006)[edit]

This article is very unencycylopedic in tone, but there may be a germ of value in it. Subject is convicted criminal; sources provided. Article would require overhaul to meet with BLP concerns; also, I'm not sure whether the scope of the crime is or is not large enough to merit encyclopedic coverage. Delete, unless someone sees a way to rewrite this. Xoloz 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "I'm not sure whether the scope of the crime is or is not large enough to merit encyclopedic coverage." -- Are you kidding! Defrauding people of untold millions isn't enough to warrant an entry in this encyclopedia? We have countless articles on tons of obscure academics and historical figures...and this guy is as notable than them. --Wassermann 14:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just overhauled it a bit to be more encyclopediac in tone. However, I still have to go with delete, as his primary claims to WP:NOTABILITY appear to be "largest and longest" Ponzi scheme, things that are not supported by any of the sources (they just say it was "one of"). At best, still need some cleanups, secondary sources, and move to a less verbose pagename. DMacks 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep 20 years seems notably long, and $3000 million is also enough to say "one of" DGG 05:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename Rename Jim Lewis (convict). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not overhauled to remove the massive BLP problems. The title, at least, needs to be changed. A search reveals it was once at James Paul Lewis, Jr., which seems better, or it could be Jim Lewis (fraud). Everyone deserves to be treated according to WP:BLP, and it appears a couple of editors have serious appetites for publicizing this man's crimes. KrakatoaKatie 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll tidy up the article. --Wassermann 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- this article does need to be renamed, though. --Wassermann 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why does James Paul Lewis, Jr. redirect here, rather than hold the article. WP should avoid bio articles with "convict" or "fraud" in their titles. Carlossuarez46 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. Notable biographical topic, but article and title need work. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LA TIMES article referenced speaks a great deal as to the notability/notoriety of this figure. He worked his scheme remarkably well...—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiku.com[edit]

Not notable, for it doesn't go with WP:WEB; only one source from a blog. —esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it lacks WP:A to satisfy WP:WEB ... a single blog entry does not satisfy WP:RS when all it says is, "I'm switching my service from Twitter to Jaiku," regardless of the notability of the blogger ... note that the article is a recreation of identical text 45 minutes after a CSD under another name (now a redirect), and this AfD is a result of the author repeatedly removing CSD tags without any comment or improvement, so it may require salting if it is deleted. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It. http://gapingvoid.com/ thought it was worth using, even if they're not blogging directly about it . . . it's not unworthy, it's just a stub. Find a way to stretch it, by all means, but it's just as notable as Twitter. Veled 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The criteria for notability (web) is very simple ...
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  No one has provided any non-trivial published works that satisfy this criteria, and blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. —72.75.73.158 03:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It. It is as petinant as Twitter, but has not yet risen to Twitter's popularity75.83.101.80 01:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It. I created the Twitter article, and there was some talk about it being not kept. Obviously, it's an important site now. See http://news.google.com/news?q=jaiku&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn for some people talking about Jaiku. If it's gone by the wayside in 5 years, then, yeah, it deserves to be deleted. However, right now, it should be kept and expanded. Jmatthew3 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6637865.stm Jmatthew3 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Should have remained speedily deleted. Salt this and other previously-deleted article title. --Charlene 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Note that 75.83.101.80 (talk · contribs) recently blanked the User Talk page for Laaabaseball (talk · contribs), most likely in order to hide the fact that 72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) had initiated two CSDs on this article (under different names) on the same day. —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment and Laaabaseball is still trying to remove prior warning messages from User Talk:Laaabaseball, even as I update this discussion. —68.239.79.82 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It. If you delete the entry now, it will just have to be added yesterday. It makes more sense to just go ahead and make the proper fixes now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelkpate (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep If deleted we might as well delete twitter too Hansonc 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's gaining in popularity, as far as I can tell. WP:WEB is only a guideline; I think it's clear that the site is notable for its unique features, and the fact that it is a competitor to Twitter. MartinBrook t 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from what I'm seeing, it's definitely getting more popular (lik Twitter) - it's worthy IMO. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 14:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article pulled many web searches, with alot of tech articles and such, I think its worth keeping.--Acorn98 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup; mergers subject to editorial consensus as always. Sandstein 08:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market fundamentalism[edit]

Just an attack term. Could be merged into Anti-capitalism Madhava 1947 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is used even in the Czech Republic :-) - Seriously, it is an attack term, but this is not a deletion reason. The problem would be whether this is still a neologism, but I think that it is already an established term.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof it is not a neologism? Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ! The term is already widely used in technical articles, by award wining journalists, such as P. Sainath's Poverty, Market Fundamentalism and the Media, 2001 and many others, such as Ruth Rosen's Note to Nancy Pelosi: Challenge Market Fundamentalism. (Ruth Rosen is a journalist and historian. She is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute in Berkeley and a professor emerita of history at the University of California, Davis. She is currently a visiting professor of public policy and history at U.C. Berkeley.) 200.153.161.91 16:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It probably is notable and sourceable, considering Soros' reputation. Weak because it isn't clear how important it is in his overall work.DGG 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have seperate articles for every term he comes up with. Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect both articles to Anti-capitalism per nom. The title of each article is a pejorative term for capitalism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we should not have different articles for different terms which refer to the same concept. (BTW, as a merge was sought, not deletion, this need not have come to AFD.) Pan Dan 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree ! Market fundamentalism does not address itself to mainstream capitalism but to "radical free-market economics", a very different thing from capitalism; George Soros is a famous icon of capitalism, what he does not agree is with "radical capitalism"; and says why.

Anyhow, if this article was to be merged with something, it should be with Critique of capitalism (which is what the article is about) and never, ever, with anti-capitalism, where a concept devised by the famous and successful capitalist George Soros does not belong at all.

200.153.161.91 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Since the article is about a school of criticism of free market economics, how about a merge to Free market#Criticism?~~ Maybe it would be more accurate to say it's a pejorative term for Marketization? How about a merge to there? (BTW, none of the 3 references in the article appears to mention Soros. But even if it were verified that Soros coined this term, that would still not justify a stand-alone article about the term.) Pan Dan 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impressiom that the acceptance of Soros use of the term was already consensual. Please read on his book The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998):

"It is claimed that the common interest is best served by allowing everyone to look out for his or her own interests and that attempts to protect the common interest by collective decision making distort the market mechanism. This idea was called laissez faire in the nineteenth century... I have found a better name for it: market fundamentalism" George Soros. 200.153.161.91 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Could be a candidate for merge, but the discussion suggests no consensus on where to merge it. Note, also, that the attribution to Soros is incorrect/misleading. "Economic fundamentalism" was widely used for the same general idea well before Soros (18000 hits on Google). See also Economic rationalism. JQ 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used widely by whom, for instance???

As Google would have told you pretty quickly, Jane Kelsey wrote a book on the subject [3] which was influential in the New Zealand policy debate, and I've used it myself.JQ 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, OK. Changing to "a term which was made popular in 1998 by George Soros ..." 200.153.161.91 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a curiosity: Stigler's conjecture may help you understand why the use of the term is most commonly atributed to George Soros...200.153.161.91 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This idea was called laissez faire in the nineteenth century... I have found a better name for it: market fundamentalism" George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998). 200.153.161.91 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Soros quote reinforces the idea that market fundamentalism is not an idea that's distinct from what you call "radical free-market economics," but rather a pejorative term aimed at that philosophy. The actual content of what Soros is saying seems to be just another argument against that philosophy, and as such should be merged into...where? It appears there are lots of overlapping articles in this area, and this AFD isn't going to find the solution--I agree with JQ on that. The best place to discuss this would probably be at Talk:Free market or one of the other related article talk pages. Pan Dan 12:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this AFD is not going to find the solution, the case is complex. I suggest we all move this discussion to Talk:Free market and act after some sort of a consensus is reached there. I move that this discussion be transfered to Talk:Free market. 200.153.161.91 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Market fundamentalism to laissez faire. Jane Kelsey and George Soros simply renamed an established concept. See distinction without a difference. If Market fundamentalism is used as a derogatory term for laissez faire when arguing against laissez faire, why not simply state that in the article on laissez faire? --SueHay 12:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez-faire is a pre-capitalistic concept, it was devised at the end of mercantilism, even before capitalism was born, to be opposed to mercantilism; it was "mercantilism derrogatory", if you so wish. "Market fundamentalism", on another hand, is a term that only makes sense after the Reaganism and Thatcherism of the 80's, is a clerly post-keynesian term, and it is far from being just a derogatory term for "laissez faire"; it has another origin, another etymology, and represents a completely different meaning. George Soros, "THE CAPITALIST par excellence", sees in Market fundamentalism an ideology in itself:

"It is market fundamentalism that has rendered the global capitalist system unsound and unsustainable. ... it was only when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power around 1980 fundamentalism became the dominant ideology. It is market fundamentalism that has put financial capital into the driver's seat." George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998). It becomes clear to anyone that George Soros is not "opposing capitalism" or making "derrogatory remarks" to capitalism: Soros is a capitalist, and one of the best succeded ones. He is not "derrogating" capitalism at all in his book; actually he is trying to save capitalism and do this by opposing himself strongly to "the puting of financial capital into the driver's seat." (or market fundamentalism), which is quite different form being a socialist, a communist or other anti-capitalists "-ists"; which Soros is definetly not.

I stick to my suggestion that no abrupt move should be taken; we still need further discussion. I propose that this "forum" be transferred, (pasted) and continued at Talk:Free market 200.153.161.91 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

One thing which I think is likely in the coming decades is that the trade regime and the regime that we have for capital flows and other important matters will be less doctrinal, less fundamentalist if I may put it like that, less an example of market fundamentalism and more a result of a variety of bargains and pragmatic adjustments. I think we could get out of this conflict a world which is less tidy, more messy, less pleasing to purists, but actually safer and even, in some respects, more equitable, because of course it is true that there are a large part of the world which have very little effective bargaining power. (Globalisation: where next? London School of Economics, Transcript of lecture Date: Monday 8th October 2001 Speakers: Professors Anthony Giddens, John Gray, Fred Halliday, David Held and Mary Kaldor Chair: Professor Lord Desai)200.153.161.91 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a pop culture version of the Coase theorem. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to further elaborate your comment, explaining it in words which could be understood by us, the ignoramuses ? 200.153.162.164 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP ! - The term is already fully established in academics. 200.153.162.210 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism, even if from the august George Soros himself. No evidence the term is used. Eusebeus 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence? And the dozens of books and academic articles by several authors, conferences at London School of Economics by Anthony Giddens mean no evidence for you ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.153.162.210 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete propaganda, unsourced, unencyclopediac.--Sefringle 05:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term widely used in academic circles. Unsourced only to the ignorant. 200.153.161.141 12:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article itself is very much anti-Market fundamentalism. If kept it should be rewritten to give equal weight to the views of the Market fundamentalists themselves. I think this should be normal for WP articles on political theories. Steve Dufour 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable term. The article, however, needs extensive sourcing.Bless sins 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not agree with merging it to either anit-capitalism or laissez faire. This is a different concept. The article itself is very POV as written. I have tagged it as such. This, however, is not a reason to delete an article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Market fundamentalism. Sandstein 08:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market theology[edit]

I am also nominating the following page because it a similar term and could be useful in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Madhava 1947 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Market theology This article has been around since 2003. It was originally unreferenced and remains unreferenced. It seems to be a neologism that a Wiki editor created. --SueHay 12:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know we have here a consensus to delete "Market Theology". On another hand "Market Theology" has nothing in common with "Market fundamentalism" and no reason to be in this discussion other than having been bundled in the same delete nomination.

200.153.161.91 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear neologism. Eusebeus 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism?!!! Dozens of books and academic articles published by several authors (including Nobel Prize winners) having used the term Market fundamentalism, or put it on the title of their books, conferences held at London School of Economics by Anthony Giddens, all this mean "neologism" to you ? 200.153.162.164 14:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph E. Stiglitz also used the term in his autobiographical essay in acceptance of Nobel Prize to criticize some IMF policies: "More broadly, the IMF was advocating a set of policies which is generally referred to alternatively as the Washington consensus, the neo-liberal doctrines, or market fundamentalism, based on an incorrect understanding of economic theory and (what I viewed) as an inadequate interpretation of the historical data."

Autobiographical essay in acceptance of the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.153.162.164 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Times uses the term with no quotation marks: "That is not free-market fundamentalism; it is egalitarian and socially progressive." OLIVER, Kamm. How Blair can succeed in his university challenge. The Times (London), February 16, 2007200.153.161.177 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Market fundamentalism if it survives (as I hope) its own AfD. The same concept but much less notable phrase.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Market fundamentalism. A sub-item eventuallly could be added in Market fundamentalism article to explain what is Market theology a term which has not yet been widely adopted by academics (will it ?), as market fundamentalism already obviously has. If market theology is to be added to market fundamentalism it would be necessary to find references for it and to remove the POV's; the current article market theology has no references and might not be neutral. 200.153.162.210 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coase theorem. As a finance scholar, this seems to resemble the Nobel Prize winning theory of Ronald Coase. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain your positition to the non "finance scholars" ?

200.153.162.210 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced--Sefringle 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As in the above topic, equal weight should be given to the Market theologists' views as to their critics'. Steve Dufour 19:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Market fundamentalism. See my comments re: above article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TourAnts[edit]

Already speedily deleted twice under A7. Spam for non-notable torrent site. Any notable site would have search engine hits galore; Google search for "tourants torrent" produces two non-Wikipedia Ghits [4]. Search for "tourants.com" produces no hits at all apart from the website itself. Unsurprisingly, not in Alexa top 100,000. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references? I'd reconsider if it had references. Clerks. 17:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment author has again removed AfD template after multiple previous removals of CSD templates, so I would also suggest salting as well. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. --Vengeful Cynic 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's been tried twice & its been re-created, hence this AfD. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needs references first. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with List of hospitals in Nepal, which has been done already, so I'm redirecting the article thereto. Sandstein 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arghakhanchi Hospital[edit]

It is a hospital. It exists. It appears not to pass WP:N, and gets 10 google hits. I'm not sure what encyclopedic relevance this has. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a directory. Incidentally, the articles linked from List of hospitals in Nepal possibly form something of a walled garden. Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No information not contained in the list. A quick glance at some of the links suggests this is the case for most, if not all, of the articles. I would have thought they should all be deleted as they provide no more information than in the list. What is the protocol for nominating a whole group of articles? |→ Spaully^₪† 20:52, 4 May 2007 (GMT)
- Do a mass AfD. Quite easy. If the decision is to delete here, that can be used a precedent to whack the rest later on altogether. Moreschi ^Talk 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but check first for each individual article whether it is equally suitable for deletion. It is very difficult to deal with a group where some have greater merit than the others. I would think that there might well be one notable hospital in the country--the largest, oldest, best ? DGG 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Will do. Let's see if there's going to be precedent here to delete most of the rest. Moreschi ^Talk 08:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We should wait for the person who created this article to tell us why he created those articles. I am against a mass AfD because there must be some articles there that are notable. Also you will not find much information about a hospital of Nepal on the internet. The google test wouldn't work. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of hospitals in Nepal. I agree with Moreschi that it does not pass WP:N individually, but the whole group might. I am in the process of merging all these hospital stubs into one list, leaving redirects. If this hospital's notability is made evident later, the article can be recreated over the merge. Jaksmata 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a good idea, and the obvious solution. Sorry, sometimes I can't see past deletion :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't blame you - I was close to doing the same thing! I am going to nominate Template:Hospitals of Nepal for deletion when I’m done. By then, it will be an orphan pointing only to redirects. Jaksmata 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per Jaksmata and Moreschi. Makes sense - these hospitals en masse appear to be notable as an example of health care in a nation. --Charlene 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't join the call for Merge, because List of hospitals in Nepal doesn't look to me like a real encyclopedia article. If that article is ever fixed up properly, I wouldn't mind recreating this one as a redirect to the List. Since the present article has approximately zero content, little is lost via a Delete. EdJohnston 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There's really nothing to merge, and there's no reliable sources. I live in the county in the question and I've not even seen it mentioned in the local rag. A "smerge" would keep the article here. Better to delete it and add one or two sentences to the main article if necessary and if no undue weight is given. kingboyk 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Radio[edit]

Unsourced article on an unremarkable and non-notable student radio station set up in 2006 with absolutely no notability asserted. Ohconfucius 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most notable claim is having had some marginally notable guests.--Work permit 09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete This page is notable to the 10,000 students who attend the University of Gloucestershire. The station is new and as it grows so will this article! There are 26 other student radio stations with articles listed many of them with less information than this one. Tone Radio is listed on the Student Radio Association Wikipedia page as an SRA member, which also makes it notable to SRA Members.--Rich Wiltshire 15:35, 9 May 2007— Richwiltshire23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:N standard is notable to the world, not notable to the 10,000 students who attend the University of Gloucestershire. Mwelch 00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS. the_undertow ^talk 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge. The article on University of Gloucestershire is 3700 bytes, with half of that being a generic template. This article is 2000 bytes. A sentence or two would work much better. --Wafulz 00:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable...10,000 out of the entire population who would ever read this, or even the entire world doesn't make it notable whatsoever. Jmlk17 07:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge per User:Wafulz. Student radio station, so it belongs at University of Gloucestershire. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge University of Gloucestershire Think outside the box 12:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge University of Gloucestershire as per User:Calton Mmoneypenny 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best option here. The lack of non-trivial third party, reliable sources is apparent. JodyB_talk 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The lack of sources indicates merging is probably inappropriate, though editors at the University article's talk page are free to decide themselves. Xoloz 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xpression FM[edit]

Unsourced article on non-notable student radio station set up in 2001 with no notability asserted. Reads like a directory page Ohconfucius 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs some work, particularly on sources, but seems to have plenty of useful information. Radio station dates back to 1976 according to article. Just because it is in Category:Student radio in the United Kingdom doesn't mean it should be deleted. Chriswiki 09:24, 3 May 2007.

Delete - for those who aren't familiar with the UK radio setup, a LPFM station isn't a 'real' station — it meant they've been authorised to set up a very low power transmitter (generally between 100-500m effective radius) to transmit within a small area. This is not a genuine radio station, it's a batch of students with a low-power transmitter broadcasting to the on-campus dormitories of a relative small university (10,000 undergraduates, and many of those live off-campus); I'll lay good money that aside from the "captive" audience in campus shops and bars, the audience has never reached four figures — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An LPFM radio station is a "real" station in that it must apply for a license to broadcast in exactly the same way as any other commercial radio station in the UK, despite what this user believes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.195.139 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: A bit harsh, Xpression FM has done several citywide broadcasts and unofficially reaches a large part of Exeter (population of over 100,000). Admittedly, a large part of the article should be slashed on notability grounds (alumni list and pics), but the station has a long history and has the potential to be expanded into a good article in the future. Watchdog341 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. About 3/4 of the article is not necessary. We don't need a list of the every single manager and controller. The 14 images are also not necessary- some are even untagged or labelled as public domain when they are clearly fair use. The history could be whittled, considering it's written as a graduation speech or something similar. --Wafulz 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability issues and there are no RS. the_undertow ^talk 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Iridescenti or slight merge (very slight) per User:Wafulz to University of Exeter. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is discussion on the University of Exeter talk page about splitting off the Students Guild or Students media. If so, perhaps that would be a better merge target. Still favour my keep and fix above though. Chriswiki 08:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Exeter.JodyB_talk 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if anybody really feels like it). Student activity at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This radio station first launched in February 1976 (not 2001 as stated) and has a TSA of around 3,000 people on FM and many more via the online streaming. As an LPFM station it is fully licensed by OFCOM and as a music playing station is also registered with PPL, PRS and MCPS. The broadcast system uses two transmitters to cover the entire University of Exeter campus. To suggest the deletion of a physical station that serves a demographic that has is targetted by NO OTHER LOCAL STATION is incredibly closed minded. It performs a very good service to the students that listen and also to provides crucial training for those students that are involved. If we are to start culling pages like this page then where do we stop? Do we delist every single student radio station in the country? Do the other student media in Exeter face the Wikipedia Grim Reaper?tdg1986 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia's next action will be to grease up the slippery slope with a bit of hyperbole. --Wafulz 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done some "restructuring" work on the article,hopefully removing the cruft. Yes, it still needs further work, but so do most articles! Chriswiki 08:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - College radio is only notable if it is famous outside of its college. This one isn't. A1octopus 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mango juice^talk 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Average Homeboy (second nomination)[edit]

Positively asserts lack of notability, "crap off teh internets", already deleted once by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average Homeboy but not quite a repost, does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this may sound ridiculous, but the last time I came to check this page (when it was deleted), I was outraged. As far as internet memes go, this one's rather popular, and Denny actually has a rather large catalogue of songs/videos. I think I actually, honestly enjoy the song "I'm the Blaze". I think that he skims notability, just making it. If Numa Numa has a listing, then the Average Homeboy should as well. If nothing else, this should be merged onto a page of memes.--C.Logan 20:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote this article because I came across a news article on the subject, and it seemed interesting to cover especially since sources were available. Notability is established by multiple non-trivial sources from the mainstream media, in articles that are exclusively on the subject (not passing mentions). I don't see what harm it could possibly do by staying, so long as it is kept to the neutral, referenced facts (as I have endeavored to do). --Delirium 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So please source it. You know we have trouble with crap off teh internets. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did! Did you miss the section labeled "references"? --Delirium 15:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately, seems like it is notable.Articles listed in refs appear on google archives:[5][6]Moreover, I remember something on VH1 about this subject.daveh4h 00:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's got the RS that can be verified. the_undertow ^talk 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not as much of an internet phenomenon as a 15 minutes of fame local interest story. From what I can tell, the Cleveland article is a collection of Youtube-related stories. There tends to be a train of thought that if it's on the internet and it made a newspaper, it deserves a Wikipedia article immediately- compare this to any other random topic that gets mentioned in two newspapers. If there was another story published (one not within a month of these articles), I'd probably change my mind. --Wafulz 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For what it's worth, I do think that any random topic that gets mentioned in two newspapers deserves an article, and I frequently create articles on them. Interestingly, they almost never get suggested for deletion unless they hit someone's "I don't like internet-related articles" filter... nobody seems to object that I've written articles on marginally-notable symphony conductors who've been mentioned in only two newspapers. --Delirium 16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Wafulz and nom. Does not meet wikipedia criteria for notability on biographic or musician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per User:Wafulz. His 15 minutes of fame is up. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources offered are not properly linked and cannot be verified without searching through the entire archives. It would behoove (<--cool word) the editors to make the references easy to follow using one of the suggested formats. JodyB_talk 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of major notability. After taking a look at the second ref mentioned (which was a pain in the ass to find), the article seems to be focused on YouTube and not this person in particular. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the basic standards for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, even by basic standards he doesn't make it. Since he hasn't won any awards or placed on any charts or really done anything, we have to go by the depth and coverage of the sources. We have one good in-depth source and one that mentions him in a much broader context less than a month from the other source- I would no sooner see this as notable coverage than I would for the local kitten parade which gets local media attention. --Wafulz 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, by basic standards he definitely does. There's more than enough information from third party sources to sustain an article here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on account of WP:V. The second reference in the article hints that he might get a side mention. The first is a maybe, but one, I won't be able to verify, and two, it's only one reliable source - and we need a bit more than one. As such, WP:LOCAL may apply here, if only on the fringe of it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:V is your issue, there's no concern because there's plenty of verifiable sources. As for WP:LOCAL, the two papers I found were from PEnnsylvania and Cleveland, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I don't necessarily agree with the premise of Dennis' argument, one and a half sources is not "plenty". --Wafulz 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. To be fair there have been other sources: The Fresno Bee (11 March 2007), The Philadelphia Inquirer (22 July 2006), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (15 October 2006) and three other articles on him by the Cleveland Plain Dealer (earlier there was a comment that the Plain Dealer article was more about general internet stuff they had an article on 9 June 2006 entitled: "Before Vanilla Ice, there was Denny Blaze"). Also there was a mention on Keith Olbermann's show. There may be many reasons to delete this artilce but lack of sources doesn't seem to be one of them. Makgraf 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you link some of those? I want to check them out (I'm always skeptical about "internet phenomena" articles). --Wafulz 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main objective of wikipedia is higher education, the "average homeboy" does not advance the education of wikipedia users. If you have ever seen the video the average homeboy, its nothing but horrible rapping, and stupid effects. It has no real educational value at all. --Acorn98 04:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your premise is completely untrue; the "main objective" of Wikipedia is compiling knowledge, not specifically "higher education". --Delirium 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering this guy solely as a music artist he would be an A7 speedy candidate without a second thought. That he has become something of an internet phenomenon is (I'm sure) very nice for him, but my reading of WP:BIO would mean that he'd have to be an internationally world famous internet phenomenon (like that damnable Crazy Frog) in order to be considered for inclusion on this basis alone. But he patently isn't having got media attention only from a couple of local papers. 86.140.3.176 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above was written by User:A1octopus who had forgotten to sign in.

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

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

The result was Keep, per newfound sources. Xoloz 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival[edit]

Unreferenced article on a non-notable film festival. Could not find any evidence of non-trivial coverage on Google or Google News archive. MER-C 11:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I see a lot of blue links to filmmakers who seem to be able to rate their own articles who have participated, but as the nom notes, there's no coverage out there. I got 565 G-hits when searching 'Lausanne Underground Film Festival' - not a lot, really. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment try a search for 'Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival' as it is properly titled and you will find another 1000 references. Not sure the value of this number though. The festival features films from all over the world. Last years feature winner was an American film. It is listed officially on the | Swiss Film Agencies list of Swiss film festivals. It is featured in the Swiss French newspapers when it runs. Again I think this is an attack because something isn't mainstream and well known. Wikepedia is in danger of becoming a reference of only well known things. That isn't much of a reference. User:Geoff13 User_talk:Geoff13 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think what Geofff found is sufficient, though the references need to be added. DGG 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Geofff (and DGG...). Moumine70 10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above Think outside the box 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep. It's the editors responsibility to source the article and even though Geoff's comments were made almost a week ago I see no change in the article. Geoff, its not an attack on non-mainstream things, its an attack on non-sourced articles. Would you fix it up? JodyB_talk 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe Geoff's only interest in keeping this is because he was using it as a source to keep his own articles. All supposed references are mainly directory entries, Wikipedia references, and other trivial sources. Actual Ghits are ~80. [7] Phony Saint 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment JodyB I'm off to Hong Kong for a week today and to be honest my own article had multiple independent sources (references to about four film festival websites with articles about it, IMDB and its own website) and was still deleted partly because of it not having multiple independent sources and secondly because winning an award at LUFF was not notable. To be honest I don't think that was the main reason for its deletion. I am not encouraged to contribute any further to Wikepedia. If Wikepedian's like Phony Saint do not want to learn anything about underground film it is their loss. User:Geoff13 05:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Geoff. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VIAS[edit]

Non-notable subsidiary company. At best merge into Valeo. -- RHaworth 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The article does not have independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 09:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non notable coperation. Edited by only one user which does not comply with WP:COI. Article is written like an advertisement. DBZROCKS 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely to be WP:COI and fails WP:CORP criteria. No reliable sources and its claim to be one of the biggest is false. Terence 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well said above. JodyB_talk 13:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airsoft Fields in the United States[edit]

WP:NOT a directory, and none of the listed locations are notable. PROD was removed. Delete. Fang Aili ^talk 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Articles should not consist primarily of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an online directory. --Wafulz 01:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the airsoft article perhaps. DGG 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a directory. Terence 05:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderwing (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not a directory and no context. JodyB_talk 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a (small) directory/list of external links. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manthrakodi (soap opera)[edit]

No need for such nonsense here. This isn't notable enough for inclusion, as per WP:NOT. Not famous enough. rohith 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Trying to go through Google: "Manthrakodi TV -wikipedia" gets very little. The most reliable source is a IMDB link and I don't even think that is refering to the same Manthrakodi. In addition, the article's last section is filled with WP:NOT#CBALL. This series is just not big enough to warrant an article. Mitaphane _?|! 01:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does it even actually exist? It almost seems made up... Bjrobinson 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually did exist, but then it is not at all famous to be included here. As you can see, I believe the article had been wholly written by a fan and is totally unsourced. Its quality is also below-par. Especially the language. In any case, this is in no way suitable for inclusion here. rohith 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Removing afd tag; closed as keep[reply]

Protein-DNA interaction site predictor[edit]

Ignoring the state of the article, I really don't think we need separate articles down to this level of detail. Completely unsourced, and from the tone I wouldn't be that surprised if it's been cut-and-pasted from a textbook — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't seem the least detailed to me-- over-general if anything, and and could be used as a start at a more thorough overview of the topic. I don't think these are in the textbooks yet--it sounds more like class notes & easy to rewrite if necessary We also might need articles on the individual programs mentioned. GS returns at least 10 hits for BindN, 18 for DP Bind, only 2 for DISPLAR, though it is a related program. There were already 3 good inline refs to the university web pages for these programs--I moved them to external sites, and from them I found the formal literature refs, which I put in. Good to work on some molecular biology for a change. DGG 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG - needs more detail if anything. Think outside the box 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- There is a similar article on Protein-protein interaction prediction which is just about as bad. I think they should be combined into a single article on biochemical interaction prediction which could then be expanded into something substantial. Mangoe 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC) I bow to the opinions of others. Mangoe 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Provides useful information. No merging with Protein-protein interaction prediction. These are very different things.Biophys 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs wikification. Do not merge with protein-protein interaction prediction; that is an entirely separate process. Axl 21:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICarly Episodes[edit]

Unverifiable speculation. Nothing on TV.com and the Official site. Wafulz 00:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Reintroduce when more information that can be sourced is available, and not so many "TBAs" are on the page. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 12:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Butternut[edit]

non notable business C5mjohn 00:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have enough reliable secondary sources to substantiate notability. --Wafulz 00:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost all ski areas meet the notability standard, since they are covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources, e.g. Ski and Skiing magazines, plus local and regional newspapers with large circulations. It is simply a matter of someone doing the legwork needed to dig up these sources, which are not always sitting online. There is no need to serially list one ski area after another at AfD. Our efforts would be better spent locating the sources and improving the articles than having AfD debates about them. --Seattle Skier (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course its notable. Its a whacking great big ski resort with lifts and trials and hotels and things. It just needs some sources, that can be fixed in minutes. There are a number of reviews and third party sites relating to this area, im sure tons of magazines as well. Bjrobinson 12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're claiming that there are enough sources, while I'm claiming there are not. The only way to prove me wrong is to actually provide the sources for this location specifically. --Wafulz 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable resort, but cleanup to remove advertising tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think "because its a ski resort" should be enough to warrant notability. I'm sure there are many restaurants that are reviewed in local and regional newspapers and also reviewed in restaurant and dining magazines, but that doesn't make every one of them notable enough to have an article. Having the non notable ski resorts listed in List of ski areas and resorts should suffice most of the time. C5mjohn 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems many people find a lot of these ski resorts notable, so I will focus on culling only the very small, obscure and unpopular resorts. C5mjohn 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Ryan Postlethwaite 11:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatloos (website)[edit]

Delete As it stands, the article does not meet WP:WEB criteria (The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.). Most references linked on the talk page have it as part of a list with other websites. JianLi 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe I'm not totally up on the Wiki policies, but why delete an article that provides a useful description of a useful website? I've personally consulted it many times as a resource on fraudulent schemes. If the wikipedia entry exists, then people can edit it and make it better. If it's deleted, then not only are future editors deterred, but the work of the people who created the entry is being destroyed. Seems not only pointless but disrespectful to the community members who worked on it. Oblivy 04:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & keep. Ad JianLi said, by Wiki policy, a website does indeed have to have acchieved some level of notability to be worthy of having a wikipedia page. I have added references from PCMag attesting to the usefulness of the site, so I think the article now clears the WP:WEB bar. DMacks 06:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless compliance with WP:WEB is demonstrated. All we have at the moment is that it was "site of the week" in one magazine. --kingboyk 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now also "Best of the Web" from another. DMacks 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep The website has been given an award from Forbes, a notable financial magazine, then I think it meets criterion 2 of WP;WEB, and is notable. Especially when it's put in an inline citation.--Kylohk 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criterion 2 seems to have been met, as discussed above. Famspear 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I may not have time to make my reasoning clear, before I return home around 16 May, but it seems notable, per references in notable financial publications such as Forbes and the Motley Fool. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Kylohk and Famspear said. --63.25.251.198 12:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chaser - T 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexyss tylor[edit]

Notability. Seems to have some exposure in the blogosphere, but not enough to warrant an article, methinks Chris 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unsourced = problems with verification. the_undertow ^talk 11:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While she may be somewhat less known than other people on the net, there are articles dedicated to lesser known people for less. True, her fame may be double edged, as she is known equally as a joke as much as a guru, but she is becoming better & better known. There are also bits of information on this site that is not known elsewhere, so I'd vote to keep it. Tokyogirl79Tokyogirl79

Keep Alexyss Tylor is gaining widespread popularity from her local television show. I think this page needs to be cleaned up and expanded with a detailed biography and pictures, not deleted.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary reliable sources for verification or to substantiate notability. --Wafulz 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion this page is in need of a clean-up and references, not deletion. She is notable enough that I expected WP to have an article on her, and it did. --Imtzo 02:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have gotten some point-and-laugh attention on forums and such, but nothing close to the sort of reliable sources we'd need for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KrakatoaKatie 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University College London Law Faculty. Sr 13 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentham House[edit]

This information is pretty much repeated in University College London and University College London Law Faculty. should be merged if not deleted completely C5mjohn 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant material. --Wafulz 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Terence 05:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine incantations scripture[edit]

Three months ago, this article came out of an AFD as a keeper; in fact, I had suggested keep. The problem is that shortly after the AfD, a ((cleanup)) tag was placed on it. Since then, the only edits to this have been from a bot augmenting the cleanup tags. No effort has been made to edit this in just shy of three months. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just leave the tag on. Deletion isn't for articles that nobody has cleaned. --Wafulz 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dream world (universe)[edit]

Misleading title, not enclyopedic, the science of dreams does not recognize anything called a 'Dream World', less this it's simply a list of dream sequences in fiction, which is not encyclopedic Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shows what you know. Keep the article. People will need to know what a "dream world" is. Angie Y. 17:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually read quite a few journal articles and books on Dreaming, and no where do they mention a "dream world". There are also zero sources on this article, which is another problem. This is nothing personal, I just simply don't feel this is a worth-while article. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just add ((tone)) to the article. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is textbook original research. JuJube 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, nonsense, unencyclopedic. 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep / Rename - Dream worlds' are a frequently used plot device in fiction. I agree the title is misleading; change to Dream world (Plot device)? Think outside the box 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that. Angie Y. 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That raises up the issue of tracking down attributable sources that specifically refer to that as a topic. If you're willing to track them down, then I'll consider changing my vote. JuJube 12:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Nightmare on Elm Street has a lot about dream worlds used as plot devices and Lucid dreaming in popular culture references many good examples. Think outside the box 10:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't expect me to get those sources for you. You have to find them on your own. JuJube 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite If you're going to rename this to Dream Universe (plot device) then you need to remove the whole opening false paragraph about dream universes being part of the science of Dreams. They are not. The science of Dreams talks of dreams as what they are -- hallucinations, not alternate universes or planes. 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've created the article Dream world (Plot device) and copied the revenant content from this article to there. I've also rewritten the opening paragraph and added more about how it is used as a plot device. Think outside the box 10:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Anything that needs to be preserved should go to Dream world (plot device). Goldfritha 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin E. Wagner[edit]

A psychologist and the test he has invented. Is he notable or is this just an advert? Article has been speedily deleted once. -- RHaworth 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article might just need a visit to the WP:MoS. My Google search shows the guy exists. He has written books, but I don't see a biography on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 May, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your posts. I believe this man is worthy of this post. This is not advertising. This is my first post. What else do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgranvilleus (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 May, 2007 (UTC)

Delete Searches for this thing seem to pull up only papers and books about this test, authored by Dr. Wagner. I did not find a single case of someone else talking about this test. Mangoe 20:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week~~ Keep pending further checking. I find 51 GS hits, in a number of different journals, some of them refer specifically to his "Hand Test", and do Differentiation between Acting-Out and Non-Acting-Out Alcoholics with the Rorschach and Hand Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, v36 n3 p791-97 Jul 1980]. He has apparently published a very large number of minor papers. I'd normally consider him of borderline notability as an academic. However, there has been 1 published work devoted specifically to his theory, and a long evaluative review of a book about it that he co-edited. Technically, this meets our requirements. I rewrote the article to eliminate repetitive spam and include the references. DGG 02:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the re-write - did you save it? -- RHaworth 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the reason article was speedily deleted first time is because it included info on the price of Hand Test. That info has been removed. Is it ever appropriate to include this kind of info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgranvilleus (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 May, 2007 (UTC)

No, one normally links to it as an external link for the company or publisher.DGG 00:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And RHaworth has it right, it looks like I did forget to save. I've just redone the essentials,.DGG 00:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Thank you for your reply and your excellent work that improved the article. I am learning from your work. dgranvilleus

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have a look for "hand test" and wagner on Pubmed [8]. Multiple results from other authors referring to the test, PMID 16083387, PMID 15799890, PMID 10689647...Mmoneypenny 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mmopneypenny. Google Scholar shows numerous pubs in well regarded journals, and the Hand Test manual published by Thomas went into numerous editions. Edison 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Coldharbour Lane and Delete. utcursch | talk 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun and Doves[edit]

The entry does not explain why the pub is notable. SilkTork 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real assertion of notability, and no references found in searching to indicate any sort of notability. -- Whpq 16:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete - I dont think this entry should be deleted - it certainly needs to be expanded to reflect the pub's significance but I was hoping that others with greater knowledge would add information to the item.

The pub is very significant because it has hosted art exhibitions by several artists who have gone on to be well known. It is also significant as it was one of the first restaurant/pub combinations. It has also wone/ been nominated for several awards - 1996 nominated Time Out London Bar of The Year. 1998 Evening Standard Pub of the Year runner-up. 1999 entered in Good Food Guide —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sw8 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Add a sentence or two to Coldharbour Lane- piece of local interest. --Wafulz 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Will Coldharbour Lane, and keep the nice picture. Bjrobinson 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bjrobinson until some more history can be found. Really, being a trendy gastropub does not confer notability. And as a Londoner I wouldn't place any great reliance on Time Out. BTLizard 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see any justification for keeping this entry, unless every pub in the UK is going to be listed... Duke of Whitstable 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just reads like an advert for the pub - no doubt largely written by someone closely involved, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.172.252.114 (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but edit and format so that it reads better - as someone else has said the pub is significant because it has hosted art exhibitions by a number of artists that have gone on to wider fame and its an important feature of Camberwell --Sophieee

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swan & Sugarloaf[edit]

Text does not explain why the pub is notable. SilkTork 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Search of Google news sees mentions of the pub but nothing that seems to be about the pub. -- Whpq 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find reliable sources with the pub as the topic. --Wafulz 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brighton Road, may have some local notability. Bjrobinson 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Not too much to see here! Duke of Whitstable 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination, and consequently the WP:PERNOM arguments, seem to be kind of ignorant as to what the device actually is, and are more than adequately addressed by the keep arguments. Mango juice^talk 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aneros[edit]

its not advertising. It is a unique device.

This thing is not notable enough for Wikipedia. It's a vibrator like many other vibrators. Possible advertising. Aminullah 19:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually a vibrator (did you even read the article?) - it's a butt plug, and it's not like many others; it's designed specifically for prostate massage and to be used actively rather than passively. There are knock-offs, but this is the original of this design. In a lot of ways it's similar to Ben Wa balls, tho those are not from a single manufacturer. See also: Fleshlight. Not that the article should be saved, but at least give it a proper chance. I vote (if there's a vote) keep.--Justfred 02:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak delete~~ changed to Keep,, see below / there does seem to be a product review from about.com's Cory Silverstein, and I consider that a usable source, but I do not think by itself it is sufficient. With an additional source i'd say it met the requirements. But even so I think it would be better merged into a generic article--ditto for Fleshlight. DGG 04:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not like a butt-plug at all, it's very different. It doesn't vibrate at all. The Aneros started the whole category of male g-spot/prostate massagers that are out there today. If you're looking for more sources, the Aneros website has a listing. The about.com one isn't listed as one of them. And I'm not talking about porn magazines either either - New York Magazine, Details, Arena, Village Voice - mainstream publications. - Aneros Fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.182.136 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- OK, the context helps. ~~then rewrite the article as "Prostate massagers" so it isn't about just one company & includes the context. Could you start by adding the appropriate references, and we can move the article.~~DGG 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure why it needs to be made generic. Should we do the same for Slinky -> "Metal Spring Toys"? There are countless other examples of single-company products. There's already a prostate massage page, so this would basically mean folding this article into that one, which I think is inappropriate since it's only one example of a prostate massage tool/method. I think this is a decent article that stands on its own and doesn't need to be removed or integrated at the expense of content.--Justfred 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Mmoneypenny 13:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't have an article for every model of vaccum cleaner or toaster, I don't see why we'd have one for individual models of vibrators, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a vibrator, it's a class of its own, enough so that this is the generic term for this type of device. There are decently-sized articles for each of these classes of sex toy: Fleshlight, Clitoral_vibrator, Rabbit_vibrator, G-spot_vibrator, Love_egg, Anal_vibrator, Butterfly_vibrator, Anal_beads, Erotic_electrostimulation, Sybian. There isn't one for the eroscillator though there could be, as it's different enough (and recommended by Dr. Ruth!). If removed, it should redirect to Prostate_massage; there's already a picture of a similar device (knock-off) there.--Justfred 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to abstain here. I mean, how do you determine notability for a sex toy? It's fairly notable within its own realms (and expensive, to boot), but sex toys aren't exactly a mainstream thing here in the USA - in fact, it's still kind of taboo to talk about it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since taboos don't apply here, I suppose we have to accept whatever sources apply, & a product review or two, wherever published, by anyone outside the company might be enough. I accept this as the best title, a/c/Justfred.DGG 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I acknowledge that. After all, we're not censored here. I'm just trying to figure out what would constitute WP:RS under the circumstances - probably the most mainstream publication that would take it would be porn mags and possibly Village Voice Media publications. I do, of course, reserve the right to vote keep. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A review of the links on the Aneros page so far reveal that the vast majority of the links simply point to articles that merely give mention in passing to this toy. Of the two that I might - might - consider to be worthwhile are the mention by Sue Johansen in her top ten favorites list, and the science project write up that the Aneros web page links to. I haven't looked at Playgirl yet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conception Bay CeeBees Stars[edit]

local league team. No evidence of notability, no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbustoo 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The league doesn't have an article, and this article contains no information- it mirrors information on the Herder Cup and segways to brag about its fanbase. --Wafulz 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refrences for an team without notability means a delete. Felix 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mancation (2nd nomination)[edit]

This thing has been speedied 7 times as various forms of nonsense and spam for a tour/vacationi company and as a non-notable neologism. It's also been through a previous AfD, which was closed speedy-delete. And now it popped up on my watchlist again. I nuked some clear nonsense content including a seemingly-bad-faith ref in support of notability of the term. This is a procedural nom, let's clear the air once and for all about the notability and WP-suitability of this thing. DMacks 01:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Good Lord - it actually has references! Does anyone have access to Lexis or something to verify these references as actually existing? --Haemo 01:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources really exist. This article was honestly written for a completely unbiased school project. The entry is not a neologism as it is a trend in business. The 2009 movie is also worthy of noting. --Abcgal83 01:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO. JuJube 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; god help me, those sources actually do check out. I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it cut down & booted over to Wiktionary; it's too long for a dictionary article as it stands but I think it would fit more comfortably there. And I fervently hope I will never actually meet the kind of man who'd actually go on one of these. And I really don't want to know what "sexual reawakening" involves - given that it's an all male group, is it a polite way to say "hang out in strip clubs"? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; i checked as well... the sources do check out, and as this is well-researched, has legitimate sources, and is merely just an entry made for an unbiased school project that appears to be based on hard facts, I say keep it HartfordWhaler 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a horrible neologism, but sourceable. Needs to be rewritten. There are numerous sources on Google News Archive. It should be pointed out that the "Larry" actually exists, owns the domain mancation.com, and promotes himself as the coiner. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nom does not assert that the present page should be deleted. DMacks 14:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep sourcing looks pretty solid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has some refs, and abit more than a dicdef, even though it sounds like something from a Seinfeld episode. Edison 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs serious wikification & some cleanup, but the sources are good (except for one that wouldn't let me open it with Camino for no apparent reason. Abcgal83 did a good job with the basics so let's keep it and see where it, and she, goes from here. She and classmates could become valuable editors. KrakatoaKatie 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wayne Cooper[edit]

non-notable person C5mjohn 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary source indicating notability. Mwelch 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Google search results "Anthony Wayne Cooper" -wikipedia return wikipedia forks and other Anthony Wayne Coopers. None mention this Anthony, his award, or website. I suspect WP:VAIN. Mitaphane _?|! 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. This article is an advert for his photography business, nothing more. DarkAudit 03:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable, using article for selfpromotion. NawlinWiki 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru[edit]

This is English Wikipedia. Why do we have a page about a Japanese phrase? JuJube 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more to the point, why do we have a page about a Japanese phrase that doesn't explain, or assert, why it's notable. --Haemo 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to a one-sentence entry on List of homophonous phrases, and after the headache of trying to make sense of its English twin, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, I'm starting to see the merits of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a valid argument — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge unless verified. Can't find any independent sources or many google hits for either this spelling or the variants. Don't transwiki to ja either. The external link doesn't talk about this particular phrasing, and gives no indication that it is anything but an example. –Pomte 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certain foreign phrases have currency and notability in English without being translated, but this isn't one of them. Maybe belongs on a language wiki. Linguicruft. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is the English version of Wikipedia. Useight 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "This is the English Wikipedia" While different Wikipedias may have different inclusion standards, the general concept is the same, and nowhere does it say that we are only supposed to focus on things in English-speaking culture. In fact, doing so would represent systemic bias, a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Being the English language Wikipedia just means that the articles are in English, not which articles there are. Thus the only reason this articles topic is in Japanese is because its significance is in the way it's written in Japanese, for the same reason that you wouldn't expect the buffalo sentence to be translated into Spanish on es. That said, I don't know that there are enough reliable sources verifying the significance of this phrase compared to Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den (to give a more appropriate example), and I'm not going to argue for keeping. Confusing Manifestation 06:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs on the Japanese Wikipedia or in a dictionary (preferably a japanese one) DBZROCKS 21:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung (not per nom or others, as explained by Confusing Manifestation). cab 23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per reasons above. ~I'm anonymous
- ??? Speedy on what grounds? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Speedy on account that the article itself is plain cruft in question, it should be speedily deleted — it's blantantly unverified content and original research. ~I'm anonymous

Comment I don't remember that being any of the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact, that page suggests that they are absolutely not criteria. Confusing Manifestation 07:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may hint that, but this article's standards meet those of a speedy deletion. Am I not making sense? ~I'm anonymous

Strong keep We have plenty of articles about English phrases; this one was no less interesting, and translating the name into English (which meaning of this pun?) would not help. If deleted, please move to my userspace, and notify me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable article about a common sentence often referred to in linguistics discussions. It's neither something made up in one day nor a dictionary definition. Dekimasu よ! 04:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salvage per Pmanderson — The Japanese Tongue-twister article ja:早口言葉 should be translated into English first, creating a new Japanese tongue-twisters article. (It can be called Hayakuchi kotoba instead, if that's more appropriate.) Then this article should be merged into it. The bit about the "pseudo-kanbun" (庭庭庭庭鳥居) seems to be useless info, even if it may be true, and should be deleted (in favor of hiragana). The article itself in the current form should be deleted.--Endroit 08:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about the "pseudo-kanbun" seems to have been original research and was duly removed from the article. The article should be safe to salvage now.--Endroit 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Just[edit]

Non notable person C5mjohn 01:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What short stories? What novels? Where are the sources? DarkAudit 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's that one author that wrote about that one guy and what happened during that one war. Ambiguity aside, notability is not asserted in the article and I can't find any reliable sources about her. --Cyrus Andiron 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. As to whether to merge or not, I believe that there is not significant disapproval of Will Beback's proposal to have a single article on Activism related to pedophilia, but neither is there a lot of positive approval, so this may be a reasonable course to attempt, but perhaps a bit more consensus should be sought on the point. Mango juice^talk 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Pedophile Activism[edit]

This is a WP:POV fork of Pedophile activism. The editor who created it state that his reason was to "move the bulky and unnecessary criticism sections from this article".[9] There were no criticism sections of Pedophile activism, and the editor did not seek consensus before creating the fork. Will Beback · † · 01:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect listing and Keep. The reason stated by Will B was only one of my stated reasons, the other being that the article is a subject in its own right (anti - pedophilia, perverted justice, predator hunter, pedophile demonstrations, etc), and should be added to regardless of whether the pedophile activism criticism is eventually moved. This is not a POV fork, either. The POV fork page explicitly states that articles started to doucument a prominent POV are not POV forks themselves.

I also strongly oppose Will's characterisation of me not seeking consensus before the fork. This is not because I did seek consensus (I did not), but because I split absolutely no material, built an original article, and was therefore totally right to create the new page, as this did not disrupt any other projects (beyond a discussion on a talk page).

The reason I am calling out Will B's listing as suspect, is because his original post on the talk page treated my article as if it were a simple 'advocacy against pedophile activism' piece. If it was as such, I would agree to have it deleted in no time. But this clearly isn't the case, as one can see from looking at the article itself; advocacy against pedophile activism is a subsection of a subsection. After looking at the article, it seems as if Will has decided to stick to his original opinion - which I can't seriously believe was informed by looking at the actual article. --Jim Burton 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think this is a POV Fork of pedophile activism. This article is about activism against pedophiles; the other article is about activism by pedophiles in support of normalizing their actions. The two are pretty different, and independent concepts, and I don't think either one is well-served by being folded into the other article. As Jim says, he didn't split any information off, and the criticism section could be moved here in the future. This isn't a POV fork - a fork would be if this page was something like "Criticisms of Pedophile Activism", or something. --Haemo 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong speedy merge This is an attempt to stall the integration of anti pedophile activism into pedophile activism and to even more reduce the current level of criticism in pediphile activism. Redirect material to pedophile activism which from now on needs to contain both pro and anti pedophile activism. IMO this kind of behaviour from nominator needs mediation as a dispute resolution, SqueakBox 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this view, as I do your unreasonably speedy merge (not the first time you've done this), carried out without discussion, let alone consensus! I have not carried out my aims of moving content, which I myself have stated that I wish to seek consensus for. Please be civil, and discuss.

I believe that the current pedophile activism article is laden with a degree of criticism that reflects the consensus in society, as opposed to its relevance to the movement itself. Whilst we should allow for these criticisms to be presented in a general, shortened form within the article itself, we should present the bulk of them in an article that relates to the movement from which they originated. We can easily link to this article from the pedophile activism article.

And I repeat, the creation of my article does not automatically facilitate the recombination of material, which my article can exist perfectly well without. This is why I see SqueakBox's (now repeated) blanking of my article as disgraceful, uncivil editing --Jim Burton 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL as your not doing so will not go in your favour. I find your view on public opinion consensus astonishing, SqueakBox 03:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to stop blanking the article - that's what this process is for. It's an abuse of being bold to do so. --Haemo 04:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the afd notice. I am trying to improve the encyclopedia and accusing me of abusing BOLD strikes me as assuming bad faith, SqueakBox 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see this: Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed., and then I see you do exactly what it tells you not to do here, so I don't know what else to call that but an abuse of being bold --Haemo 04:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute codswallop. I didnt remove the notice, SqueakBox 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you did blank the article. --Haemo 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. And you cant provide the diff either so please stop this silliness, SqueakBox 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did here. --Haemo 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the notice remained and I added a redirect. Hardly blanking the page, indeed I was improving the aricle and wikipedia (the material is in pedophile activism), SqueakBox 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you removed all the content in the article, and replaced the page with a redirect. If that isn't "blanking" I don't know what is. --Haemo 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

I don't understand why we would should merge "pedophile activism" and "anti-pedophile activism" into a single article. The two appear to be distinct fields of activism, and wouldn't be well served as a section of either article. Furthermore, no content has been merged - there is an ongoing discussion of whether or not to merge "criticism of pedophile activism" into this article. I don't think it should, but that isn't really important for the AfD. --Haemo 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge them because they represent the "pro" and "anti" sides of a single topic. We don't routinely put all criticism of a topic into a separate article. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints in every article. -Will Beback · † · 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I think that's where the disagreement here is - this isn't "anti (pedophile activism)" - as in, a page about criticisms of pedophile activism, or being against pedophile activism, but rather about "(anti-pedophile) activism". That is, activism against pedophiles in society. Inevitably, anyone who is an activist against pedophiles in society, will also be opposed to pedophile activism - but that doesn't mean that the two positions are "pro" and "anti" sides of a single topic. --Haemo 05:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking - if you want a single page about all activism related to pedophilia; for instance, people who are activists "for" pedophilia, and those who are "against" it, you're going to have to restructure the page significantly - say, rename it "Activism related to pedophilia", then have sections both "for" and "against". For instance, currently it appears that "pedophile activism" is activism in favor of pedophilia - or so the page currently explains. That makes a simple merge of the content inappropriate. --Haemo 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the editor created this POV fork I had proposed changing the article name to "pedophilia-related activism". That would not be a major change, and in fact would better reflect the contents of the article. -Will Beback · † · 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably this article was created as a response to Will's proposal and before it had been given a reasonabl;e amount of time for discussion, hence this article shopuld be speedied and the original name changing debate continued, SqueakBox 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're also going to need to re-write the article, too - it's currently a little bit confused about the "pro" and "anti" sections; they all kind of blur together into half-criticism, and half-material. I think that some kind of agreement on how to name these articles would be a good idea - maybe, rather than deleting this article, involved editors could work together to restructure the "pedophile activism" article, renaming it as you suggested, and then merge the material once a satisfactory delineation has been made. It seems, however, that the topics are already getting quite long, and the article might be more well-served by a smaller section, summarizing the highlight of this article, and a "main article" link. --Haemo 05:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to me to be an entirely separate concept from the suggested merge topic. Perhaps the involved users should find a method of discussion that doesn't involve blanking and redirecting without consensus. The assertion that blanking and redirecting is entirely different from only blanking is, of course, absurd. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Will mentions that all articles should present all POVs that are relevant. That is fine. What he does not notice, is that with the pedophile activism article, a POV is the subject matter. The subject matter should not be counted as a pov alongside all the others which commentate on that subject matter. The subject matter should be covered objectively (as it is). NPOV comes in when we are considering what views to bounce off the ideas presented, in 'criticism' or 'commentary' sections.

Lets put it this way. We shouldn't be giving socialism a 20% share of the socialism article, simply because only 20% of people support socialism. Criticism should only take up about 25% of an article- maximum. --Jim Burton 06:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a POV is not the subject, a movement is the subject. The article is not about whether pedophilia is a good thing or not, its about men and groups of men who are activists in favor of pedophilia-related causes. Even if it were an article about a POV it would still have to be neutral and present whatever viewpoints there are on that POV. I don't see any source in the article referring to "Anti Pedophile Activism", so I'm not sure that the "antis" are a topic on their own anyway. Most of the material appears to be original research. -Will Beback · † · 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is young, and I aim to add more material and sources to it.

However you want to put it (i.e. not about a POV, about a movement), you can not escape the fact that pro - pedophile and pro - intergenerational sex positions should not be assumed to be part of some balanced debate within the Pedophile Activism article. Those opinions are the subject matter of that article, as with the outspoken positions of communism, anarchism and naziism. Combining pro and anti pedophile activist positions into one article, because both relate to pedophilia (among other things) is as ludicrous as combining Pro life and Pro choice because both relate to abortion.

I will also add that I named the article A P A, because although such a phrase is barely ever used, the phenomenon obviously exists as a coherent and opinion - sharing movement. That they don't have the intelligence to collaborate on a name is out of my control --Jim Burton 07:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both cover different two very different movements related to the same thing. The comparison to Pro-life and Pro-choice is apt, and demanding that the article produce sources from all agencies which match the title is ludicrous, as the article clearly states that the focus is on agencies which are anti-pedophilia. The name is generic, which is more than suitable for the title of an article. It conveys the concept, the opposition to pedophiles and agencies which forward this goal, and that's all we can really expect out of a title. I'd say give it a couple weeks, at the very least: It's silly to expect an article created yesterday to spring forth fully formed. I see the makings of a good article, here. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is not NPOV, seems to exist primarily as a critique of Perverted Justice. There is no evidence of a movement, per se, just a few examples thrown in to enhance the anti-Perverted Justice material. The place for some of this, in my opinion, is in the Perverted Justice entry. What's left is not sufficient for an independent entry. -Jmh123 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge so that both sides of a controvery appear in the same article, to avoid a POV fork. Edison 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or rename to anti-child sexual abuse movement. -Jillium 18:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename - Content should be merged with Pedophile activism and the resulting article renamed. -- Kesh 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bring your attention to the pro life / pro choice comparison. Both are seperate movements. --Jim Burton 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is not a merge vote, it is a delete vote. --Jim Burton 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" is a standard !vote in AfDs. -Will Beback · † · 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with merging is that barely anything involved in my article has relevance to the Pedophile Activism topic. Why? Because my article has relevance on its own; it documents a coherent, noticeable movement!

To get the articles merged would require a name change, and that would require a lot of idiots. --Jim Burton 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...[A]and that would require a lot of idiots. What is that supposed to mean? Are you calling those who've proposed a name change "idiots"? And as for there being a "coherent" movement so far you haven't been able to find any sources for the "movement" at all. -Will Beback · † · 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid atacking those you disagree with. It makes for an unpleasant atmosphere. Imagine we were all in the same office and you started calling us idiots - well I am sure you can imagine. So please remain civil, SqueakBox 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am calling no one an idiot, but just implying that if the name were changed succesfully, so that we had an article that referred to a culture war as opposed to either of the notable movements, a lot of idiots would have to turn up. SqB, stop accusing me of things that I did not do (and an activist agenda). That is highly uncivil of you. I have sourced the movement by referring to the free bloghosts that almost all of them use, or otherwise the paid websites such as PJ and PH. --Jim Burton 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am fully aware that they are seperate movements. That does not preclude placing both sides of the issue in the same article where, I believe, they would be better suited. Neither movement has the same level of social awareness as Pro Choice/Pro Life, nor Pro Gay/Anti Gay movements, or other activism. As to your comment about this AfD, "merge" is often a valid solution aside from Keep/Delete. This is not a binary process, and I'm proposing an alternative I believe would best suit the facts Wikipedia will be presenting. -- Kesh 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that whilst I am trying to defend this article, another editor is removing references to blogs, originally designed to simply show that some free blogs which promote certain activities exist. Needing external documentation (other than the blogs themselves) that blogs promote ceratin agendas strikes me as crazy --Jim Burton 02:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or Merge The content is valuable. Whether it should be a part of Pedophile activism or its own article is a matter of philosophy and perhaps length. The content and edit history should not be lost. Dfpc 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be warned that if the articles were to be merged, we would end up with an article that constrained the dissemination of information about two notable movements and ways of thinking; a phenomenon (as opposed to movement or ideology) page that would end up as some hideously fragmented war between the two cultures that were editing it. --Jim Burton 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a notable movement how come you can't find any reliable sources describing it? -Will Beback · † · 04:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Because I arguably have. B: Because I don't need to, since the subject of the article is not a movement and besides, it can be deemed a valid entity solely on the merit of being endorsed by a community. C: Because admin has lumbered me with an AfD and merge discussion barely seconds after creating the article. Yeah, if you want to do a hatchet job on an article, best get them young, eh' lads? --Jim Burton 05:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't found a single source which discusses "anti-pedophile activism". If I'm wrong please provide the link here and I'll apologize for my error. -Will Beback · † · 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as a matter of fact I nominated it for deletion after a discussion on the talk:pedophile activism page and 5,940 seconds. -Will Beback · † · 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that I have an article describing the named phenomenon, but as Lanky said,the name is generic, which is more than suitable for the title of an article. What I do have already, and in abundance when given time, is sources that demonstrate various shades of what fits in to that generic title, and even the links between those different shades; perverted justice being a prominent example. 'Barely Seconds' was not intended to be literal, but rather a comic reference to the way that you sent the offending article to this dungeon before I could barely make it credible. As I said elsewhere, if you wnat to do a hatchet job, best get em' young! --Jim Burton 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When and if that happens, the editors of the combined article will discuss splitting. I suspect they will come to a consensus to split quickly for the very reasons you mention. The key points being 1) it will be a community decision and 2) you and I could both be wrong, the two sides could get along amicably. Dfpc 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting take on how merging the articles could help me get my way! --Jim Burton 06:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Current Recommendations: Voters: 11 Keep: 5 Merge: 3.5 Delete: 2.5 --Jim Burton 07:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sounds like a lack of a consensus. If this trend continues I recommend "fail"ing the Afd/keeping the article, "suggesting" the articles be merged, wait at least 6 months and see what happens. Hopefully by that time the quality of both articles or a merged article will be so high that nobody will suggest deleting anything. Dfpc 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barring the huge criticism section, the Pedophile Activism article is already a high quality (although unranked) piece. Problem is, various others think not. --Jim Burton 01:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Steiner[edit]

non notable person C5mjohn 01:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is in question - I see nothing notable about this guy other than he was a grandfather of a composer. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have been an influential figure in the Viennese opera boom of the era, and allegedly discovered Johann Strauss [10] and strong-armed Jacques Offenbach into writing his first operetta.[11] More:[12][13] --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're confusing the grandson with the grandfather in a couple of those links, both have the name Max but with vastly different claims to fame :) -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was confused too, but the article refers to the film composer's grandfather as the one who discovered Strauss, which would be the correct Max Steiner. C5mjohn 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that confusion a possibility but decided against a lengthy explanation, wrongly apparently! Yes, information about Maximilian often appears in articles about Max, because there are more articles about Max. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In light of evidence from Dhartung C5mjohn 05:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- career notable enough. DGG 00:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jou[edit]

non notable person C5mjohn 01:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In text information on awards won, etc, asserts notability. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a particularly silly hoax. Previous keep vote was based on very, very lazy googling ;) -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to verify the awards won. Only source given is a picture. DarkAudit 02:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoax The picture is of a kid in a Northwestern shirt with no other context. In 1985, this kid would barely be out of diapers. DarkAudit 03:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional Article's original editor's only edits were to this article. DarkAudit 12:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax. [http://www.norris.northwestern.edu/staff.php There's a Michael Jou at Northwestern, but he works for the student union (and is probably a student himself). --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, more than likely WP:BALLS, ultimately violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 12:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, looks like WP:BALLS and violates verifiability policies. Burntsauce 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's strongly believed that this article is a hoax, so why is it still here? DarkAudit 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-10 02:45Z

Tractor Fetisj[edit]

Seriously, what is this? This has been here since March 22, and I'm surprised it hasn't already been deleted. The only link is the redirect page tractor fetish. (NOTE: This is my first AFD nom; sorry in advance if I screw anything up in the process.) – Zone46 02:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - db-nonsense. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy BJAODN - hilarious, but patent nonsense. MER-C 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP, withdrawn by nominator (nominator struck his delete vote and voted to keep) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Mountain Resort[edit]

non notable business C5mjohn 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are a number of other ski resorts in wikipedia. See Category:Ski areas and resorts in Pennsylvania—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the further arguments presented. DGG' 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)~~Delete as discussed yesterday for 2 of the other ones. .~~ 'DGG 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete there are a number of other ski resorts in wikipedia...and we should delete any of the non notable ones. Many times list of ski areas and resorts in the United States would suffice C5mjohn 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems many people find a lot of these ski resorts notable, so I will focus on culling only the very small, obscure and unpopular resorts. C5mjohn 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Almost all ski areas meet the notability standard, since they are covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources, e.g. Ski and Skiing magazines, plus local and regional newspapers with large circulations. It is simply a matter of someone doing the legwork needed to dig up these sources, which are not always sitting online. There is no need to serially list one ski area after another at AfD. Our efforts would be better spent locating the sources and improving the articles than having AfD debates about them. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A regionally well-known ski resort that receives thousands of visitors each winter should be notable. In my opinion the size of a major ski resort's operation sets it apart from a restaurant or a small business; it's more akin to a theme park. Propaniac 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, if we're going to have to discuss every single ski resort listed on Wikipedia, I do wish someone would have just bundled them together instead of everyone (including myself) duplicating their remarks from the two other discussions and presumably to any further such discussions. Propaniac 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then the article should be sure to add proof that they recieve "thousands of visitors each winter" because some of the them might only get hundreds (because they might be very high class or just not popular) And I don't want to bundle all the ski resorts together because there are probably world renowned ones that ARE notable.

Strong keep - The nominator seems to be putting ski area up for deletion as a matter of course. This may be a small ski area (compared to other areas such as Vail Ski Resort and Killington Ski Resort), but it is not a small business. More sourcing is needed, but as for usage: This place is open 70 - 100 days a years and for most of that it is getting hundreds of visitors a day. As for WP:CORP, I have seem numerous articles on this area in the Washington Post and local magazines such as the Washingtonian. --EMS | Talk 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable and well-known ski resort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prom baby[edit]

I am not convinced that this is an actual phenomenon, apart from the general proposition that teenagers often have sex on prom night. The only source cited is a letter by a random man published in the "Dear Abby" column, who says he got this information from his teenage daughter. This is clearly not a reliable source, and I haven't been able to find anything else by googling. See other people's takes on this at [14]; they suggest it may have been an urban legend started by a family guy episode. Calliopejen1 02:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would not consider 'Dear Abby' as a reliable source. DarkAudit 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a non-notable neologism to me. There are three references, but the only one which has anything to do with this article isn't reliable --Haemo 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that "Abby" herself (Jeanne Phillips) did not assert that she had heard of this trend before; she just treated "Worried Dad"'s claim as though it were true. "Worried Dad" cannot be confirmed to be a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a feeling this would pop up after I read it in the paper yesterday. Anyone could've written that letter to AvB, and we have no way to know if this is an actual term out in the world beyond syndicated newspaper advice columns or the POV of Worried in Alpharetta. Most of the g-hits under "prom baby" currently lead back to this column syndicated on various paper sites, and other uses of the terms are not in the venacular of purposeful pregnancy. Nate 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the information can't be verified. This was linked from the prom article which (embarrassingly) is on my watchlist, but I removed the link because I couldn't find any evidence that this was anything other than teenage silliness. (As an aside, if anyone wants to help improve the prom article, it's really a wreck...) --JayHenry 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlikely WP:NEO and very much WP:SYN, as the article connects the concepts of conceiving a baby on prom night with other aspects of teen pregnancy. Has the smell of a deliberate moral panic about it.--Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NEO Thunderwing 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One letter to an advice columnist is inadequate sourcing. Besides, it is patent nonsense. Doubtless intercourse sometimes takes place on prom night, and that sometimes pregnancy results. The same could be said for Homecoming Night, The Eve of St. Agnes, or any other random night (or day), and all would have the claimed effect of the girl deferring her college education. Delete this to avoid having articles like St. Agnes Eve baby (alas, poor Madeline!). Edison 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a reliable source. --Charlene 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should this be redirected to teenage pregnancy, to direct readers to related (and factual) information, and to prevent recreation of this article? Calliopejen1 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The day this article appeared in Dear Abby I googled the term, and there were no references to babies being conceived on prom night apart from the Dear Abby column itself. The term appeared to sometimes be used to refer to a baby born on prom night, but there were absolutely no references to this phenomenon before the Dear Abby column. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.62.241 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The first half of the article is based on a letter to Dear Abby, which is not a reliable source, and the second half is basically just a repetition of information that is already available at Teenage pregnancy. -Severa (!!!) 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wiktionary It seems like the kind of page which will never grow beyond a dictionary definition. --Bachrach44 14:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added a move to wiktionary tag, which I removed for now. You can re-add the tag if it's the consensus of the discussion, but if this is a hoax/urban legend it shouldn't be in wiktionary either. Calliopejen1 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn without dissenting opinion. Non-admin procedural closure. Serpent's Choice 08:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Banshee 350[edit]

Nominator request to retract nomination. Any administrator or able-bodied individual, please close this AFD. It was a flippant nomination made with a serious lack of judgement on my part. ALTON .ıl 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Banshee 350 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
All articles for deletion (in this nom)

Total: 56 articles

A huge batch of articles listing specifications of various motorcycles. Out of the list, only five articles successfully cite references, and only three of those cite more than one site. One article (Yamaha_TZ250) is sporting possibly copyvio material, giving information that is 'used by permission'. Most of these articles list no more than a table of the motorcycle's data, and a brief lead. Many contain pictures that are most likely not GFDL or PD.

No notability - I don't know if there was a previous contention that articles like these did not need a certain amount of sources, but I'm sure each one is probably covered in fan magazines and designer manuals. However none of the articles above assert notability. The leads in many "____ is a motorcycle created by Yamaha" seem to presume being a product of Yamaha's is enough.
Essentially a directory - very few articles give history, and virtually none (5/57) give references. Most articles contain nothing more than an infobox about the motorcycle's specifications.
Contributes little - there is little interest in the articles as a whole, and most contain fewer than ten edits, some being cleanup tags or bots. Very few articles link to each, and even between articles there is little connection; it lacks a cohesive navbox or central list.

Very few of these articles are encyclopedic and most contribute little to the project. Interest is not high, and virtually no attempt is made to heed template messages. If not delete, I propose a Merge into List of Yamaha motorcycles or a similar page. ALTON .ıl 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Something about this proposal is fishy to me. Why do so many articles Yamaha FJR1300 link to this one AfD debate? What articles exactly does this AfD proposal cover? Why is it productive to delete a "good start" like FJR1300, when it is substantially past the stub status? Brianhe 03:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mass nom. The nominator should list each article nominated on this page. MER-C 03:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, all are listed now. I edit-conflicted both of you. ALTON .ıl 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just pulling two more articles at random, Yamaha Diversion and Yamaha Virago doesn't square with your claims that these are delete-worthy articles. Both look substantial to me, with at least some model history. Furthermore, I reject the point "lacks a navbox" as justification for deletion of a class of products. Brianhe 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: While the WikiProject Motorcycling was only started in October 2006, articles are being written and starting to improve. This nom seems to have it in for Yamaha models, yet other manufacturers individual models seem ok. Several motorcycle articles are stubs like most of these were and hopefully will be expanded and sources provided. If this is the sort of AfD that will be put forward then it seems that special interest articles will be in jeopardy from now on. I also notice that the supposed copyvio does not quote the page it is supposed to be from. In fact I cannot find a page containing the original text. ww2censor 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing URL on the TZ250 copyvio was my fault, has been corrected. -- Brianhe 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Many of the articles are notable and do cite sources. I cannot advocate this en masse. Also, many of these article contain info that is encyclopediac, that some would find interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Barang (talk • contribs)

Speedy close Way too many articles in this bulk nomination. There is no possible way to make a uniform, single judgement about 56 articles. For instance Yamaha YZF600R appears to be a well developed article, while Yamaha Banshee 350 reads like a spec sheet introduced by a ripoff of a product brochure. Listed separately, I would !vote to keep the first, but delete the second. Please break up into smaller groupings, preferably at related levels of quality. Resolute 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support Speedy close as per Resolute. Stammer 08:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close 56 articles are far too many for a blanket nom. DarkAudit 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close- agree- perhaps you could nominate one to gain a thought of notability rather than the community having to make such a large pronouncement. Thunderwing 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as well. Several of the nominated articles are written fairly well and are about clearly notable topics. I could not in good faith make any kind of mass decision on all of these articles at once given their diverse states. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Every article is unique. Telempe 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. As a masss removal, this has a lot to be desired. I can't believe you looked at each article and determined its worth even at a glance. If you will bother to do individual AfDs for each one. ;P vLaDsINgEr 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This is the strangest AfD I've come across on Wikipedia to date. The proposer of which is at best ill-advised and patently unqualified in the subject matter, and at worst, quite devious. Many of these articles are not perfect, but most are certainly of sufficient interest and notability, as to be encyclopaedic, and that is not to mention that many are the product of much hard work by enthusiastic Wikipedians. If a self appointed 'Wiki-Elite' has problems here and can't leave things be, then they should first take trouble to understand the subject and only then feel free to improve the articles in conjunction with the rest of us...playbike 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree: Yamaha Motor Company produces a huge number of motorcycles, not only from the parent company itself but also from regional branches. Some of the models are only available in certain regions or countries such as underbone models which are only available in Southeast Asia. Deleting the articles for all those motorcycles can be considered too ridiculous, and it is too lengthy to describe all those motorcycles within a single article. Besides, most of the articles do include references, which are very hard to find since the distributors are constantly changing the model range, making it very hard to find information references for older Yamaha models. Hezery99 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: I've requested an administrator to close this. I'm sorry I've wasted all your time. All of you are right, and I am wrong in the extreme. It was a reckless and hasty nomination, and I hope to learn from my mistake. ALTON .ıl 07:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Majorly (hot!) 10:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffet (band)[edit]

band vanity —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per A7: Article about a band that does not assert importance or signifigance of the subject. SuperDT 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vagina envy (2nd nomination)[edit]

This article is pretty much unsourced and has been so since Sep 2006. It is mostly a collection of ((fact)) tags. Nothing to suggest this is a particularly recognised psychological phenomenon and it does not appear to have been written about. Of the two links given in the "references section", one[15] is a very dubious website of no real standing and the other links to a journal article on the subject [16]. That article seems to be the only academic discusison of the subject. We should not have articles simply a paper suggested it once. This is non-notable and seems only to exist out of a misguided attempt to add balance to our coverage of penis envy (a term of clear historical significance in Freudian psychlogy).
Note previous AfD in November, the result of which was keep. WjBscribe 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A recognised and discussed phenomenon in psychology, especially psychoanalysis, for almost have a century. Someone can plug the term into google scholar, read a couple of articles and reference the entry properly. Recurring dreams 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already found two more scholarly psychoanalytic articles using the term in their abstracts, and included the key sentences in the refs. . (using the interdisciplinary database Scopus) I think this is enough to support the article. Will be necessary to integrate into article, but that's a detail. DGG 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bulldog123 10:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into penis envy. There's very little to be said about this topic and it's not likely to progress much beyond its current state. Conceptually it is very similar to penis envy, and it seems to have been invented mainly as a counterpoint to penis envy. Additionally there exists a short article on womb envy that is a very similar topic, that is a potential merge target. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merger with Penis envy makes no sense. The article now has three references wherein the topic has received substantial coverage in refereed scientific journals, satisfying WP:A and WP:N. There is clearly room for improvement by rewriting the present stub to incorporate more content from the sources cited as DGG said. Edison 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison; the article does seem to satisfy WP:A and WP:N (although not by too much yet). I agree that the article just needs an expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Arkyan's comments. --oac (old american century) | Talk 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE WTF? -Doc^g 09:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Guernsey[edit]

There are no political parties in Guernsey, so this page will never have any content. Hairy Dude 03:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. There's no need to have lists that will never (forseeably) be filled. Terraxos 06:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that there are no parties is covered in the main article. Mon Vier 09:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curious instance of a self-negating article. andy 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been created as part of a worldwide series which aims to give a comprehensive complete overview. There are more countries without parties that have a short article like this. Electionworld Talk? 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Electionworld. —Nightst a llion (?) 19:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of a valuable worldwide series. Davewild 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - but this article on its own merits is not valuable. Get rid. - fchd 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the least this should be preserved as a redirect to the Politics of Guernsey article so soemone searching for this can be redirected to the correct information on the politics of Guernsey article. Davewild 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crasniye Solleetsi[edit]

Article merged into Psi-Force Catbar 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it is to be on Wikipedia it must abide by Wikipedia:Notability with out-of-universe context and secondary sources (only primary sources are listed). Otherwise, if it's just in-universe plot info then it belongs on a Marvel wiki. --maclean 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have reliab;e secondary sources for real world context. Jay32183 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep improved article. - Mailer Diablo 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis-style pizza[edit]

This is an anonymously contested prod which does not have any sources, save but a few commercial spam links. Burntsauce 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That anonymously contested prod was me genius. And you should know enough to read prod's and that once contested, regardless of who contests them, you take them to AfD and not put the prod back on. Now, give a legit reason why it should be deleted. There are some commercial links but your prod asked for sources and I provided sources. The best I can tell, they are not commercial links. Now either prove they are commercial or come up with a better reason. Postcard Cathy 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the best we can source an encyclopedia article with is commercial spam or unreliable sources it should be deleted. The reasoning is sound enough, I will let the community decide what to do. Burntsauce 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the subject of the article and it's importance that should be the reason why an article stays or goes. Sources are important but IMHO are secondary. And if this article goes, so should the articles on Philly Cheese steak, Apizza, or New Haven-style pizza, Detroit-style pizza, New York-style pizza, Chicago-style pizza, California-style pizza and any other regional cuisine. So my question to you burntsauce is: regardless of the quality of sources, is this article wiki worthy? If the answer is yes, then it stays because sources to your satisfaction can always be found. If not, then start prod'ing or AFD'ing all the other regional cuisines. Postcard Cathy 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this article. If you can read about philadelphia cheese steaks, why not St. Louis pizza? just my opinion.--Boscobiscotti 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is sourceable, and should have better citations. Postcard Cathy, please avoid personally attacking other editors. You should realize that an unreferenced article is potentially subject to deletion, and that the sources you've provided fall short of our best standards. I don't think they're spam but they're barely adequate for verifiability and certainly not for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low-quality and/or purely local sources don't cut it for attesting to the notability of local phenomenon. As labels, New York-style pizza, Chicago-style pizza, and California-style pizza, say, all have widespread -- even international -- notability and references and consistent meanings; this doesn't seem to have any such thing. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, you see it does have a consistent meaning. Postcard Cathy 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pizzas shown on that page look just like the pizza I get from my local Arni's in Indiana. We don't call it St. Louis style pizza. We just call it pizza. I'm sure every region would like to think that they have influenced something in a particular manner. But as pointed out by Calton, only a few become well known enough that they are known nationally or internationally. --Cyrus Andiron 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Mmoneypenny 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With few exceptions most of these "Wherever-style pizza" articles are better served by mentioning in the appropriate section in the pizza article. Particularly a style that does not demonstrate much in the way of widespread notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Guys, Don't be an ostrich. Just because you've never heard of it or you think it looks like a regular thin crust pizza are really, really lousy reasons to delete. You can read the article to see how it's different from the thin crust pizza at your local pizzeria. Here are some more, non-local, good sources attesting to the pizzas style and existence: Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, There's also a lot of other references, including a 2003 feature from The Dallas Morning News, April 11, 2003, link is no longer live but available to anyone with a Nexis archive. "City famed for arch has another angle; St. Louis-style pizzas square off against all comers" by Kim Harwell, entirely about the pizzas. Also an older LA Times story I found. And really, all you had to do was take a few seconds to click past page 3 of the Google search results and see for yourself that this sort of pizza is fairly well-known to someone with even a minimal knowledge of pizza. (And, of course, the top google search results for St. Louis pizza are going to be St. Louis related). I'm more than willing to use my access to archived stories to improve this article. Just because it's less-famous-than-Chicago style pizza doesn't mean it somehow doesn't exist. --JayHenry 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - article has citations from 4 major newspapers attesting to the notability of the term. WaysAndMeans 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: not notable. Eusebeus 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of WP:N are you referring to? We have references from The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Dallas Morning News and the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Those sources satisfy every sentence of the notability guideline. --JayHenry 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As noted above, there are now 4 major sources for this article that meet WP:N. Just because As a wikipedia user you are unfimilar with a topic, doesn't mean it isn't notible to be on wikipedia. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the only option is to keep Gamer83 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Just because something may not be known outside the influence of a single metropolitan area does not mean something is not notable. --Millbrooky 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Page is now sourced. --ΨΦorg 04:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this one is now sources and looks much better yuckfoo 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been improved past AfD levels. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment adding all those sources made me hungry to try one. I looked into ordering one from Imo's but it turns out that the minimum order is $75 and that will only get you four pizzas... I'm not really sure that's worth it. Does anyone still have any objections that this article deserves to be deleted now that I've cited everything? Is there anything else I can do to address concerns about it or can this be closed? --JayHenry 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Virtue[edit]

~~No WP:ATT sources, its pretty much an advertisement piece, doesn't meet any notability criteria. A request for sources has been up a month, nothing.~~ It wasn't obvious when I first started, but subsequently I have decided that there are enough secondary sources to create the article, I don't know if withdrawing my nomination is out of order, or if others disagree. Tmtoulouse 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Mmoneypenny 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in verifiable and reliable sources. Another Wikipedia page is not a valid source. Nor is one's own work. All we are left with is one USA Today article. Not enough. DarkAudit 14:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree with the above, I attempted to go through and clean up the article as best I could. I searched everywhere for any WP:ATT sources and there just are not any. The best I found was a source in the revision history that pointed out some criticism of her. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to whitewash the article, it just needs to be deleted.

Comment It is impossible to add valid sources as every source except the USA Today article, including several New York Times articles and others are simply deleted by malicious Wikipedians. Recommend the page to be locked from editing until such time as both sides can submit articles without risk of vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.129.57.30 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment please take this to the talk page of the article, I am willing to discuss with you, but you need to be willing to discuss. Tmtoulouse 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also both the USA today article and the NY times article are not about Virtue, they have only two references to her for quotes about indigo children. These do not prove notability. Tmtoulouse 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm, I have had to do some digging, but I am starting to wonder if I was a little to rash in my AFD. So far we have:

USA Today article
NY Times article
Dallas Observer article
Philadelphia Inquirer article devoted to her
Calgary Sun article devoted to her
She is a featured speaker for the "I can do it" conference in Los Vegas, which is getting serious press, with the likes of Sylvia Browne and Chopra.

I think she is skirting the edge of notability, and more work and digging might be able to create an article. Tmtoulouse 18:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Skirting, maybe, but failing. Subject fails only the most generous reading of WP:BIO. Eusebeus 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content adds little and advertises much. Trinen 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - above user has only edited Doreen Virtue, there is now an attempt by proponents of the author to have the article deleted because of the criticism it contains. I would be suspicious. Tmtoulouse 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - above user nominated page for deletion and then changed his mind and is now making less than vague accusations because I don't agree with his sudden change of heart. I would beware of the dreaded waffle. Trinen 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Coulter-Nile[edit]

Non-notable rookie for non-professional team - article unlikely to be developable from reliable sources beyond its current content Orderinchaos 04:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:CRICKET notability guideline is generally one match at first-class or List A level. If he is any good he will get there eventually. The article as it stands should not be difficult to re-establish if this occurs. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this page is deleted, then we would also need to have a look at Clint Heron, Arron Crawford, Liam Davis, Theo Doropoulos and Craig King. To check whether they have played any first class or A list matches, plug their names into the cricinfo database. Recurring dreams 07:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rookie listed Western Australian cricketer, this bloke is clearly going to make it to the Western Warriors - it is worth keeping. Twenty Years 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to keep and fails WP:CRIC notability criteria. —Moondyne 10:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here he played for WA U/19's. Also here he played for Australia u/19's Twenty Years 12:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Mattinbgn, does not meet notablity requirment for cricket players Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does his Australia Cup appearance not qualify as a List A game? Duke of Whitstable 00:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends who you're talking to I suspect. The Cricket Australia Cup is played by the second XI state teams. Would the state schoolboys' comp. be List A? IMO the answer to your question is no, but others may disagree. —Moondyne 00:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless it can be sourced. John Vandenberg 08:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete notability not established Gnan garra 11:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Gault[edit]

Non notable former football player in non-professional league. Orderinchaos 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Captain of highly notable football team which has had many notable players play in it. Capitalistroadster 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The team is notable (I wouldn't say "highly"), but WAFL is not the West Coast Eagles or the Fremantle Dockers, and is still an amateur competition. Orderinchaos 06:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. It's semi-pro, not amateur. It could be argued that this league is at the second tier of competition in this sport after the AFL. As a club leader of a notable club he would be notable.Hack 07:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The club is notable, the players not. I would contend that since the introduction of the West Coast Eagles that playing in the Western Australian Football League is not sufficient to make one notable. In any case there are no multiple non-trivial reliable sources to asserting the subject's notability. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is the captain of a commonly known football club in Western Australia. Clearly notable, almost a speedy keep item. Twenty Years 08:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He is not a former football player - he is the CURRENT captain of the SFFC. Good bloke too. Twenty Years 09:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My criteria for sportsmen is representative state level. ie. AFL —Moondyne 10:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO criteria are not met - he hasn't played at the premiership level of his sport's competition. There are no references independent of the mans employers (SFFC, Aquinas College).Ga rr ie 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to South Fremantle Football Club. John Vandenberg 08:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that the WAFL is a professional league, as AFAIK, all players are paid, just not that much! There is a salary cap. I would consider club captains, major medal winners or state representatives as notable. Agree it needs to improve the sources, however. The-Pope 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO Professional or not, this player hasn't competed at the highest level of the sport. --Ytny (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of WP:Bio states that you must have competed at the highest level of the sport? That only applies to amateur sports. This isn't. He gets paid to play for South Freo. It is a professional league - read section 5 of the league's rules. Should we delete all first class/list A cricketers who haven't played tests/ODIs as well? The-Pope 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: WP:BIO says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league,..." I would argue the WAFL is semi-professional as most players are not professional in the sense of making their living from football. As for the cricketer comparison WP:CRIC has generally accepted guidelines that do not apply to Australian rules football. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 09:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor league. Especially since the introduction of the WCE, and then the Dockers, the league is just about ignored in its home state. Even so, there's a bigger Wiki issue with this article, that being the lack of independent sources or the existence of them, which violates core policy. Orderinchaos 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 22,570 people who saw him lift the premiership cup seem to think otherwise. there is the wafl ref, 3rd degree, ac ref - how many do we need? Twenty Years 08:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need two independent references from reliable sources. I think 3rd degree is basically reader submissions from uni students (I might be wrong) so all references are either primary in nature or otherwise don't meet WP:RS - so they don't establish notability. If he's that notable, give us one reference from The West Australian and one from The Sunday Times (Western Australia). Shouldn't be hard, he's famous in his own state after all.Ga rr ie

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Orderinchaos 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Spencer (footballer)[edit]

Non notable football player from a non-professional league, article not expandable beyond present on reliable sources. I do note this is the most likely of these three to survive, given he did actually win a Sandover Medal, but it would make more sense to simply list him as a winner on that page. Orderinchaos 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Sandover Medallist prior to the national competition is clearly notable, as the Western Australian Football League at the time was the equal of the Victorian Football League and South Australian National Football League. While playing standards may or may not have been equal, the competitions enjoyed equal notability in their own state. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per above. Pre AFL Sandovers are notable, post-AFL - is debatable. Twenty Years 08:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sandover medalist, played in at least one ('79) State of Origin match [17] —Moondyne 10:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All Sandover medallists are notable in my book as are WAFL, SANFL footballers providing they achieve reasonable levels of recognition. If second and third division English soccer players are notable, why aren't WAFL and SANFL footballers especially award winning footballers. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Second and third division football in England is fully professional and therefore the English footballers meet WP:BIO for athletes. The WAFL and SANFL are not and therefore the players in those leagues do not meet that criteria. Of course, that does not mean they can't still be notable but not for the mere fact of playing in those leagues. In this case the subject is notable as he has won a notable award at a time when that competition was at the peak level of the sport. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there were sources in the article I would be inclined to agree it should be kept. Burntsauce 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - FD Book Medalist here, this says it all here Twenty Years 01:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played at interstate level; I've added sources mentioned on this Afd to the article. I haven't been able to find a source for the ABC commentator position. John Vandenberg 08:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above. RFerreira 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mountain of Maine[edit]

non notable business C5mjohn 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost all ski areas meet the notability standard, since they are covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources, e.g. Ski and Skiing magazines, plus local and regional newspapers with large circulations. It is simply a matter of someone doing the legwork needed to dig up these sources, which are not always sitting online. There is no need to serially list one ski area after another at AfD. Our efforts would be better spent locating the sources and improving the articles than having AfD debates about them. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do agree that many ski resorts meet the notability standard...but this doesn't seem to be one of them C5mjohn 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to this article, this was apparently the site of the 2004 U.S. cross-country championships, and seems to be a nationally important cross-country venue. They held a Maine collegiate event this year that was important enough for the Maine governor to present the trophy. Carl Lindberg 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Seattle Skier. Stoodended 03:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dug up several more references on the ski area, and instead of listing them here I just went ahead and expanded the article. Carl Lindberg 07:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Wheels Lists[edit]

List of 1997 Hot Wheels
List of 1998 Hot Wheels
List of 1999 Hot Wheels
List of 2000 Hot Wheels
List of 2001 Hot Wheels
List of 2002 Hot Wheels
List of 2003 Hot Wheels
List of 2004 Hot Wheels
List of 2005 Hot Wheels
List of 2006 Hot Wheels
List of 2007 Hot Wheels

speedy delete all WP:NOT, WP:LC, WP:FC--Fractalist 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeana (Bratz character). MER-C 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - a list of toys? Included solely because they were produced in a given year. This isn't an encyclopedic topic. --Haemo 05:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These lists are simply arranged by year and maker. Fails WP:NOT. Sr 13 09:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete allThis is totally unneeded and useless. Felix 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not a directory, ya know. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT. Eusebeus 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as spam. Fram 08:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qsoft Vietnam[edit]

not notable company--Fractalist 04:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - first person spam. MER-C 04:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deneva[edit]

non notable person C5mjohn 04:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no proof this person has done any of this, as there are no verifiable or reliable sources. One line item in a list of speakers is not sufficient. DarkAudit 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Felix 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Boylove Day[edit]

Made-up unnotable "holiday" observed, if at all, by a tiny fringe. In addition - occasional pruning must be made of marginal pedophilia-related articles generally, to prevent the addition of an WP:UNDUE number of articles on their the subject (and you thought Pokemon cruft was bad... :/ ). I expect there'll be some Keep votes from editors with an interest in the subject, so I'm asking you to not skip over this one, back me up here, thanks.Herostratus 06:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reliable sources demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable madeup event by fringe element. There's no coverage in mainstream sources to indicate its notability. Pedo-cruft. -Will Beback · † · 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedo-cruft XD --Jim Burton 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All events are made up, and many minority groups observe special days. The topic is notable also because of the public reaction, evidenced in the media and 'anti abuse' campaigns. Wiki has infinite space for stuff that has relevance to at least some people, and this topic clearly isn't nonsense or a hinderance of any sort --Jim Burton 06:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all substantial information is basically sourced back to the groups attempting to get this recognized; no reliable third party coverage yet. GassyGuy 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*slowly erects the wikipedia plank* "IBLD: Do you have any last requests? Tom O'Carroll's pic collection? Mark Indelicato?" --Jim Burton 06:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me, albeit just so. Lunus 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An event made up by unreliable sources, with no third party coverage; In an attempt to promote child sexual abuse. --Antipaedo 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The latter is neither reason to keep nor to delete the article. Lunus 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure it is. Every article needs non-trivial, third party reliable sources to estabilish notability. That is what Antipaedo was pointing out. --Cyrus Andiron

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

Comment. I was not referring to that, only to the 'promotes child sexual abuse' part. Lunus 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But per WP:NOT EVIL. Herostratus 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not a policy, but a mere interpretation. And one I do not agree with, as it fails to consider WP:NPOV. Lunus 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting child sexual abuse is not a goal of the day, it's rather an accusation or interpretation made by certain parties or people.--Greeny6000 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.Mmoneypenny 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable secondary sources to assert notability. Until it gets more coverage, this "holiday" should not have an article. --Cyrus Andiron 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to back up claims of notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third party, reliable sources, no reliable evidence of communal activities on the part of community in question to celebrate supposed holiday. -Jmh123 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable madeup event, per nom. Edison 16:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails mandatory inclusion criteria of attribution and notability. NeoFreak 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, no sources other than sponsoring groups. NawlinWiki 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll go with delete if everyone here does the same for every obscure holiday and religious-figure day that is only known by the sponsoring groups and those who study or track them. Herostratus suggests WP:UNDUE is a good reason to delete this article. I disagree. The article should be kept or deleted on its own merits. In particular, it's lack of notability will be its downfall. As soon as it gets sufficient notability, it should be resurrected. Dfpc 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first time a so-called "holiday" has been deleted for lack of notability. Steak and Blowjob Day (or whatever it's called) comes to mind. GassyGuy 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, no reliable sourcing. Horologium 06:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a tough one. The article isn't well written, and is pretty much just a stub. Nonetheless, the holiday has been around for almost 10 years, is celebrated in multiple countries, and numerous ThinkOfTheInnocentLittleChildren groups spend quite a bit of effort telling people about it and trying to stamp it out. I think the controversy makes it somewhat notable, but the article is poorly sourced and trivial. I'd vote to keep it if someone writes a better version. Hermitian 15:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful Thinking. I've improved the article with a pair of diffs available here for all it's worth. --Jim Burton 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as made-up pedocruft. Burntsauce 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if made-up groupthink-cruft were a reason to speedy-delete we'd have to quick-zap such gems as Scientology and Flying Spaghetti Monster. Delete or don't delete based in Wikipedia criteria, not personal prejudice. Dfpc 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, like me, a number of admins see the objections as unreasonable, we might as well kill it now. Maybe someone could mail worldnetdaily with some of the associated sites, thus making it more relevant --Jim Burton 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons expressed already, SqueakBox 17:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator of the article I think it should be kept, because it is the special observance of a larger minority group. It has been around for almost a decade now and is observed by pedophiles in various countries. There have even been large meetings in the Netherlands in the past. A very notable and controversial debate concerning pedophilia and pedophile activism exists and this observance has also caused a reaction, at least of some anti-pedophile activists. In addition to all of this there are other relatively unkown days that have own articles at Wikipedia: e.g. Transgender Day of Remembrance, Ask a Stupid Question Day, Creativity and Innovation Day or World Hello Day - those articles were also mentioned, when a merger with Pedophile activism was proposed in January and not one of them has been deleted since. But even without the comparison to other articles the subject should be notable enough so that it can be kept, judged on its own merits.--Greeny6000 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please post as many links to as many 3rd-party sources such as newspaper articles mentioning the holiday as you can. Even better if you can cover multiple years. If the only such sources are from one country, say, The Netherlands, then maybe this article should exist only in the Dutch Wikipedia, where it meets the notability criteria. Dfpc 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above, fails the everything test. RFerreira 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Wark[edit]

Looks like a vanity page to me, and oh look, the page was created and all the constructive edits have been by User:TehRuss. Morgan Wick 06:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Mmoneypenny 13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and completely lacking in sources. DarkAudit 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddfest[edit]

No newsworthy sources; simply a large concert in India and that alone does not necessitate the need for an article. Jmlk17 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Jmlk17 07:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as redirect by Kicking222. Sr 13 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Dog[edit]

Non-notable amateur football team. Recurring dreams 07:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Felix 17:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soccer Dog: The Movie as had previously been done before non-notable content was added. Nate 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Amateur football teams, especially 5 a side ones are generally not notable. If a movie has a similar title, why not make better use of it and use it as a redirect to that instead.--Kylohk 10:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close I just decided to be bold and turn it back into the redirect. It was amazingly obvious that this team was non-notable. -- Kicking222 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unununium (operating system) (2nd nomination)[edit]

Non-notable hobbyist operating system project, described on its page as in "permanent hiatus"; previous AfD resulted in keep but IMO was flawed due to incorrect information that was in the article at the time. JulesH 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dead hobby project. Every single reference was originally to their project web site; now they're all dead links. Nothing to see here, move on. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dead project with dead links. None were reliable and verifiable sources. DarkAudit 12:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Project website even says "It would be foolish to say development will continue"... Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Carlosguitar 04:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Scalir[edit]

Completely non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO, only 200 hits on Google Stoic atarian 07:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced BLP. MER-C 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as utter crap. This reads like a hoax page. Myspace as a source seals the deal. DarkAudit 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Ken Scalir is a notable local celebrity in the famed San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. The google searches indeed return proof that he was a Los Angeles city council candidate, and he is instantly recognizable to fans of the now-defunct television shows Blind Date, Singled Out, Keenen Ivory Wayans, and The Dating Game. He is also well known amongst fans of the highly-rated Kevin and Bean KROQ-FM show. Because of his "cult" status and uncredited appearances (often only known as "Ken from Sherman Oaks") on TV and Radio, there are relatively few google results on him. However, that does not subtract from his notability, and he is far more well known than many minor actors appearing on Wikipedia who last had guest roles 20 years ago. Historian818 Historian818 20:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement.Bigdaddy1981 06:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AY-3-8500[edit]

No sources since 2006 CyclePat2 07:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the base chip of a couple of important early game consoles this rates an article for historical reference purposes. It is almost certainly referenceable, but online sources might be thin for obsolete technology like this. --Dhartung | Talk 10:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to General Instrument (keeping about two sentences of description and applications), and merge about one sentence to PONG. Only importance is in the context of early game consoles, not as a standalone topic which drew featured coverage. Barno 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hunt for sources -- as Dhartung said, as the basis for some of the first home game consoles, it's a worthwhile enough topic historically to keep and do some digging. (Whoops... didn't realize I wasn't logged in.) Pinball22 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. KrakatoaKatie 13:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete there may be cause to recreate this article if more WP:BIO information becomes available at which time I'll restore the article until then there has been insufficient material to establish notability beyond Wikipedia is not a memorial. basic information is already in the Garuda crash article. Gnan garra 12:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nb: a deletion review begun on 9 April 2008 came to a determination of Recreation permitted --User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 07:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Sudradjat[edit]

Not notable other than for the manner of her death. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Mattinbgn/^talk 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recurring dreams 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much else to say, if there's nothing to add to this article than a tragic death in an accident, then it is sad but no more notable than the thousands of other such deaths around the world each year. Euryalus 09:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a little here if anyone is interested. —Moondyne 10:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from your link:

“

Allison coordinated the Australian Government’s emergency response in Indonesia after the Indian Ocean tsunami, headed the reconstruction program in Aceh and later took over as head of all AusAID programs in Indonesia.

”

--Jack Merridew 10:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. DarkAudit 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Allison Sudradjat administered something like AU$200,000,000/yr in Australian Aid to Indonesia. This is notable. I am the person who created this stub. I regret having added the link to the lame allisonsudradjat.net which seems to have given folks the idea that the article is a memorial to her. The manner of her death is a detail; she seems to have done a lot of good and I feel the stub should be expanded to cover this. Give it a chance. --Jack Merridew 08:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 4,000 hits on Google. --Jack Merridew 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Allison was one of our most capable and dedicated officers. During her 18 years with AusAID, her intellectual and practical approach to the challenges of development was truly extraordinary. Allison led Australia's humanitarian response to some of the region's worst disasters in recent years. She was also a bold, passionate advocate for attacking poverty at its roots, working for better schools, better health and better government."

"Allison had an extraordinary impact on her colleagues both in Canberra and at the two Australian missions in Indonesia and PNG where she had spent a total of 10 years working to improve the lives of people in those two countries. She was an inspirational leader and people looked to her with great respect, admiration and fondness. We will miss her enormously."

from: http://www.ausaid.gov.au/media/release.cfm?BC=Media&ID=9907_6116_6487_4096_3000

--Jack Merridew 09:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete, lots of recent and historical Google News Archive results, and we need to consider that Indonesian RS will exist but not be readily found. John Vandenberg 09:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hansard No. 4, 2007 has more tributes which contain bio details, but I cant find many RS (some Indonesian RS indicate she opened a few schools, but that isnt enough for notability). Im happy to change my mind back to keep if a non-govt RS links her to the aid money/projects prior to the crash. I expect she was heavily involved in the tsunami, and RS may have picked up on her involvement. John Vandenberg 16:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just because there are hits on Google doesn't make her notable. She was an Australian government bureaucrat, one of thousands at a similar level at any given time. Of course, her name was included in the stories about the Garuda crash (hence the Google hits), but the crash itself doesn't make her a notable individual. Outside of the crash she wasn't known to the public. Are we going to also create hundreds of thousands of articles for every other mid-level bureaucrat in counties around the world? Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). (Caniago 11:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please review the information provided so far; the news articles I linked to were not about the crash. John Vandenberg 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a representative for AusAid in Indonesia she is going to have some news articles which mention her name. It doesn't make her any more notable for inclusion than the hundreds of thousands of similar public servants around the world. From what I can tell, even the director of AusAID doesn't have an article, nor does the head of the Australian Red Cross, RSPCA Australia, etc. Secondary or tertiary people in these organizations certainly don't have articles, so why should Allison be included? (Caniago 13:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ok; I was expecting the head of AusAid in Indonesia to be a bit more than a "government bureaucrat" which is why I queried your initial opinion; but I've looked further and cant find RS for her except for the crash. btw, the head of the American Red Cross exists: Mark W. Everson. :-) John Vandenberg 16:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to create articles about the directors of AusAUD, Australian Red Cross or RSPCA Australia I probably wouldn't vote for their deletion, but the line for notability must be drawn somewhere. (Caniago 18:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge to the Garuda accident information, if the information is not already there. JRG 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters Of Mara (Band)[edit]

Fails to meet WP:Music. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dmiles21 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, sounds like a vanity piece, and badly written.Mmoneypenny 13:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, for goodness sake, how many of these garage bands are out there? This article in particular reads almost exactly like that joke about what not to do. Seriously, though it's very much vanispamcruftisement. A1octopus 12:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Hudson[edit]

This guy certainly does it for me... but that isn't enough to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia and doesn't amount to notability. The article has three sources - an IMDb entry for a film he isn't listed as being in; five pictures on a gay porn site and what might be him being slapped about by a woman on what calls itself a "NYC FemDoms-Strap-on/Forced Cumming" video sales site. There's also a single link to his MySpace page. None of this screams notability and seems to break the standard Wikipedia way of doing things - "get famous first, then get a Wikipedia article about you". ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to meeting WP:BIO -- or basic common sense -- regarding notability. --Calton | Talk 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) 08:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Mmoneypenny 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE I could relist this, but it doesn't seem worth it. If any admin thinks there's some merit here that I've missed, they have my permission to reverse the close. -Doc^g 09:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Soon (2006 film)[edit]

Non-notable film, conflict of interest. Details:

The article was created by the single-purpose account Equalityforall (talk · contribs); the film has a group by that name as its subject. The article has not received any significant edits by anyone else since its creation, suggesting that third-party interest in the film is minimal. The author has also been warned repeatedly for attempting to promote this film and this organization in other articles.
The film's notability is unclear. The article claims that this is "the most critically-acclaimed Czech film of the year", but this isn't borne out by the film's site, which leads us to a page that tells us that a "student jury" gave this film a "special award". A single award does not a critically-acclaimed film make. It hasn't been run in mainstream theaters - indeed, it's only being shown once every week or so.
Finally, the article makes several questionable claims. One is a claim that Peter Singer has seen the film and reviewed it. Singer lives in Australia, and the article notes that the film has neither been translated into English or shown outside the Czech Republic. The quote appears nowhere outside the filmmaker's own site. Another is the claim that it "has been instrumental in sparking an international zoophile-rights revolution". I am myself a zoophile, so I'd know if a revolution had been sparked. (Nope, hasn't happened.)

All in all, the article doesn't add up to a notable film. At best, it appears to be a heavily-promoted student film. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and further background:

The author is a well-known single purpose account with a long history of trying to disruptively insert links to (and promote) of this specific film in multiple Wikipedia articles. Multiple "final warnings" issued for ongoing spamming Aug 2006 - May 2007.

User's known accounts:

194.108.134.209 (talk · contribs) - final warning 20 Nov 2006
Equalityforall (talk · contribs) - first warning 16 Sept 2006, removed by user 11 Nov 2006 [18], final warning 20 Nov 2006, further warning 18 feb 2007
Equalitiesforall (talk · contribs) - first warning 30 Aug 2006, final warning 20 Nov 2006

An example of the range of articles this editor has targetted can best be seen in the user contribs list for user:194.108.134.209, and evidence of the spam nature can be seen in posts such as this one in Human-animal marriage in which an article where the whole issue of zoophilia much less this film is tangential. Nonetheless the film is added to 3 different places in the body of the article in one session, where it's pretty much completely inappropriate/irrelevant/inapplicable to the whole article anyway.

Main article targetted: Zoophilia [19][20][21][22][23][24], but also overwrote the article for the original film Coming Soon with significant hyperbole and self-promo [25], added an article on his own interest group "EFA" [26], as well as adding his links to articles such as social inequality [27] and zoosexuality and the law [28].

From a neutral viewpoint however, it is not enough that the user is a spammer and ignores policy and others. It's important to consider the status of the film itself. I've had a look around the net. It is notable that most or all promotion seems to be either in the hands of one person, or a few associates. I can find no evidence otherwise. If it were notable, or more than a tiny-minority production, there would be independent reviews of note. I can't find any. Is a minority art/campaign-promo film in a small country by a tiny fringe organization, in a language not spoken widely, with few credentials and a tendency to exaggeration, likely to be notable? If there is evidence then it needs to be cited.

In summary, I feel that COI and self-promo are (at this point) pretty much confirmed. This editor has been borderline on an extended block for repeatedly spamming this film (with which he is probably heavily involved) despite other editor's requests to desist, and his group "Equality for all" (which appears non-notable) on Wikipedia on many articles, and for describing it in terms which seem unwarranted and unsupported by reliable sources. If the film is notable, then there would be significant interest, or some 3rd party sources... but there aren't. According to Zetawoof it seems there is no evidence that the person or group or body is notable even within its own niche, nor can I find online any political or other responses to confirm anyone else has heard of it or taken it very seriously if so. FT2 ^{(Talk |
email)} 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again to all Wikipedia fans. I, Equalityforall, was in a bit of rush when I posted my first response to this "Deletion Attempt" and I just wanted to add a few quick points in response to FT2's comments. I will insert them in between his paragraphs for clarity and my contributions will be indented so as not to be confused with FT2's original article. I also wanted to thank Karess and the anonymous author below for their support and arguments.

The issues in the preceding 2 paragraphs are correct and I've addressed them in my initial entry which you can find below.

I really don't think that my entries to the "Human-animal marriage" article were irrelevant and should be constituted as spam since all I added was information about the opening scene of the film which portrays the marriage between a woman and a horse. I've never seen any other film with this type of scene and I think it's quite interesting for anyone curious about Human-animal marriage. Just have a look at the Wikipedia article about Zoophilia (as well as hundreds of other articles) and you will find extensive information about where the subject in question is dealt with in the media, arts, films, radio, television, etc. It seems quite reasonable to me for a reader to want information about where and how the subject in question is portrayed.

I think it's quite obvious why I inserted information about COMING SOON and E.F.A. into the Zoophilia article. The reason I inserted information into the COMING SOON article is because there are many films with this title (see imdb.com for more details) including a 1982 film by John Landis, as well a 2006 short and a new 2007 feature. Yet the only film with the title COMING SOON to be featured in Wikipedia was the 1999 film and I thought it was important for readers to know that there are other films with this title. I also included some basic information about the 2006 film but I can't see how it can possibly be considered hyperbole (see the history section of the article for my exact entries and judge for yourself).

Once I was informed by FT2 that I can set up a new article for the 2006 film I immediately proceeded to do so and never added any more contributions to the original article about the 1999 film. Thus it is clear that my intention was never to "hijack" the article but to improve on it. I still think it would be wise for the editors to at least include the fact that there are several films with this title.

As mentioned before, the title "Coming Soon" is used by many films and websites, and when you do an internet search for these words you get over a million search results and it's pretty hard to find information about the 2006 film. Try doing a search for the film's director or the production company and you will find a much narrower search which will help you find many other independent sources about this film.

You say "you can't find any independent reviews of note" but all you would have to do is look at the film's website which contains links to rave reviews from the whole spectrum of Czech media - including many personalities and publications which have their own Wikipedia articles :-)

Your "small country" and "language not spoken widely" comments suggest that you are probably American and suffer from a serious Anglo-centric infliction. I hope your fellow Wikipedia fans are open-minded enough to believe that important culture can come from other countries and languages as well. Aside from this, the film does exist in English and has been seen around the world in private screenings as well as by people who received the film directly from Devilhead Films. The last I've heard, the Englisg version of the film will be released internationally by year's end.

I've looked at the history of the original COMING SOON article, which is about a Hollywood film that was distributed around the world since 1999(!) and I found only a handful of contributors to the article which would suggest that the number of contributors says nothing about the fame of a film. If an article contains all the necessary information why would someone feel compelled to change it?

As far as Zetawoof's self-proclaimed authority on all things zoophilic please see my reaction to his comments below for indications of his less-than perfect research skills. I don't want to personally attack him, particularly since he's the courage to stand by his very rare sexual orientation, but his tone towards me has been less than friendly or objective. I already admitted and apologized for having been a bit reckless with some of my previous entries but it certainly wasn't as widespread as he or FT2 claim. And it certainly wasn't "self-promo" since E.F.A. is not my organization (as I already explained below) although I do feel that both COMING SOON and E.F.A. are worthy enough to be brought to Wikipedians attention.

Let the "gods" of Wikipedia decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Equalityforall (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dear FT2, Zetawolf, and all other Wikipedia fans.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to answer some of the arguments made by FT2 and Zetawolf - some of which are correct and some of which aren't.

To begin with those which are correct:

My account name, EQUALITYFORALL, is indeed a single-use account and the reason for this is that I simply don't feel fully safe at this point to make my identity known while supporting the cause of zoophile-rights. While there are many countries, particularly in Northern Europe, where this cause is treated a lot more openly, here in the Czech Republic it is still a dangerous taboo. I've therefor chosen to use a separate account for any additions I make about this subject.

I am also a relatively new Wikipedia contributor and haven't yet become fully familiar with the rules and protocol. But I'm trying to do so. The questionable contributions to other articles which I've made over time have not been repeated once they've been explained to me by other more experienced editors.

My own affiliation to this film is nothing more than a die-hard fan. After seeing the film I was simply elated to see the subjects of zoophilia and zoophile-rights FINALLY be breached in this country. It simply has never been talked about in the public arena prior to this film, but has since become a hot topic here - particularly in intellectual and political arenas. This means the world to me and I've been doing what I can to support this important project. If I've been a bit overzealous or unprofessional about it, I apologize, and would gladly accept the help of a more experienced editor in formulating future contributions. So far, the only way I've been able to do this has been to add the contributions and then wait for them to be edited. If I can get an e-mail from someone who would be willing to review my future contributions prior to them being posted, I would be most grateful. This film was a revelation to me and the last thing I would want to do is discredit it with my own shortcomings.

I do want to address some of claims made by FT2 and Zetawolf which are mistaken:

You point to the fact the film has "only" won a Special Award from a Student Jury and thus doesn't warrant the claim of being "the most critically-acclaimed Czech film of the year." I direct you, however, to the "Reviews and Reactions" section of the film's website (www-dot-comingsoon-dot-cz) where you will find a much longer list of reviews from Czech "personalities" and Critics - from the mainstream to the alternative and underground - ALL of which have praised the film highly. By no means are these fringe "personalities" and critics but they include some of the most highly-respected Czech personalities (Mr. Jan Svankmajer, Ester Kocickova, Dr. Jaroslav Zverina, etc.) as well as the most widely read Czech publications. (There are links on the site which confirm all of these reactions and which can be understood by anyone conversant in Czech.) There has been no other Czech film over the past few years that has enjoyed this type of praise "across-the-board."

Indeed, the film's theme and stance are highly controversial and people aren't rushing to be affiliated with it publicly until they'll be sure that they won't crucified for it. But not one single negative review has been written and new praise and support is constantly surfacing. Just last week they had a screening of the film which was followed by a discussion with the most noted Czech Sexologist and Member of the European Parliament, Dr. Jaroslav Zverina, who also praised the film and even wrote so on his own website.

As far as the quote by Dr. Peter Singer is concerned, you write that the film has not been translated into English and thus, Dr. Singer could not have seen or understood this film. This is simply incorrect. The film has been translated into English long ago and has been screened for the English-speaking public in Prague on 31.10 2006 - another fact which can confirmed with a little bit of internet surfing (I myself have attended that screening). The filmmakers decided to re-do the English voice-over and are planning to debut the final English version at an international festival this Autumn. But a rough English version has been around for a while.

They sent Dr. Singer a copy and he responded with the quote that I've posted on Wikipedia. I was a bit skeptical when I first saw the quote on the film's website since I couldn't find it on Dr. Singer's site or anywhere else on the internet. I approached one of the producer's at one of the screenings and he showed me the responsa with Dr. Singer, and I quoted it verbatim. You can easily confirm this by contacting Dr. Singer directly at psinger@princeton.edu. I have been in touch with Dr. Singer on a number of animal rights issues and can assure you that he is a humble and accessible person and will almost certainly be glad to confirm his quote.

The last point I want to make is about whether or not COMING SOON has "sparked an international zoophile-rights revolution." I, myself, am an active member of the local animal-rights movement as well as the tiny-but-growing pro-zoophilia community. Until recently, I've never encountered an organization which actively tries to fight for zoophile-rights and acceptance. There are many books, articles and websites devoted to this topic but I've never heard of (although I don't claim to be aware of everything that's out there) an internationally organized effort to bring this problem to the attention of the wider public and try to improve the fate of zoophiles around the world. Over the past year however, the first steps in creating this type of organization have surfaced (albeit primarily in the Czech Republic, but in many other countries as well) primarily due to the film COMING SOON and E.F.A. The quote is "sparked" a revolution implying that it provided the first impulses. Both FT2 and Zetawolf seem quite well-versed in the workings of the zoophile community and it surprises me that they would expect this type of activity to be openly discussed and publicized on the internet. This is certain to happen with time, but it must be obvious to anyone that the sensitivity of this problem dictates a high measure of discretion. I do agree, however, that this claim is quite hard to corroborate at this stage.

So, to sum up my thoughts, the film COMING SOON was created with minimal funds and has not had the luxury of mass advertising. But to judge a film's significance solely on the basis of how many people have heard about thus far, seems quite silly to me. I think the film should be judged by the type of people who have come out in support and praise of it, which confirms its significance to the overall debates about Animal Rights, Zoophilia, Zoophile Rights, etc. It is quite common in all areas of arts, science and philosophy that seminal works are greeted with initial reluctance and have to overcome many monetary obstacles. I believe, as do the above-mentioned critics and thinkers, that COMING SOON belongs to this category and should certainly be included in Wikipedia.

Having said this, I do agree that I've been a bit careless with my enthusiastic support of this film and would very much welcome the guidance of a more-seasoned editor before making any further contributions about this topic. If any editors would be willing to provide this help to me, please contact me at equalityforall@seznam.cz, and you can be assured that no more Wikipedia rules or protocol will be broken.

Thanking you in advance,

EQUALITYFORALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equalityforall (talk • contribs)

And you've nicely illustrated a significant part of the problem here: Few of the claims made in the article are attributable to reliable sources. More importantly, the article lacks any sources outside of either original research or self-published sources such as the film's own web site. What is there that can be said about the movie that can be borne out by sources not directly affiliated with it? Zetawoof_(ζ) 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Zetawook (sorry for repeating myself from the top of this articel but I'm nor sure how many people will read the entire debate so I included here too):

Iˇve read this little debate here and I must say that Zetawoof seems the less rational here. He's the one who seems to have some hidden agenda. If he would be really be a Zoophile as he claims, then why would he be so obviously against a film that is uniquely sympathetic to his cause. It seems to me that he is just posing as a Zoophile in order to discredit any effort to inform people of supportive arguments and material.

The reason I get this impression is that in spite of the article having links to other external sites (Festival Finale Plzen, E.F.A., IMDB.com, the Czech and Slovak Film Database, and the Coming Soon site which has at least a dozen links to other mainstream Czech media) Zetawoof writes that there are no outside sources. This is a simple and blatant lie.

Secondly, I've noticed that the user Equalityforall initially added some questionable information which was then deleted with the explanation "citation needed." He or she then revised the information and provided the sources. He changed the claim of "sparking a revolution" (which in the Czech lands of Velvet Revolutions doesn't mean tanks and bloodshed, but a new way of thinking) and revised it to "the filmmakers claim that..." and then puts a link to where the filmmakers make that claim. This seems interesting to me. I don't know how many other filmmakers claim to have "sparked a zoophile-rights revolution" and the fact that these filmmakers are ready to make that claim is quite intersting to me.

As far as Dr. Singer's quote is concerned, he also puts a link to the Coming Soon site. I can't see why Devilhead Films would misquote Dr. Singer when all he would have to do is write one sentence on his website to the effect that he never made that quote, and the filmmakers would be instantly discredited. Why on earth would they risk that? It's not really proof, but it seems quite convincing to me.

All in all it seems to me that even though Equalityforall did do a bit of silly spaming some time ago, it seems more likely that FT2 and Zetawoof have their own agenda of trying to suppress and downplay this film. I can just add that I saw this film and I agree with my compatriot (who wrote an unsigned article) below that this film is of high importance here in the Czech Republic and is certain to spark things up around the world (if it hasn't already done so) once it's released internationally.

From Prague with love, Karess

Hello Wikipedians and Animal Lovers!

Please forgive me my nor perfect English but I am Czech and it is still a little hard for me to write perfectly.

I only want to share my ideas and feelings about the film "Coming Soon" and why I think it should stay in Wikipedia. I read the arguments above and don't know enough about the rules and I don't know EQUALITYFORALL so I can't say if he is right or wrong. Maybe, if he broke the rules you can block him from making more mistakes. I want to only speak about the film and why I think its a very important work and not just a "student film" with no importance.

Here in the Czech Republic things are still very conservative and this type of film is miracle for people like me and for anyone who believes in equal rights. Just so you can know how crazy things are here I will tell you that even homosexuals still hev big problems. Last year we had new law for them to be able to have civil marriages. But it is still very taboo to say you are gay. There is no politician, famous entertainer or famous businessman who would openly say "I am gay." He would right away lose his position. It's not so bad here like in Poland but it is very difficult still. Can you imagine what it is like for zoophiles? The law here is not gainst zoophilia because people never even talk about it. If you are caught with something ike this you go to jail for cruelty to animals. Ecen if you are zoophile and love you animal and never even think to hurt it they put you in jail. We have many forums and chat-rooms on internet for discussion but these are all very secret and I never met any other zoophile personaly. This would be too dangerous. If people would know you would lose you job friend and probably go to jail if they saw you in middle of act.

We never had even public conversation about this before. The film "Coming Soon" all by itself began this conversation in all the biggest newspapers and media. Maybe this wasn't a lot of conversation but it was in places you could never imagine before. When they had discussion on Radio Vltava (the most famous station for classical music, theater, literature) I cried. Even just to hear people talking about the issue was never here before. If you ever heard about zoophilia it was always like a dirty joke. Now you hear people philosophers and politicians and famous artists talking about it because of this film.

Even the award that they own was a vey big victory for us. It wasn't a student film and it wasn't a student festival. The Festival Finale Plzen is the biggest festival for Czech films. The student jury is from University Students of Philisophical Faculty. Only three films won awards at this festival and when "Coming Soon won this award this began newspapers talking about it and it is still growing slowly.

The people before also write that "this film is only shown once a week" and this you want to prove that it is small film. But every film here gets money from government for production and advertising. Without this they cannot make and distribute the film. How can "Coming Soon" get money from government? This is impossible here. They made it with no money and a lot of help from individuals and are showing it in very interesting and respected places. If you don't just look how mant times they are playing it but whre they are playing it) in places where you have the most interesting culture and theater and readings, etc) you will see that this film is very respected here and is having strong influence on people's ideas. Most films only entertain and when a film starts making people think new ways, this is very important.

The group in the film (E.F.A.) is not officially registered group. This would be crazy here to do. But after this film we are beginning to make organization like this with people from all over the world (Japan, South Africa, Australia, United States, Europe and even Iran). I don't know if this is the first organization like this and even if there are moer please let me know!!! But this film gave us the idea and courage to create something this so I agree that film started an international zoophile-rights revolution. We are the very beginning, but everything has to have beginning. If Mr. Zetawolf doesn't know about it matbe he has to llok harder and you will find it.

These are my feelings about why this film is important. Our most famous citizen Vaclav Havel was more important before he was famous because that is when he was fighting and doing all his work. I don't think it's good to judge importance with how popular something is.

Nice regards from Prague :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.130.226 (talk • contribs)

Iˇve read this little debate here and I must say that Zetawoof seems the less rational here. He's the one who seems to have some hidden agenda. If he would be really be a Zoophile as he claims, then why would he be so obviously against a film that is uniquely sympathetic to his cause. It seems to me that he is just posing as a Zoophile in order to discredit any effort to inform people of supportive arguments and material.

The reason I get this impression is that in spite of the article having links to other external sites (Festival Finale Plzen, E.F.A., IMDB.com, the Czech and Slovak Film Database, and the Coming Soon site which has at least a dozen links to other mainstream Czech media) Zetawoof writes that there are no outside sources. This is a simple and blatant lie.

Secondly, I've noticed that the user Equalityforall initially added some questionable information which was then deleted with the explanation "citation needed." He or she then revised the information and provided the sources. He changed the claim of "sparking a revolution" (which in the Czech lands of Velvet Revolutions doesn't mean tanks and bloodshed, but a new way of thinking) and revised it to "the filmmakers claim that..." and then puts a link to where the filmmakers make that claim. This seems interesting to me. I don't know how many other filmmakers claim to have "sparked a zoophile-rights revolution" and the fact that these filmmakers are ready to make that claim is quite intersting to me.

As far as Dr. Singer's quote is concerned, he also puts a link to the Coming Soon site. I can't see why Devilhead Films would misquote Dr. Singer when all he would have to do is write one sentence on his website to the effect that he never made that quote, and the filmmakers would be instantly discredited. Why on earth would they risk that? It's not really proof, but it seems quite convincing to me.

All in all it seems to me that even though Equalityforall did do a bit of silly spaming some time ago, it seems more likely that FT2 and Zetawoof have their own agenda of trying to suppress and downplay this film. I can just add that I saw this film and I agree with my compatriot (who wrote an unsigned article) below that this film is of high importance here in the Czech Republic and is certain to spark things up around the world (if it hasn't already done so) once it's released internationally.

From Prague with love, Karess

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pico (Newgrounds)[edit]

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

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

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

I doubt whether this webcontent passes WP:WEB. Yes, the site itself is notable, but a character in its animations is not. Unsourced article of an in-universe nature, which does not make a case for passing WP:WEB. MER-C 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:FICT. There is nothing notable about this logo that is demonstrated by third party reliable sources, and certainly not all its variations. --Dhartung | Talk 10:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The information here is sub-section for pertains to the Newgrounds article. The info just isn't significant enough to warrant an separate article of its own. But the fact that there is an article for Newgrounds, demonstrates some degree pertinence. On its own, I would say delete, but it is part of a larger picture. So I believe it should be truncated slightly and placed in the Newgrounds article. If not, deletion would be the only other answer. -- Jason Palpatine 10:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]

Merge As above, no need to add Jason's comments. Bjrobinson 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Don't care if it's merged, but it's completely unsuitable for a standalone article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no merge). Violations of WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:OR abound. --JianLi 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Pico is generally regarded as newgrounds mascot from what I know, unless the character himself has been the subject of verfiable non-trivial media coverage the wiki polcies are quite clear on what should happen. DarkSaber2k 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the usual Notability guidelines. Could be mentioned in the parent article though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep _ PLEASE! I LOVE THIS ARTICLE!!! KEEP IT! Superjustinbros. 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Masoct of a very ntable site, lots of good info... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanalp (talk • contribs)
Conditional Keep Being the icon of a notable flash website, it should at least have a certain degree of notability. The problem is to find proof. I managed to find at least one article mentioning Pico here:[29]. There probably are at least a couple more external sites that mention Pico, and if those can be found and added to the article as External Links or inline refs, it can meet criterion 1 of WP:WEB.--Kylohk 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable website logo. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Krimpet (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate censorship[edit]

Listed for afd already Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate censorship and was going down to an almost unanimous delete. Then the Afd was strangely and unjustifiably closed as a speedy keep, as the article had been rewitten. However, the objection to the article still stands. An encyclopedic article is not possible here - all that is possible is an original research essay pulling together cases that the essay deems relevant. The essay will be unsalvageable POV:

Consider the current state of it:

"Corporate censorship is censorship by corporations, the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates by threat of monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace." - POV dicdef

"It occurs in many types of corporations, from entertainment and news publishers to sporting organizations.[1]" - POV

"There are many examples of corporate censorhip in the world of sports. Sports organizations seek to censor..." POV

"Corporate censorship in the music industry involves the censorship of musicians' artistic works..." POV

The phrase 'corporate censorship' is just a phrase - all we could offer is a dicdef. Any expansion of it will be POV as it assumes that it is appropriate to apply this phrase to certain events and ocurances. If you avoid POV, you have nothing left.

If you want an article about how corporations handle information release to the media - find a neutral title!!!

--Doc^g 08:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment here, Doc, without doubting good faith on all sides, the close was not capricious, the article is completely different, and !votes prior to Uncle G's rewrite could justly be called into question. A second debate is fair and reaonsable, but the characterisation of the close is harsh, I think. I note that the usual anti-establishment mob all want the article kept on principle, and letting them get anythign they want grieves me beyond measure, but I do tend to trust Uncle G, he is not one of our problem editors as I think you'd have to agree. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems OK to me. Corporate censorship is a well used phrase and the article has numerous references. Rjm at sleepers 09:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the references or use of the term are the problem. Can you address the issues I've raised?--Doc^g 09:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, despite the rewrite, it's still a POV OR essay. Previous AFD should not have been speedily kept, as it was most certainly not a speedy keep candidate. --Core desat 09:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep may have been the wrong phrase to use, but you should really look more closely at what the closing admin said: "SPEEDY KEEP without prejudice to relisting. This article is now in radically different state than it was when it was first nominated" - this is a well-written closing summary, and the previous AfD was most certainly invalidated by the extensive rewrite. Seriously, whe n an article has a substantial (good faith) rewrite during an AfD, relisting is almost always the best option. Anything else discourages attempts at improving articles listed at AfD. The threat of deletion is enough to put most people off investing substantial time in rewrites of poor articles - let's not make it any harder by discouraging relisting after substantial rewrites. Carcharoth 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Many of us who called for deletion stated that we believed there could be no article here. I stated that any re-write would be a POV essay (which it is). There is no reason for our views to be ignored by a speedy keep.--Doc^g 09:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So either restate your view in the new AfD, or trust the closing admin to see that the previous (very recent) arguments you made are still valid. Would you trust the closing admin to do this? What should the procedure for relisting be? I've seen relisting debates carry on at the same AfD, below a dividing line, and this might be preferable to starting a new AfD page. Is this explicitly stated anywhere in the guidelines? Carcharoth 09:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per the above and all that was listed at the prior AfD. IMO, RFerreria should not have closed it both early and as speedy keep regardless of the rewrite.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD no longer counts. Only the arguments in this AfD, applied to the current article, should be considered by the closing admin. Carcharoth 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the last discussion did not have a closing admin, and the discussion was closed after less than 48 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - good point. Closing user then, or whatever! :-) My points still stand though, that relisting is preferable when a substantial rewrite has taken place. Otherwise people won't work on improving articles that look like they are snowballing towards delete. Many deletes are of articles that could be improved, and that point is often missed when the article is in a poor state. As an example, the article was initially speedy deleted when rolling back to an earlier (less POV) version might have been a better option. How many people at AfD actually take the time to check that an earlier version of the article might be OK? There are numerous "wrong versions" in the page history of articles that woud never get deleted, so deleting on the basis that something is unsalvageable is a weak argument, particularly when someone makes the attempt to salvage it. Carcharoth 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - requires more sources including from those more skeptical about the concept - however I don't consider this to be a deletion criterion. For the avoidance of doubt, a POV / OR essay wouldn't have citations to reliably published sources. Addhoc 09:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply false. Many POV essays have citations. This has noting to do with citations.--Doc^g 09:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the title is really POV, can I point out Media bias among other articles that will need renaming as well, or is that less POV? Carcharoth 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Let me clarify why this should be deleted. Doubtless the terms exists and has been used - but we don't do dicdefs. The question is can we have an article on the concept? And the answer is no. Why? Because, at the end of the day, this is simply a label that some people apply to certain attempts at information control by corporations. Yes, we could have an article on 'information and corporations' that discussed this, and mentioned that some people used the phrase 'corporate censorship'. But to title such an article 'corporate censorship' is POV, as that's just the label some people use - and many other would object to. It would be like having an article on Clinton's impeachment under the title 'Clinton's crimes and misdemeanours' or an article on US support for the IRA under 'U.S. funding of terrorism'. Doubtless you could find citations for these that used the phrase - but that doesn't mean it is a way we should handle material. Would any of the corporations cited in this article describe their media relations here as 'our corporate censorship policy'? No - well that alone should red light it.--Doc^g 09:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add something to the article saying that is it a controversial term and that most organisations don't agree with the label. That way you present both sides of the argument. The views that the examples presented are corporate censorship should certainly be somewhere in Wikipedia, otherwise we are omitting valid viewpoints. Your position would seem to lead logically to a merge or rename, rather than a delete. I see your point about the title being POV, so can I ask you where this material would be acceptable? Multiple merges with censorship and public relations and media bias? At some point, it gets silly and having the material in one article makes more sense. Carcharoth 10:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is there a lot of discussion of "the label". If there is, fine - but I see no evidence. There's a lot of discussion of stuff that some people have called 'corporate censorship' but we certainly shouldn't contain it under a POV label. In any case, that these concepts even amount to a unified phenomena at all is subjective. Where can these be discussed? Well, the incidents are narrated already on wikipedia - and perhaps an a article on Corporate media relations might mention that some people have used the phrase 'corporate censorship'.--Doc^g 12:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Corporate Censorship" has to describe a point of view, bias is the basis of any accusation of censorship. Yelling "POV OR" is a bit disrespectful to the effort put in cleaning up a tricky stub. The accusation of original research implies either a misrepresentation of source material or the outright fabrication of stated opinion. This article contains neither. Despite the prejudices held by some editors towards the closure of the previous discussion, there is ample evidence to back up the assertion that Corporate Censorship is a notable topic of debate and has had an impact on business and society(((find)):[30][31] [32]). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. OR does not mean false or misrepresented - it means an editor putting material together to create an essay that isn't together in any source. I see no evidence that 'corporate censorship' is a term under notable debate - sure the concept is, but the concept could be called many things. And whether all the examples cites are examples of the same 'thing/concept/pattern' is POV and original research.--Doc^g 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Sorry, just had to do that, with all the absolutist flair that entails. Actually, I agree with you, to an extent. The concept of "corporate censorship" is under debate but the terminology is uncertain. I don't think that the grouping of several conceptually identical analyses is tantamount to original research, although that term has a Wikipedia-specific connotation. So long as there are numerous reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon of corporate censorship and comment on prior research, there is a sound foundation for encyclopedic coverage. Your concern about the neutrality of coverage for this controversial subject is admirable, but your dismissal is myopic and, in my opinion, unwarranted. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Doc has a point, this needs an NPOV rewrite. It's one thing for us to say "John Smith says that Chevron suppressed a scientific study" and another for us to say "Chevron suppressed a scientific study". Better sourcing and attribution could eliminate these problems. The article tends toward the latter wording. The title, however, is probably the only appropriate one. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what we need is a reliable independent source which makes the link from what John Smith says, to this being independently identified as "corporate censorship" (the article title) trather than brand management, news management, damage limitation, free energy suppression or any one of a hundred other concepts. That's my big problem with this; those who use the term seem to come exclusively form an anti-corporatist viewpoint. I found very few dispassionate discussions of the issue of corporate censorship, as disctinct from censorship generically, and those I did find had some examples which were perhaps not obvious. Suppressinga report whihc damages a product or industry - is that actually corporate censorship, or just generic sneakiness? Think for a moment about the tobacco firms and their history. It may be better described as a specific form of confirmation bias or systemic bias, rather than censorship; and anyway if this is censorship then it's more like self-censorship in that respect. Would you publish stuff that made you look bad? If you quietly did not publish it, would that be corporate censorship? According to this article, it would. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. The subject seems to have some merit as addressed, but the title is POV. Where is the reliable independent source which identifies Time Warner's required changes to lyrics as "corporate censorship" as opposed to generic censorship or simply a corporate policy to ensure that sales are not impacted by partental advisories or retailer demands? Guy (Help!) 10:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc. This isn't an encyclopedic concept. At the moment the article is a laundry list of alleged incidents of corporate censorship. The only possible article that would pass muster would be one that explained the concept of corporate censorship, as opposed to that by nation-states, and how the transnational nature of corporations introduces a whole new set of issues. Furthermore, you'd have to find secondary sources discussing that phenomenon, otherwise you'd be engaging in original research. What we have right now constitutes no article, but rather a rant. Mackensen (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc G and Mackensen and others are beginning to persuade me (I haven't !voted yet), but I am still puzzled as to where the sourced material in this article belongs? Which articles should include those points of view? (And no, excluding those points of view is not acceptable). I've asked Doc G and got no answer yet. Carcharoth 11:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The material is already in various places. The synthesis here is original. But if an article on [[[Corporate media relations]] is thought necessary, so be it.--Doc^g 12:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Corporate media relations covers everything. One of the points raised is owners of media companies putting pressures on the press and TV news. That would need to bring in press freedom as well. I think some of this material belongs both in the specific articles about the companies (eg. NBC, GE, Time Warner, etc) and in this article. Also, as I note below, I think the balance problems are lessening as the other side of the story is being told now (see the latest state of the article). Carcharoth 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do we have any sources whatsoever that discuss 'Corporate Censorship' as a term, and its appropriateness and use in debate - as opposed to sources that discuss incidents and choose to apply the term to it. If we don't have such secondary sources on the term - then any essay on the term will be original research. Any essay on the alleged concept rather then the actual term would, of course, need a more neutral title.--Doc^g 10:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the past, attempts to control speech came from the church and religious authority. Now speech is more likely to be restricted through governmental decisions, legal rulings, workplace practices, and pressure from large multinational corporations. / Corporations and businesses sanction the speech of employees, spokespersons, and associates through the threat of monetary loss or loss of employment. Corporations control speech by withdrawing money from, withdrawing support from, denying access to the markeplace to, or by firing people who utter speech that affects the company's financial profits. There are many examples of corporate censorship from the sports, entertainment, and business worlds.Timothy Jay))

This is not a complete and neutral definition, but it does provide a good starting point. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that this is a source that selectively chooses to apply the term "corporate censorship" ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's a discussion of a concept, not a the term itself.--Doc^g 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I was a bit too quick in posting that, but I do find it a valuable resource for the discussion. Here's an analysis of one writer's use of the term, and here's a mention of the term in non-editorial journalism. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you then run into whether the concept of iunstitutional censorship (which I suppose would fix the titular problem here) is distinct from other forms of censorship. Censorship is the removal or suppression of content which is considered unacceptable for practical or ideological reasons (practical: troop movements in wartime; ideological: sending stormtroopers to smash the bust of Mendelssohn). That is the core problem here. Do we have objective sources which explicitly discuss the concept of corporate censorship as a distinct concept. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the original meaning of censorship. The modern concept is much trickier to pin down, though I agree that better words than censorship can be chosen, and that the historical meaning of censorship confuses the issues. But this is tangential to the debate and verges on OR. The sources should be telling us what corporate ~~sponsorship~~ censorship is, not us. That was a real Freudian slip there! Does sponsorship relate to censorship? :-) Carcharoth 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)"Institutional censorship" ignores the implicit economic pressure. Whether corporate censorship should be considered unacceptable or morally corrupt is open to debate, and this is perhaps why there is such opposition to attributing blame to the responsible corporate structure rather than more mundane concerns. This is an open and evolving subject that transcends commerce and enters the realm of sociology. While you are not likely to find anything close to an objective source in the anti-globalization and intellectual property circles where the term appears to get the most mileage, such mention is notable in its own right. This article shouldn't be deleted because there is a substantial body of published criticism to provide for coverage of opposing views. Concerned about neutrality? Find an expert! Someone well-informed in the field should be able to properly reference and delineate the history of the concept and perhaps provide a more neutral framing for the title ("Allegations of corporate censorship"? Or maybe something less likely to foster a mere list). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original closure was improper. but the new article is even better than the old one. Nothing has changed - this is a noteworthy concept worthy of inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing has indeed changed, then we have a consensus to delete.--Doc^g 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete would have been an improper result, given the lack of coherent arguments from most of the delete site. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the original debate was a clear delete per policy as failing WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:ATT. To argue otherwise is simply contrarian. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on all three counts. The fourth, well, if the shoe fits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, this looks like another instance of a conflict between your inclusionism and your love of process. We had a consensus to delete - if indeed nothing had changed, then that consensus remained. But yo now seem to agree with me that the right answer > numerical consensus. I'm impressed.--Doc^g 12:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we didn't have a consensus for anything, really - the discussion was around 24 hours (barely enough time) and everything about the article itself changed. I've always agreed with you that the right answer has nothing to do with numerical consensus, though - that's why I know full well that deletion was, and continues to be, the wrong answer for this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while we've been arguing here, Uncle G has been quietly expanding and improving the article. I do see the points Doc g and Mackensen and Guy have raised, but, on re-reading the once-again-expanded article, I think the POV-balance problems are receding, and thus I'm coming down on the side of keep. Carcharoth 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Rename How is Corporate censorship any more of a POV title than Religious censorship which redirects to Censorship by Religion? Corporations do censor as common sense and articles external sources assert. the fact that it will be plagued with POV as many other articles are, is no reason to delete it. If, according to the category, governments can censor, religions can censor, postal services censor, why can't corporations? No one ever seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RlAiTprpXc. The POV in the proposal seems to be as strong as that in the article. Bjrobinson 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced iscussion of existence and extent of censorship at beginning of article demonstrates that this is an encyclopedic topic. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's about 100 times better than the original and can be developed further. There are some POV issues but they can be fixed. andy 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article's title does not mean that the article will be non-neutral, as long as allegations are paired with the corporations' views and you could have a whole section on why corporations censor things/people, they generally don't do it for fun, and one could argue that if they didn't censor people there would be a backlash, employees would lose their jobs etc.Mmoneypenny 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some of the most blatant Original Research I've seen yet. I think Doc's and Mackensen's reasonings very solid on this article. --InkSplotch 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite strongly. Among other things, "corporate censorship" is the name of an entire chapter in Naomi Klein's well known book No Logo. This would appear to be a quite notable subject. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Corporate censorship" is discussed in 10 additional references not yet in the article which can be found on Proquest, such as "Harper kills book; Author cries corporate censorship." O Brien, Maureen. Publishers Weekly. New York: Jun 14, 1993. Vol.240, Iss. 24; pg. 14." and "THE CENSORS." Gloria Cooper. Columbia Journalism Review. New York: Jul/Aug 2004. Vol.43, Iss. 2; pg. 58 which discusses "disturbing pattern of politically based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry." As for "discussing it as a term" there is "Green Machine." Kurtz, Howard. New York. New York: Jan 28, 1991. Vol.24, Iss. 4; pg. 38, 5 pgs, which says "Mark Green, the New York City NY consumer-affairs commissioner, crusades against businesses and corporation who practice "corporate censorship" or lure consumers through fraud." Nothing O.R about it. Much more than a dictionary definition. Edison 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to censorship. I don't see why this has to be distinct from censorship - how many examples do we need? Neil (►) 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doc's comment In any case, that these concepts even amount to a unified phenomena at all is subjective really seals it here. General discussion of this concept seems to be totally lacking. The intro is a mere dicdef, with no discussion of the history of the term, notable examples or anything else that could be considered encyclopedic. From there, the article is an overly detailed laundry list of things a small number of people have said about corporate censorship. It's telling that the only criticism of the concept comes from TV guide 38 years ago; if we can't find anything better than that, then the article will be forever POV. In addition, the article is laughably US-centric, with absolutely nothing about the rest of the world. Remember, not all corporations are privately-owned.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's general discussion you want, the basic theory is laid out in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media and propaganda model (keeping in mind that what is not said is just as important as what is said). --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more relevant to media bias. Do they actually use the phrase 'corporate censorship'?--Nydas^(Talk) 08:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be improved and seems to describe a current dispute in Ireland where (until an election was called) the Government was going to force through new contracts for hospital consultants which will prevent them from criticising the administration of health services. I can certainly add some relevant sources in relation to that. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep-- the previous article was impossibly bad; this is sourced and integrated. Not OR--the opinions given are not those of the WP ed. & the theme is notable. DGG 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An AfD listing is not a great way to get an article renamed. Is the topic really about anti-whistleblowing measures, or what? Problems with OR suggest Talk page discussion, really. Charles Matthews 09:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but throughout weeding - it's a pretty touchy subject so it should be treated with care. // Gargaj 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it exists and can be proofen. It should be looked at where opinions of the editor are being expressed and removed. If the editor only summarizes what was stated in the sources, then there is nothing wrong with that, unless the summary ignores viewpoints that are in conflict with the editors own believes and being left out on purpose.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would be *CENSORSHIP* not to ... but seriously throw a cleanup tag on it, find it a few more sources and it'll be fine material. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject is clearly notable, hence we should have an article about it, and the article meets WP:A better than 99% of everything else we host here. Burntsauce 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup/stubbify/whatever, deletion is just not the way to go. bbx 09:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edison has convinced me that this is not completely original research. I can understand stripping out the OR, but the topic seems valid. anthony 13:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Censorship, per Neil. Seems to be a sensible solution. --68.105.204.85 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Buchanan[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 10:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are entirely missing, and for several facts in the article (dandruff, wet toilet paper, ...) I doubt that they can be sourced adequately at all. High on a tree 09:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure hoax. Sr 13 09:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. I don't think it's a complete hoax (see List of Judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria). Recurring dreams 10:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, but interesting all the same. I fear that its not entirely a hoax and if you read it closely it kind of comes across as a semi-bitter autobiographical piece. I hope I'm wrong given the subject. But as far as WP is concerned this article has hardly any useful content with no sources stated (I've done a little research and couldn't find any). There is nothing here to save. —Moondyne 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as DGG has stubified. —Moondyne 05:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or stubify~~ Keep - This is a real justice, but, yes, the content is thoroughly bizarre. I just noticed this has actually been deleted twice before under the proper capitalisation of the guy's name - (admin only link) is even more incredulous than the current version. For those who aren't admins, it ends: "Some say he is the messiah for the legal order, and others say that he is the voice of justice. One thing that remains undisputed, however, is that he will be part of the Australian psyche for a very long time. Long live Justice Buchanan, Australia loves you." Orderinchaos 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Changed vote to keep after changes to the article since my vote. Orderinchaos 03:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ as an unsourced Biography of a living person that makes outrageous claims with no prejudice against recreation should a serious article be written. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a result of recent edits. Still needs sources.-- Mattinbgn/^talk 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although stubify is just possible. I think it's best we get rid of it until someone wants to write a real one. --Dhartung | Talk 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced. Judges of his rank are N. Drastic cutting can take care of the BLP & I just did it. Still needs at least one source for the actual career. DGG 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have referenced him so far with two notable cases he was involved with. Assize 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article is in good shape due to DGG and Assize's work. John Vandenberg 09:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good stub. good refs. worth the wikispace Twenty Years 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree the article as nominated was awful, but it's in good shape now for a stub and can blossom from here. KrakatoaKatie 13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Induced dyslexia[edit]

First-person essay, mainly original research and unsourced assertions Clicketyclack 09:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable original research, can't even find fringe sites about this, likely WP:HOAX. --Dhartung | Talk 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no citations, no supporting evidence, appears to be original research. -Jmh123 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dletee. Tihs si orgiinal rseearhc fro srue, adn teh fcat taht ti's ni frist preson olny mkaes ti owrse. (Oh, come on, you knew someone was going to write their vote that way...) Seriously though, this page definitely makes no citations and appears to be original research to my eyes, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is original research and is completely unfit for wikipedia.--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research.DarkAudit 19:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely original research, as seen by that form at the bottom.--Kylohk 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unsourced essay of original research Think outside the box 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an obvious one. Completely unsourced, unwikified, and very likely untrue. Saluton 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I.F.S[edit]

Procedural nom: closest related page I can find for editor who made an AFD log entry but no actual nom. DMacks 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Horribly non-encylopediac page, perhaps spam for a TV show? Not really much in the way of claimed notability, no sources cited. Created by WP:SPA with apparent WP:COI. Since creation, has been tagged for major rewrite and other serious issues to no avail. DMacks 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell is this? Barely coherent and utterly lacking in sources. DarkAudit 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. If I understand this article, it is a fantasy in which the editor who created the article takes over the professional wrestling industry. As such, it violates ... let's see ... some combination of WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HOAX, and WP:WAF. --Metropolitan90 03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Most people argue that the content should be merged somewhere, so feel free to do it. - Bobet 00:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Engine Component Overhaul[edit]

The company is not notable on it's own, and given the nature of the company business it would not generate much notable news upon which the article can be expanded. 0 results in google news Russavia 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This user has nominated at least five Singapore Airlines-related articles in what appears to be personal crusade against "SIA Fanboyism [33]". Stubs, being stubs, have room to grow, and are not non-notable for being under developed. You found 0 results in Google news, but google search itself produces 423[34]. Please do no establish notability using your own barometres.--Huaiwei 07:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I have nominated one Northwest category and one Cathay Pacific category, and I am sure there will be many more to come. And the reason I have nominated these SIA articles is because they should not be in wikipedia, as they are not notable entities, are not encyclopaedic, and they have no room to grow, hence why they are still stubs after some 2 years. So argue to keep on the merits of whether they do belong on wikipedia or not, not on some Singapore Airlines fetish which you seem to have, in which anything and everything to do with SIA needs its own article.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles compose a directory of Singapore Airlines subsidiaries, and nothing more. At best they can be listed in the the airline's article. Mangoe 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In what way is an article on a subsidiary a "directory"? If it needs to be repeated once again, these subsidiaries were actually listed in the said article but were moved to secondary pages to trim the overbloated main article. Your suggestion reverses earlier initiatives, and is not exactly a feasible idea.--Huaiwei 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If the overbloated article is not suitable, then surely it could be said that a page which will never grow pass stub stage would not be suitable either. Perhaps it would be better to create a new article such as Singapore Airlines subsidiaries and present the information in that article, whilst still keeping individual articles on the truly notable subsidiaries such as SilkAir. The articles which could be merged into the subsidiary article would be:
International Engine Component Overhaul
SATS Security Services
SIA Engineering Company
Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited
Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise
Singapore Airport Terminal Services
Singapore Flying College
Tradewinds Tours and Travel

It would clean up the Singapore Airlines category that is for sure, and make such deletion noms less likely. --Russavia 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or alternatively merge with Singapore Airlines, or create [{Singapore Airlines subsidiaries as above. But this article should not exist. --Dhartung | Talk 10:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this, and the other seven articles listed by Russavia, into Singapore Airlines subsidiaries. Keep standalone articles only where multiple independent non-trivial coverage is actually found, per WP:ATT. Barno 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a subsidiaries article. Second choice: delete. Clearly not enough material here for an article and no sources provided. --kingboyk 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Limited keep for SIA Engineering Company and Singapore Airport Terminal Services. Both of these are listed on the Singapore stock exchange and may have notability on their own. However, those articles would need to have some reliable sources added. If they are merged, they should be allowed to be recreated when sources are added. Vegaswikian 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should not be exist. Non notable per nom G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Singapore Airlines subsidiaries, as that article is now existant, and seems a worthy place for the content. Also, isn't this AfD about due to be closed, one way or another? Charlie 09:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Russavia, for 3 of the 7. Keep SIA & SATS per Vegaswikian. Also keep Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise — not owned by Singapore Airlines. MrZaius^talk 10:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep Singapore Flying College, for table et al. Seems closer to being fleshed out than the rest. MrZaius^talk 10:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think it goes without saying that most articles can be improved... Petros471 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Resources Group[edit]

Delete - Article reads like an ad, plus not notable... 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasdz (talk • contribs) 2007/04/30 00:59:37

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, probably an ad. Rehevkor 15:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of notability. They are a major USAID contractor. Here's a link to an NY times article about controversy over the company being awarded a contract in Iraq in 2003 [35], and a summary of 'interesting' contracts from Centre for Public Integrity [36]. Plenty more second party references available through Google. Also Wikipedia has articles on John Snow, Inc, Boston Consulting Group, Parsons Corporation, Booz Allen Hamilton etc which are other engineering or 'contract management' companies. However, the article needs to be expanded - without advertising language so the other tags are appropriate. Paxse 18:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand with sources given by User:Paxse above. — Indon (reply) — 09:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've done some cleanup and added sources. This is a smaller player than KBR or Halliburton but is closely associated with U.S. dollars-for-development politics. --Dhartung | Talk 10:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:CORP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderwing (talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Apparently they work with the US Agency for International Development, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and others, governments, and organizations. I would call that notable. Slavlin 04:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Taste of Doom[edit]

Generic band vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 10:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found an interview with them in the Metal Observer that I believe is mentioned in the text, and there may be others out there in languages I don't know, but I think they're juuust on the wrong side of WP:MUSIC right now. If someone turns up better sources, I'd be glad to review this opinion. The article needs work, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inadequate references to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 12:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of uninhabited islands[edit]

An unmanageable, unmaintainable and useless list. (1) Neither of the two terms in the title has a clear definition, so there are no clear boundaries to determine what is in and what is out. (2) What possible use is there for the list? (3) It's covered by the category "uninhabited islands" anyway. Snalwibma 11:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, in case it's not already clear! To expand on reason 1 above - is an island "uninhabited" only if it has never been inhabited, or are now-deserted islands included? And what about islands which are inhabited seasonally (e.g. with a holiday home on them)? Is it an "island" only if it's above (or indeed below) a certain size, or are wave-washed rocks that are incapable of supporting human life included? Snalwibma 11:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless and impossible article, and of no encyclopedic value whatever. At best it's an index of WP articles about little islands which is already perfectly well handled by the Category:Uninhabited_islands page. andy 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potentially unmaintainable list much better handled by the existing category. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The catagory takes good care of this. No objections to any of the nominators provided reasons. Felix 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete the category if this is deleted, if there is no reason for a list, there is no reason for a category, especially when "Neither of the two terms in the title has a clear definition". I am assuming "island" doesn't have a clear definition and neither does "uninhabited", so delete the category. They seem very clear to me, and the list looks fine to me and is maintainable, and can be sorted by continent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use the category. Placeholder account 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category way seems a better choice here than a list, particularly with a list that could have literally 1000000s of entries. Having a category does not preclude having a list. But in cases where the list could be potentially huge, the list would have to serve some additional purpose to the category: providing citations for something controversial, perhaps; organizing the material other than will ultimately be done when the cat gets too big (here, geographically no doubt); or providing some added info for comparison (area perhaps here, or an explanation of whether the island was ever inhabited). Unfortunately none of these saving reasons are presented by this list, so it seems duplicative of the cat. Carlossuarez46 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergeBefore deleting, someone should go over the list and see if there are any islands that are not in the Category:Uninhabited islands. If nobody does, then the deleting administrator (if there is a decision to delete) may contact me and give me a week or two to do the job before deleting.VK35 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete --Eyrian 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Alexander Odell[edit]

Blatant self promotion... this article was already speedy deleted once. Jazznutuva 11:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Recurring dreams 11:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. ~KnowledgeHegemony~ 11:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOE (award winner)[edit]

Orphaned article, with no references or examples of mainstream use. Looks more like neologistic listcruft. - Tiswas^(t) 11:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. Delete unless sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TOE (Take Out of Encyclopedia) A random acronym that gives no sources noting or explaining its use? I'll pass. -- Kicking222 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it appears to be a neologism with sources unlikely to be found. Possibly a protologism. Jay32183 02:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female availability signaling and male contact choices using Internet-based dating services[edit]

Per WP:NOT#OR, Wikipedia is not for personal essays or original thought. This is clearly opinion Jazznutuva 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abstract of original paper which appears to be cut and pasted from somewhere else. NawlinWiki 12:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I really only needed to see the first two words: Recent observations. That is pretty much textbook OR. And talk about a long winded title, doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, huh? --Cyrus Andiron 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Author is also apparently attempting to claim copyright. DarkAudit 12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. (I removed the copyright notice). andy 13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author has uploaded the same text as two images: Image:Jack Dikian.jpg and Image:Dating.jpg. Uncle G 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VorpalCon[edit]

Speedy Delete - No assertions of notability, no reliable sources, inaugural event was last year with only 100 attendees, so to say it WILL become notable would be predicting the future. Prod removed without comment by article creator.DarkSaber2k 11:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, and no verifiable and reliable sources. One's own web site is neither. Only outside link is a government site that shows the club exists, not that it's actually done anything. DarkAudit 12:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hopelessly non-notable. I've been to yard sales with way more attendees than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and I'm hedging a bet on spam. Most prominent link on the page is the reg page for this con. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input device[edit]

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links (WP:NOT#LINK). This is a list of vaguely connected topics with no other content. It's been tagged for cleanup for 12 days with little change. Chrislintott 11:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are all internal links, not external links (which is what WP:NOT#LINK refers to). This article needs some cleanup, but it's a reasonable sort of disambig page right now. Zetawoof_(ζ) 12:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#LINK says Wikipedia is not...a collection of internal links. It does exempt disambig. pages, but this isn't one - there isn't anything ambigious about the different entries on this random list. Chrislintott 12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You left off the last part of that phrase: and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. With some work this could be considered a useful navigation tool per the guidelines for a structured list. --Cyrus Andiron 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Requires cleanup (as tagged). Some prose would help bring the sub-lists together. -- MightyWarrior 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Input device is a common and very old term in the computing. It is in the curriculum of common informatics in schools.. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 Hadith Qudsi[edit]

Seems like (1) original research or (2) straight text dump. And isn't this covered somewhere within List of Muslim reports? NawlinWiki 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a spammed religious tract. DarkAudit 12:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs on Wikisource somewhere in here, but I don't think it's worth transwiki-ing just one of the Hadith. --Dhartung | Talk 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Data structure. NawlinWiki 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DATASTRUCTURES AND DATABASES[edit]

Looks like a students outline for a school paper or project. Original research. Shoessss 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; the topic is well covered in Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this page has already been redirected to Data structure --Ali 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (A1, no context) by The Rambling Man. Hut 8.5 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNLS[edit]

Non notable school. A contested prod, no reason given for contesting The article is unsourced and the articles assertions of notability are poor at best Mattinbgn/^talk 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A1, article provides no con text, not withstanding it has no assertion of notability on the subject matter. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Krimpet (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation (Israeli politics)[edit]

Nominating for deletion as attempts to turn it into a redirect have been repeatedly reverted. This is a heavily POV stub (self-hating Jews as a See also?), which even if fixed to NPOV status would still be largely pointless as it is already covered by Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, Yamit, etc. Number 5 7 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - are you kidding? This is a huge political issue in Israel, with a wide range of views and opinions. It certainly needs expanding and improvement, but this is patently not a POV fork and certainly notable. --Leifern 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is about defining the term not explaining the action or theory - that is covered by Land for peace. Number 5 7 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to the policy of forcibly (if necessary) evacuating Jews from certain areas. I don't know what you mean by "action or theory," but it is entirely possible to have one without the other. People can be forcibly evacuated for other reasons than "land for peace," and "land for peace" can happen without forcible evacuation. --Leifern 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Land for peace is an Israeli-Palestinian topic whereas Evacuation has an Israeli-Israeli scope. —Viriditas | Talk 13:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a singular phenomenon in world history let alone Jewish history. The article does need to be expanded though. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leifern and others; sourcing and expansion needed, but the basis for a full article is there. 6SJ7 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious POV fork.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nydas. --GHcool 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nydas. --Regan123 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: why an article summarizing and systematizing Israel's internal issues related to Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, realignment plan, Land for Peace, Population transfer, Yamit, etc. is automatically called POVFORK? Are we getting rid of all articles dedicated to internal politics throughout WP, or only those related to Israel/Jews, or only those that some editors are uncomfortable with? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As someone who cares about this issue, I don't think this article presents it neutrally. NPOV is a cardinal principle in Wikipedia, and the only way to adhere to it is to scrap the article and find a redirect target. Placeholder account 23:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- POV is not a valid reason for deletion. Besides, we are talking about a short stub. A full article is yet to be written. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a POV-pushing article, but it just needs editing. No reason why useful article cant be written, as it's a notable subject and there are certainly enough sources of all POVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete; this is a blatant POV essay and there's nothing here worth keeping. If someone wants to write a neutral article at this title, the current contents won't help them at all. *** Crotalus *** 12:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced POV. Someguy1221 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 05:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power[edit]

Delete. Since when does Wikipedia devote articles to magazine articles? Magazine and newspaper articles are not notable for Wikipedia articles just by virtue of their existence. It sets a disturbing precedent if it means we can now take any moderately known references (including the ones in this very article) and amplify them into Wikipedia articles of their own. Imagine if everyone on either side of any controversial issue suddenly started padding their case by giving Wikipedia articles to any and all news stories that aided their agenda. wikipediatrix 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, with current title. -- I suppose we could also have an article called: Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner, Inc., et al., because it went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Church of Scientology lost their $416 million suit. But at any rate this article is most certainly notable in its own right, if not for the suit, and all of the numerous sources that cite it, then also for the awards it garnered, including: Gerald Loeb Award - "distinguished business and financial journalism", Worth Bingham Prize, Conscience in Media Award, Leo J. Ryan Award, to author Richard Behar. Smee 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Then let's change the name of the article so it's about the Supreme Court case, and not the magazine article itself. I can think of thousands of well-known prize-winning magazine and newspaper articles, but I don't think we want Wikipedia to be flooded with articles devoted to each one of them individually. Heaven help us all if those floodgates are opened. wikipediatrix 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has its own article. Steve Dufour 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a magazine article. wikipediatrix 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pamphlet. BTW the "Elders of Zion" themselves, unlike "Xenu", do not have a WP article. Steve Dufour 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely why this article is itself so notable. I am most interested to hear what others think. My sentiment is still Keep, with current title, however, for reasons stated above. Smee 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable article, well referenced. The title is a bit tendentious but it is what the article is about and it's what people will search for. Even if the title is changed there should be a redirect from the current title. andy 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is certainly notable, even though I have very little respect for Time magazine itself. Steve Dufour 14:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lot of notability about that situation between Time and the Church including the full-page ads that the Church took out in USA Today. I agree with Wikipediatrix about the inadvisability of having articles about sources that are otherwise non-notable, esp. articles about articles. I suggest a name change to Church of Scientology and Time Magazine. --Justanother 14:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Per Smee. Name change proposal, if implemented, would simply encourage further newspeak. Ombudsman 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A most intriguing reference/analogy. Thank you for providing your comment. Smee 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Obvious keep under this title - the article and its subsequent litigation clearly satisfies notability guidelines. Otto4711 15:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep notable magazine article, with strong reaction by its target (anti-ads), and a notable aftermath (lawsuits, reprints, propaganda, harassment). Yes, sometimes magazine/newspaper articles deserve their own article. I'm wondering why there is no wikipedia article about J'accuse. However there is one in the french wikipedia. --Tilman 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ rename. J'accuse was by a major & acknowledged author, was published in a political journal of high reputation, had a major impact on politics, and on history, was of spectacular rhetorical brilliance, and remains a classic testament to the power of critical analysis and writing. The article in the French WP should make this clear to anyone with a slight knowledge of the language. Not a single one of these is true about this subject: I'd even say the exact reverse on every point. It had neither literary excellence nor political result. The controversy however is of significance and probably does warrant an article under a reasonable title such as that suggested by Justanother. The present article is somewhat repetitive, and the one in the French WP of the expected clarity--I'd like to think we could fix this by editing, but I doubt anyone at our WP can write at their level. DGG 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis choqué. Steve Dufour 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

t least when writing in English (smile) DGG 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, did you want to make an argument for deletion that has a basis in policy? The question that must be answered regarding this article is not how well it compares to an article on another magazine or journal piece. It is not whether this article is written to the same level of competence as another article. No, the question that must be answered is whether this article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otto4711 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I wasn't clear; I was replying to a proposed precedent of a clear justifiable one on an individual article. I intended to say rename, on the basis that the article was not N, but the controversy was. DGG 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a good example of a magazine article that is notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't cave in to the scientologists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.196.187 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2007

Comment - wikipediatrix, who nominated it for deletion, is not a Scientologist, in fact a critic of them. Steve Dufour 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.45.209 (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2007

Strong Keep with current title - per Smee and Ombudsman. The subject's name is "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" and this is the name by which this notable, award-winning subject is known. The subject's notability is established by the number of times which the resulting litigation from it by the scientology organization is cited in other libel and defamation court cases. I do not know of any other magazine articles which led to the plaintiffs losing their $416 million lawsuit, or which also involved daily full-page advertisments in national newspapers in attempts to trash them. Orsini 09:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename my instinct was to say strong keep but I think wikipediatrix makes a good point, this has a funky, news about the news, ouroboros vibe to it. I agree that the subsequent controversy deserves its own full wikipedia entry (can't wait to read it, however clumsily named it may have to be) but I question whether the original magazine article was significant enough to justify it being the exception that sets the bar in terms of notability for the potential deluge around the corner. Ideology should obviously not influence editorial policy, (much) but some forms of influence require a different kind of resistance to avoid getting sucked in. --Scriblio 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC) — Scriblio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This article was the impetus and source for much criticism of Scientology throughout the 1990s, and is an essential landmark in its history as a result. --Modemac 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Modemac, and under current title. Robertissimo 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (with same title). I get what wikipediatrix was saying about opening the floodgates to other articles about articles, but I don't see that happening. Anyway, if the article is notable, why not have an article about it. An magazine/newspaper article should be treated like any other written work. If it's important then it should have a page. I know me, myself, followed a (non-wiki) link here to read about the topic. - Rocket000 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, there are hundreds of articles on TV episodes, why can't there be an article on a Time magazine cover story. Not to mention this article contain very useful information on scientology. Give the article is well written and well cited it should at least be merged into another article if all else fails. --Voidvector 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: -- Interesting note: Anderson Cooper 360 (Aired May 14, 2007 - 22:00 ET) --

COOPER: According to a 1991 "TIME" magazine article, quote -- and I'm quoting from the article, "Eleven top scientologists including Hubbard's wife, were sent to prison in the early 1980s for infiltrating, burglarizing, wiretapping more than 100 private and government agencies in attempts to block their investigations."

A, is that true? And, B -- well, is that true? Because I mean, the critics of your organization say that you guys have a history of this, that whether this John Sweeney was a bad reporter or not, this is part of a pattern, that "TIME" magazine article certainly intimating that.
RINDER: Anderson, the history of the church is a long history of the church. And certainly, there are things that have happened. Those people that were involved in those activities back then, they were thrown out by the church. They were dismissed from the church. That's ancient history.
COOPER: That "TIME" magazine article, in 1991, which was a cover story, the writer of that article says, even in the course of his writing and his assignment, that he was -- he said illegally investigated by affiliates of the Church of Scientology. He was contacted numerous times by attorneys.
And, in fact, "TIME" magazine, Time Warner, the parent company, which also owns CNN, was sued. And the case was finally thrown out at multiple levels. I think it went up until 1997 or 1998.

Staff (April, 14, 2007). "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees - Inside Scientology". Anderson Cooper 360. CNN. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
I just find it very interesting and noteworthy to note that this article has not faded from the public view, and was cited yet again on LIVE TV on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. It is also interesting to note that Mike Rinder tried to downplay the litigation, and so forth, and yet Anderson Cooper emphasized the length of time that the litigation dragged on, and the facts cited in the article itself. Just wanted to point that out as extremely relevant to this discussion. Smee 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Walker Texas Ranger lever[edit]

Delete - no independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this gag either within the context of the show or in the "real world." The information is well-covered at Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien and normally I would simply boldly redirect this article there but since I imagine that lever fans would find that controversial I bring it here. A result of either delete or redirect would be equally satisfactory. Otto4711 13:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be the solution I'd support. FrozenPurpleCube 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous - whoever is trying to delete this is ridiculous. it deserves its own page based on the fact that, A) its not a 'sketch' B) its unlike anything done on the show or any other show C) the fact that there is enough information to take up as much space as the WTRL wiki page does is reason alone not to delete it. Notability?? have you ever seen the Lever pulls? people go crazy for this shit. i haven't seen "Actual Items" or any other segment all over the internet on countless websites.

the Walker Texas Ranger Lever deserves its own (smaller article) on the Late Night wiki page and should link to this much more expansive article. Google "walker texas ranger lever" or "walker lever" to find its NOTABILITY....Lossleaders 05:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence of notability beyond a tiny slice of individuals - and "people go crazy for this shit" is hyperbole even for those few people. Deli nk 11:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, if we really must, redirect the page to Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien but in all honesty I can't see many people typing "The Walker Texas Ranger Lever" into the Wikipedia search box. A1octopus 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect - unreferenced, seems like blatant original research. Moreschi ^Talk 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wow - this will be the last time i ever do any research on anything and put it on wiki. this is by far the most exhaustive information on the WTRL and someone decides to just take it down cos they think it isn't notable enough. can't you go fuck with wiki peat moss or something?Lossleaders 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, it's usually not effective to attack the nomination. It's much more preferable to comment on the subject of the article, instead. This is because attacking the nomination really only applies when the nominator has made a severe and obvious mistake, or when the conduct is obviously disruptive, but not in cases where there is a good-faith concern. Since Otto4711 is a regular editor, and frequent contributor to AFD, I consider it unlikely he's engaging in any bad conduct. Thus you may wish to rethink your statements. FrozenPurpleCube 00:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huzcal[edit]

Blatant hoax. The image is of the US Desert Cottontail & not the African anything, and every edit in this pages history is a hoax of one kind or another. Closing admin may want to take a very long hard look at User:Loshgr (aka User:Logan Gregory FC and probably others) for a lengthy history of sockpuppeteering, vandalism and attack pages — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, tee hee. I guess I don't understand what's so hilarious about making hoax articles. This one wasn't even worthy of a chuckle. --Cyrus Andiron 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Why can't such obvious crap be speedied? DarkAudit 15:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you'd speedy it as - it could maybe fit G1 or G3 but would probably be contested. Anyway, since the creator's currently active the speedy would get deleted by one of their sockpuppets & it would just wind up here anyway — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search for "Huzcal rabbit"= one hit, Wikipedia.Blueboy 96 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. What's wrong with ((db-nonsense))? It's only a hoax if it appears to make sense, which this article obviously doesn't despite the nice picture. If it's utter twaddle it's nonsense. andy 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as I say, the reason I didn't speedy it it that one of the user's sockpuppets (I'm aware of at least three, and I don't have access to checkuser etc so am probably missing some) would just delete the template and bring it here anyway — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page makes no sense. It is completely fictional and is a waste of space. Loshgr 11:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Jakob Borelius[edit]

The article does not assert the importance of the subject. I don't think being mentioned in a footnote is enough. 99DBSIMLR 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, there was a book about him, which means a clear notability per WP:BIO "The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography." Moreover he has a short srticle in the Sweedish Wikipedia (I added the interwiki); his name there is given as Johan Jacob Borelius.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was on the fence about this article. When I first googled the subject, I didn't see the book. It should probably stay... 99DBSIMLR 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was perhaps due to the Jakob / Jacob ambiguity. It may easily happen.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important figure in history of Swedish philosophy.--Dhartung | Talk 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Ryan Postlethwaite 11:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Groves[edit]

Very questionable notability. Her campaigning apparently started in 1971, and yet she only made the news (according to the cited references) upon her death in 2007? Wikipedia is not a memorial nor a news service. kingboyk 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, this does just seem to be a page about a persons death. Felix 17:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have (distant) memories of the campaign ie it is the sort of thing I would have to look up in an encyclopedia. Aatomic1 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it was just an article about someone who had been killed by a plastic bullet during the Troubles then I'd definitely say it was a memorial. However like many people from many backgrounds and cultures, information generally becomes centrally available in obituaries when they die. I can't see the full article as I'm not a subscriber, but this uses "Iconic campaigner" and I'm not sure UTV would cover the death of some random person. UCAPB get some publicity - [37] [38] [39] - and as she campaigned using an organisation it's not unreasonable that there wasn't that much coverage of her when she was alive. I'm on the fence anyway, so no !vote from me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even about her death. Just about her being hit with a plastic bullet. I was injured in a rugby match at school, do I deserve a WP article? nonsense. --Counter-revolutionary 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments and references supplied by ONiH. These would certainly indicate notability. Bear in mind most of her and the UCAPB's campaigning would have been in the 70s and 80s, before newspapers started maintaining online archives (the Irish Times, the first Irish newspaper to really embrace the internet only had online archives going back to 1996 last time I checked). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't believe she fulfills the criteria for being in Wikipedia in her own right. If she died then so would Joanna Mathers, Eilis Maguire, Joyce McCartan, and others bereaved or killed and there simply are far too many. However she could merit inclusion in plastic bullets or a Relatives for Justice page if one were created satisfying encyclopedia criteria. I just want to mention also that there is a discrepancy in the page as it now stands -one line states she was shot by a rubber bullet but goes on to state that she became an anti-plastic bullets campaigner. This seems to me to be a discrepancy.Sergeant Trotter 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)— Sergeant Trotter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Again, this isn't an article about someone who died during the Troubles. It is an article about someone who was prominent during the period, and has since died and due to the obituaries there is sufficient source material for an article to be created. Also, there is no discrepancy, she was hit by a rubber bullet but campaigned against rubber and plastic bullets. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she was prominent back then, there would have been sufficient material available before she died, surely? --kingboyk 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is, just in offline newspaper archives as Bastun says. As I said, this is someone we could have had an article on before she died in some people's opinion, it's just that information became centrally available in obituaries when she died. As JzG says here, quite often more source material does become available in obituaries, it doesn't make any articles created due to that a memorial. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Maybe try and find somebody with access to a university library or other big library with a newspaper archive? --kingboyk 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am interested in the argument she put forward. Plastic bullets seem to me somehow kinder than "Bloody Sunday" bullets. Maybe this is a merge? More interesting than a minor footballer. - Kittybrewster (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it now seems that it is sourceable, though not yet fully sourced. DGG 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to have adequate references. --Eastmain 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I will add additional referenced information.--Domer48 10:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that article is referenced, although cleanup is necessary. KrakatoaKatie 08:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination was Withdrawn. Agent 86 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ackroyd[edit]

Article seems a homage to a deceased person. He did good in life, but wasn't notable. His name has many google hits becase there are at least 3 homonyms actors ([40], [41], [42])Abu badali ^(talk) 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Concerns were dealt with. I withdraw this nomination. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Memorial to a person, nothing to indicate substantial notability. Might be something for being chief of police for Toronto though, as well as the liquor control board so I could be convinced to keep if more work was done to emphasize his tenure in office. FrozenPurpleCube 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- almost convinced to keep, but the article itself is still pretty sparse. FrozenPurpleCube 20:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a police officer, as head of one of Canada's largest police forces, and as chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. When I created the article, I had no interest in creating a memorial, but rather in filling a gap in the list of articles about former Toronto police chiefs. --Eastmain 15:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Any long-term police chief of a large city should have had press coverage as the crime rate went down (or up). There should be sources to write a good article instead of the inadequately referenced stub. The only references now are that his name is on a scholarship and that someone in the legislature said a few kind words when he died. If "He has been described as a giant among men and the greatest cop Metro ever had" as the legislator said, then find several newspaper articles (other than run-of-the mill obituaries) in which such statements were made and the article would satisfy WP:BIO. Right now, as is, it does not quite make it. Just holding an office is not inherently notable. Edison 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. GreenJoe 04:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MEMORIAL. Stoic atarian 06:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Remember that WP:MEMORIAL does not say that all articles about people who died are inappropriate. It says that their notability must be established, as is the case for other biographical articles. In this case, notability is established by the references. --Eastmain 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was head of a large Canadian municipal police force and head of a large provincial corporation. --YUL89YYZ 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand This is a stub at the moment, and should be treated as a starting point, both of the subjects positions (LBCO Head, Toronto Police chief) would cause him to be considered a notable figure. The LCBO is one of the largest wine and beer mechants in the world, and Toronto is the biggest city in the second largest country in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmacd123 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
What's to expand there? It seems there isn't much published about this person. Would you volunteer? --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like we should know about him Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand he was the police chief of Canada's largest city and on the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, one of the largest liquor retail operations in the world. Here is just a few of the 160 articles in the Toronto Star's database going back to 1985 (if someone is really ambitious they can go to a reference library and see articles from the 1970s and early 80s that pertain to him):

Why the liquor board's slicker at 60. Pat McNenly Toronto Star; Toronto Star; May 29, 1987; pg. A.20;

Quiet revolution going on at LCBO headquarters. Tony Aspler; Toronto Star; Jan 17, 1987; pg. F.6;

Undercover Jack gets a roasting Retiring police chief Marks called 'true local hero'. Walter Stefaniuk Toronto Star; Toronto Star; Aug 15, 1989; pg. A.2;

Former chief Jack Ackroyd dead at 67. Toronto Star; Sep 30, 1992; pg. A.1;

These are just examples of a simple search. He is very notable...if his death is noted on the front page of the largest circulating newspaper in Canada,which he was. The article just needs someone to fill in the details. I'm too busy doing my own projects. Jack Ackroyd is KEEPER IMHO. Abebenjoe 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if his notability is established in the article (which is not the case right now, but there are evidence that it may be accomplished) I would withdraw my nomination/vote. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His notability is already established in the article (1) Metro Toronto Police Chief (Canada's biggest police department); (2) Presided over the largest mass arrests in Canada since the FLQ "October Crisis" of 1970: the infamous 1981 Toronto bathhouse raids. (3)Head of the LCBO, which means he was a top level provincial civil servant, that affected the lives of over 8 million people. Abebenjoe 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a start, and improvement over the original article, but it's still in need of a fair bit of work. Keep working on it though. FrozenPurpleCube 20:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is still a poorly written article, but I won't have time to really fill it out for a few weeks...at least. Maybe the original author can add an infobox and flesh-out the article. There is a ton of information about him, both online and in the Toronto Reference Library and the Toronto Archives... it is just not in the article. I would say it is a poorly written stub, but that it shouldn't be deleted, certainly not based on non-notibility.Abebenjoe 20:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would agree that Jack Ackroyd is notable, though apparantly that is not a criteria for Wikipedia deletion. The real issue is the quality of the article, which means it should have a ((cleanup)) for poor writing tag, and have the deletion tag removed. Abebenjoe 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His position of the police chief of the Metro Toronto Police are adequate enough grounds for inclusion. ExRat 05:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yah keep, besides, he may be kin to Dan Ackroyd and you dont want to piss him off!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GmanIV (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 May 2007 UTC.

Weak keep seems somewhat notable. AniMate 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - The article no longer sounds as a memorial and his notability is better stated. The article currently suffers from original research (we shouldn't use the transcript of debates from the Assembly of Ontario that much, as it's a primary source) and pov (remember that sourced POV is still POV. Instead of stating he was "...known as an ideas man, and 'kind cop", we should say "Toronto Star described him as an ideas man..."). Anyway, kudos for those doing the good work on the article.--Abu badali ^(talk) 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remaking barnsley[edit]

No content, no assertation of notability RedHillian 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, no content, sources, location information and most of all no signs of notability. Felix 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any context or assertion of notability has been provided - therefore violates WP:NOTE. --Ali 18:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have added more information which i hope will be more notable mikyt90

Comment unfortunately the information you added was taken directly from here and so I have removed it. Hut 8.5 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little content and notability not proved. Hut 8.5 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, not notable, and crystalballism. DarkAudit 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
may aswell delete as i can't find any more information for inclusion without infringing copyright 20:54 10 may 2007 GMT

Comment you can use the content, just paraphrase it rather than copying it directly. Hut 8.5 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice but there is still insufficient information available to make the page worthwhile
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nominator? Is there a criterion that fits the bill? Burntsauce 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New links added to page mikyt90 10:33 (UTC) 12 may 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina[edit]

Previous nomination, closed as no consensus.

What we have here is an article on a supposed sovereign state or a guy with aspirations thereof, and yet with no citations to verify even that he made this claim never mind that whether anybody took the slightest bit of notice. We have 3 Sydney Morning Herald articles (always the SMH in micronation articles) with vague titles, and they appear to focus on a court case. It's a local story, it was barely newsworthy (only 3 articles), and it gets 160 Google hits, or 58 with quotes, many of which are Wikipedia and mirrors. This is non-notable, unencyclopedic local news, presented as something far more important and serious than it really is.

My nomination from last time still applies: I'm afraid I just don't see anything noteworthy. Slightly eccentric Sydney pensioner declares his farm to be sovereign territory. Gets into a few scrapes with the law. Is mentioned in Sydney Morning Herald 3 times. Had no sovereignty, not recognised by any government, totally unnotable. --kingboyk 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree with Kingboyk- some local noteriety does not confer notability for Wikipedia. Thunderwing 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spurious nomination. Well-documented, referenced. --Gene_poole 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails notability and verifiability guidelines, and Gene Poole is directly involved with such "micronations" and seems to be editing out of POV-pushing, OR and vanityspamcruft in direct opposition to several policies. DreamGuy 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is some coverage of this, it isn't notable enough for mine to warrant an article. As its "ruler" and sole "citizen" is now dead, it is unlikely that there will be much more of note to add. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Capitalistroadster. This is plainly non-notable.--cj | talk 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone wants to change the primary criterion for notability. SMH comes up more often than some other papers because it's got a bigger distribution in Australia's largest city.Ga rr ie 04:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What has changed since last time? If nothing has changed - why should it be deleted now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GarrieIrons (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep The fact that the Baron has died is really irrelevant; we have lots of articles about defunct nations and organizations. The Sydney Morning Herald is a good source. It seems to have been more acrive than many micronations; this site suggests they've been selling diplomas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:N and arguably WP:COI. >Radiant< 09:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are references; the primary notability criterion is fulfilled - and where is the conflict of interest? How do any of those three possibly apply? JRG 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - micronations are an interesting part of political geography and politics in the world and as Wikipedia is not paper, there is a place for such articles here. I agree with Garrie - nothing has changed since the last nomination, so there's no extra reason to delete this, nor has the moderator come up with one; and there are sources provided in the article (including the links at the bottom) to verify the existence of the micronation and its activities. The fact that the founder has died is irrelevant - it's still notable, and this is one of those deletion debates where the original nominator didn't seem to be happy with the original outcome so he's trying again in vain hope that he'll get his wish this time. This should not be allowed. JRG 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be a WP:ILIKEIT rationale. If all you can do is complain about the second nomination (consensus can change, and it's been a long time) you likely don't have much of a case. --kingboyk 11:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing moderator - it has been suggested, as appears at Wikipedia talk:Micronations, that the nominator is trying to personally redefine micronations to suit his own POV, and that this deletion is part of his push to get Wikipedia articles redefined that way. If this is true, this nomination should be speedily closed as a bad faith edit. If it is not, the nominator needs to explain why this and other micronation articles have been nominated recently. JRG 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the article and the nomination please, not on me. I've been perfectly clear and forthright in announcing (including on the admin incident noticeboard) that I am working my way through that category and all my edits have been in line with policy and guidelines so far as I'm aware. Just because somebody has suggested something doesn't make it true.

Now, to the issue in hand: Why is this notable? How is anything other than trivia or a news item? Is it neutral? If your Keep argument goes no further than "I like it" the closing admin can and should discount it. The only sources provided are 3 possibly trivial news articles from one newspaper; Google is strangely silent on the issue; and the links in the external links section don't count as reliable sources from what I can tell.

Incidentally, if I had known at the time about WP:DRV I might have sent it there, as I think the last closure was incorrect; however, that was a long time ago and it's well within Wikipedia procedure for me to renominate now. Different times, different people in the community, increasing standards...) --kingboyk 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried news archive sites like Factiva or Ebscohost? Google searches are not primary indicators of notability, the factor upon which you have based your decision to delete. I think the nomination is unreasonable. Perhaps the article can have its footnotes done better, but that's not a reason for deletion. A lot of other pages on Wikipedia don't have the referencing this one has, and yet they are allowed to stay. This more than meets the primary notability criterion. JRG 01:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS It was closed last time as "no consensus". I'm now seeking consensus. Maybe that consensus will be to keep, maybe it will be to delete, but either way this is patently a fair, well argued and good faith nomination. --kingboyk 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention "and entirely unneccesary". --Gene_poole 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to JRG: WP:FAITH. >Radiant< 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I agreed with the statement - but it would be nice for the nominator to explain this rush of article nominations. JRG 01:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it would. Unfortunately what we get instead is dire warnings of the impending doom that will strike WP unless we immediately, and with extreme prejudice, DISAPPEAR as many of those pesky 50 or so micronation articles which - created as the playthings of the Evil Micronation Enthusiast Cabal comprise a THREAT to all that is great and good in this world. --Gene_poole 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already have several times, as you would know if you bothered to read the debates. I am working my way through Category:Micronations looking at every article, adding maintenance tags as needed, cleaning up where I can, and deleting the articles which look dubious in terms of notability or references for deletion. This area of Wikipedia needs some serious encyclopedic cleaning up and it would seem that even the micronation enthusiasts bar the most vocal one agree with me; he on the other hand likes to think he owns the article. So, that's what I'm doing, and I've announced it several times in AfDs and on the admins noticeboards.

You'll notice a thread throughout these articles, that's it's always the "micronation" which is bigged up. Notable cranky politican who once declared his farm independent? Article on a micronation not the politician. Mining town which once tried to leave the US? Article on a micronation. Artist creates a sculpture then, following disagreements with the council, sets up a micronation. Do we have an article on the artist listing all his works and putting this into context, no, we have an article on a micronation. "Lazarus Long" attempts to defraud and is caught by the SEC. Do we have an article on the scam? No, we have an article on a micronation. An Aussie farmer is covered in a local newspaper about 3 times for trying to make his farm independent to avoid paying taxes. We have an article on a micronation. Convinced now? Further reading: this arbcom case which shows a history of POV editing and this sockpuppet from the editor you are choosing to listen to over me. --kingboyk 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop this carry-on kingboyk, because, frankly, you seem to be letting emotion cloud your judgement, and it's not a particularly edifying spectacle to behold. If you want to pretend that micronations don't exist as a global cultural phenomenon with type-variants that's your business, but there is a very large weight of referenced opinion which says otherwise, and your opinion is at best described as an extreme minority viewpoint, and at worst as WP:OR. I've already pointed out to you numerous times that in all the examples given above the only reason the individual is known at all is because of the micronation they are associated with - not vice versa. In all cases the micronation preceded any other fame or infamy enjoyed by the associated individual/s. Are we clear? --Gene_poole 12:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases yes that is true, in others you and other editors have exaggerated the micronation factor (including the insistence on having seperate articles about towns and micronations when they cover the same territory). I'm not sure which category this particular article falls into as I don't have access to the SMH archives, but I'll take your word for it that the declaration of independence is what got it into news. It's still a non-notable local storm in a tea cup though AFAIC and imho. --kingboyk 12:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category this micronation falls into is "micronation" just like all the others - which is the entire point. The bottom line here is that the only person who seems particularly upset by any of this is you. The fact that you keep accusing me and "other editors" of "exaggerating the micronation factor" should be a strong indication to you that it is your opinions which are either eccentric/non-mainstream or just plain wrong. This reality should be further underscored for you by the (imminent) results of the vast majority of AFDs you've initiated recently, which, apart from a bit of minor tinkering at the edges, simply reiterate the results achieved last time around. --Gene_poole 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though micronations may be notable as a concept, each purported micronation must be notable to have an article, for there are no end of micronations: likely as not some tax-dodge organization has decided that if you declare your independence you needn't pay taxes (except to yourself). Carlossuarez46 16:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears well referenced and notable. Orderinchaos 03:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gene_Poole above. Lankiveil 03:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per JRG. John Vandenberg 09:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which appears to be a WP:ILIKEIT rationale. Would you like instead to say why this is notable, encyclopedic and covered by sufficient reliable sources? --kingboyk 11:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, Yes, it meets our threshold for WP:N, and I can only presume that it is WP:V to the SMH articles, which is a reliable source. But more than that, I noted "per JRG" because you as the nominator have said you dont have access to the sources that you disparage, and yet are appealling to WP:FAITH. Think about that and you should see why others are upset by this nom. In the interests of not destroying the valuable research of others, I strongly recommend against touching this article without the involvement of someone with access to those SMH sources. Thinking ahead, User:Lar suggested creating a Minor Micronations, and on Lar's talk page kingboyk suggested Australian micronations; I think either approach would be a good home for this but there is no way that the content about this micronation should be deleted without it finding a new home. John Vandenberg 14:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that idea. Gosh that was a long time ago! Still seems good to me. What do others think of having an Australian micronations or Minor Micronations article? I think the former would be better ("minor" might be a bit opinionated, and "Australian" is more focussed).
    - I take your point regarding faith, although I'm still of the opinion that several news articles in one regional newspaper is not sufficient to make it encyclopedically notable, whatever the articles say. There are many long running stories in "my" regional daily which would qualify but of course nobody bothers to write about them. But, yes, you make good points and thanks for bringing me to task on them. (PS JRG and I have had a fruitful discussion on my user talk page; I think we're seeing each other's points of views better now. Discussion is good!) --kingboyk 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It is not an ILIKEIT rationale - and please don't try and purport to think that that is what I am saying. Micronations are an interesting part of the political and geographical history of states and countries - Australia, in particular, has had a colourful history of micronations and attempts to secede (however pathetic they may be), and this particular attempt, while not as world-renowned as the Hutt River Principality, for example, is verified by multiple articles from newspapers and fulfills the WP:N criterion, which is the agreed upon notability criterion for these articles. Wikipedia is not paper, and there is nothing to stop users from creating articles on notable secession attempts. I have explained already that the sources are multiple - and the fact that they are from the same paper is irrelevant. The Sydney Morning Herald is the state paper for where these events occurred, and you would expect that it would cover the events in question. The Daily Telegraph, the other major paper in NSW, does not have a publicly-accessible archive like the Herald does (so it won't show up in a Google search beyond about 8 days after the article is written), and not all of the Tele's articles are on Factiva and newspaper sites. I've found 12 articles on this micronation, and I'm happy to clean it up (although I haven't had time today), but the one thing that I will not stand for is being accused of doing something that I am not; nor to have people try and force extra standards upon article to get a point of view across. While the article in question needs proper citations (and I shall do that for you), it has three references from articles listed, plus a host of other sites at the bottom showing some of the alleged activities that have gone on (e.g. medal awarding, degree awarding, etc.) This particular micronation was the subject of a major tax fraud case in 1990 that questioned the legitimacy of the micronation's establishment itself - that is what makes it notable, and the sources show that the attempt was verifiable, and not something made up in a day (which should be deleted). Kingboyk, you have already said above that your suppositions of notability are based on your own opinion - that is why the primary notability criterion exists - it is to stop feelings and personal emotion getting involved in debates like this. Let's all (including me) stick to what has been written, not personal feelings or "what I think is notable". JRG 13:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: That's about the most intelligent comment I've read concerning this subject all week. Thanks for making such a considered contribution. This knee-jerk "shoot first, ask questions later" nonsense we're seeing is far more likely to have a serious detrimental impact on WP than 1000 poorly-written micronation articles ever could. --Gene_poole 13:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Evidently we disagree on interpretations of WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:RS. I see a trivial local news story which doesn't have a sufficient variety of reliable sources to back it up. You see something quite different, it would seem. That's fine; thrashing out the interpretation of policies is what AFD is all about in the more complicated of cases. What I object to is any attempt to place the emphasis on me rather than the article and our policies, or any "keep" argument which doesn't address the policies. I'm happy to agree to disagree on interpretation; furthermore if you are able to improve the article please do and if it seems to be improved to the extent that notability, encyclopedic status and reliable sources are no longer live issues I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. That, too, is another thing AFD excels at: it's quite remarkable how many poor articles suddenly get referenced and cleaned up when faced with deletion. --kingboyk 13:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
      - We may disagree on WP:N and WP:NOT but WP:RS is definitely not an issue here nor in most of the other articles nominated. Making dismissive comments about sources out of personal ignorance is inexcusable when it is being used as a justification for deleting the hard work contributed by dozens of editors of a period of years. Emphasis will not be placed on you if you do not first place it on others. So far today you've accused me of being a "POV-pusher", "micronational enthusiast" (as if it would be a bad thing, were I to be one), article owner and a range of other offensive appellations that, if anything, reflect a tiny, unrepresentative sliver of my actual editing behaviour over the past half decade - mostly, it should be pointed out, when defending WP from the poisonous influence of Arbcom hard-banned editors such as Wik and Harvardy. --Gene_poole 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most WP editors are interested in a specific range of topics & I can't see how this is to be held against their work--who are better placed to find sources for unusual things? And we evaluate their arguments like anyone else's--on their own merits: whether a source can be described as "trivial" does not depend on who raises the argument. DGG 22:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the above sound and fury aside, this article is verifiable. In general, the micronation phenom is a notable expression of individual's protest against the state for a variety of reasons. The ways this is acted out, case by case, is also notable, and in the general and specific cases is certainly much more worthy of encyclopedic recording than Pokemon and it's individual cards. That is not an 'other crap exists' statement, it is a value judgement on the significance of the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC). Jeez, is that bot like, waiting right behind me? !--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing moderator - I have retracted my allegation above about bad faith editing - it was something I read and have discovered it is not true on further investigation. I have also discovered 12 further articles from Factiva, a Hansard extract and a few other sources of information revealing two major legal disputes with the micronation - one on a charge of obtaining funds by deception (by the micronation's founder), and a defamation case by someone involved with the micronation as well. The micronation has importance and notability at a state level (NSW) which is fine for Wikipedia - it's far more than a petty local dispute. I don't have time to add these sources at present but I will when I can - I stand by my lengthy comment above too. JRG 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Petros471 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Second nomination here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being considered for deletion? It is detailed and informative about a future British film. It has lots of References

Rapture (film)[edit]

This article is a spam vehicle for the casting call and the online company running it, and the director. I wikified it, but the spam sections come back. 99DBSIMLR 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's spam, it's about a film coming out next year! The references to the casting call and online company are gone. What's wrong with having details about the director on there? - unsigned comment by Boooo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment - in originally sumitted form, delete as promotional. Reeks of WP:COI too. But see updated comment. Tearlach 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are films in production not allowed on Wikipedia? The film has been featured in Total Film and The Sun so it seems legit. Celine29 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC) — Celine29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Certainly (see, for instance, Live Free or Die Hard). But there are criteria such as notability, and we take a dim view of advertising. NewsBank finds about three UK newspaper references in Feb 2007; the chief interest for the papers was the novel casting method. You can say all that in a paragraph. Tearlach 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean and the Die Hard series is certainly more well known, but I didn't realise that smaller, independent films weren't allowed on Wikipedia. Can we Wikify this article rather than deleting it? I don't see how it's advertising any more than any of the other films on here, it's of interest to the British public, particularly those living in London, where the film will be produced. Celine29 18:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that smaller, independent films weren't allowed on Wikipedia

I didn't say that. All I'd say is, level of detail should be appropriate to notability. It's advertising in the sense of giving contact detals and excessive biographical detail of a very minor director who, even though I'm interested in film, I wouldn't know from a hole in the ground; and in the 'teaser' style and similar excessive detail on content and characters (all of which can be summed up as "a near-future urban crime thriller").

It could be wikified: but bottom line is, are you and Boooo22 connected with the project? Tearlach 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue who Booo is, I'm not connected with the project - i know someone who entered the casting call and as a producer myself was interested in it. Hope that's not a crime! :) I'm glad it's not been deleted because I truly believe it to be a worthy article, but I don't understand why it has to be so brief when there is a lot more information out there about it, such as a synopsis and character breakdowns? I guess I'll leave it to you more experienced Wikipedia users. Celine29 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article seems to be more promotional than anything else, also agree with the WP:COI as well. I'm also concerned a newly created editor's very first edit is to an AfD, that always raises a red flag with me. Wildthing61476 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've done loads of edits before but only just created an account because I helped with this page and wanted to explain why it shouldn't be deleted. Can we just Wikify it instead of deleting it? If you tell me what needs to be done I will edit it? Celine29 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've wikified it to what I think is an appropriate level of detail. Tearlach 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good job in wikifying the article Tearlach! In this current format I would Keep the article. Wildthing61476 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provisional on it staying in the vicinity of this form. Tearlach 19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Dangerously close to spam, but the recent wikifying of the article seems to have nudged it just over the border into the land of encyclopedic tone. Ford MF 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystalballery. A forthcomming release by a major film studio would be okay (as long as it were confirmed) but to have an article on a film in production by fringe players would be crystalling on the basis that all manner of things could happen to prevent the film ever being released. A1octopus 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Since efforts have been made to make the article more encyclopedic, it should be kept if its quality could be further improved.--Kylohk 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I first nominated it, 85% of the article were casting call descriptions of every single role to be cast (age, weight, etc). It was full of spam links for the online casting call company. The rest was just a resume for the unnotable director. After I cleaned it up, all that was left were a couple of unencyclopedic lines about the plot. 99DBSIMLR 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The current edit looks much better...99DBSIMLR 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand why this "upcoming film" does not have an entry at the IMDB or apparently independantly elsewhere (I had to manually check, since the authors of the article did not provide a link; and now I see why). I would be inclined to move to Delete as non-notable, because if even the IMDB is apparently ignoring it (or is ignorant of it), then it cannot be all that notable. I am also concerned about the lack of quality significant secondary sources that acknowledge the film and expound on its importance (or the importance of the actors or production / crew). The "reliable sources" listed seem to be information provided by the producers, which seems a bit dubious. What if the whole thing is a fraud? Can we prove it is not, or at least provide evidence to indicate it is not just a "maybe" project? Or, if the thing falls through financially and they pull the rug on the thing, and it never gets produced or aired, do we keep the article? If the answer is "well, no" then it probably fails notability (whatever that means today, given the dispute). --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep : I would like to see this expanded about the part of the online casting call. That, by itself, seems to be somewhat notable as it is not something you ordinarily see in a film. Slavlin 04:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

web documentary[edit]

The author of this article, Russell Sparkman has removed some of the references to himself. But it still reads as a rather pretentious write-up. Is the concept notable? -- RHaworth 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an extended press release. No references, either. Closenplay 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah this reads like a long(and boring) press release that is severly unrefrenced for the amount of content in the article. Felix 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read I have added comments under the Discussion tab that you should read before rushing to judgment. Web Documentary is a very valid topic; people quoted in the piece are highly regarded in the field; the text first appeared in an article I was asked to write for the International Documentary Association's publication "Documentary," published in 2005 - I can get the exact month if you need; I've been producing web documentaries since 2000 - I know what I'm talking about; Do a search on the term "web documentary" in Google - 3 out of the top 10 returns are web docs that I've produced; I will do what I can to minimize any self promotional aspects of this; however, Rich Beckman, the UNC professor that's quoted in the article referred to me as a pioneer in this area when I presented thge keynote presentation at UNC's multimedia bootcamp in spring of 2004; work that we've done is important to talking about this topic; this is my first original entry into Wikipedia. I have some things to learn, obviously. Russellfsm 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still original research, something Wikipedia frowns upon. There is also the question if "web documentary" is a notable term and concept. --Askild 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of its own article, a paragraph or two could go in Documentary film, under Other documentary forms. Closenplay 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the point of creating an original entry is because a web documentary is not a documentary film, nor is it a form of documentary film. It is an entirely unique approach to documentary storytelling; it may share some characteristics with film, but it is altogether different. To bury it under Other Documentary Forms, without it's own original entry, would be a disservice to the topic, as well as the groundbreaking work that is being conducted. Please read the article I've listed under Additional Reading. Russellfsm 18:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page name is in quotes which is incorrect. I moved the page to web documentary Antonrojo 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there supposed to be a category for this AfD? Russellfsm 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Maybe I'm missing something here but the topic is taught as a seperate concept from doc filmaking at a reputable university, has been discussed in the documentary industry magazine, has references and examples of the genre. The article may be flawed in any number of ways (I haven't looked at the hx for the previous versions), but that calls for rewrite and assistance to the creator of at least pointings to the appropriate guidelines, not deletion. WTF?--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opportunity to rewrite is appreciated, as is the offer of assistance. Thanks. Russellfsm 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't looked at previous versions, but seems like a real and existing concept. No serious vanity in it. —Pengo 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I still lean towards folding it into Other documentary forms but at least the page seems more reasonable now. I did a little editing myself and could see letting it stay. Needs more substance if we keep it. Closenplay 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions/CommentsWho, in this system, ultimately makes the delete decision? Or makes the folding into another category decision? For instance, I appreciate Closenplay's tightening of the language - that helps. But judging by Closenplay's profile, he/she isn't an expert in this area. The article about web documentaries (which again, was commissioned by the International Documentary Association - and that happened after the editor heard me present this subject to the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival) that I originally posted on Wikipedia quoted 3 experts in the area of journalism/documentary production -- you're free to Google them: Tom Kennedy (WashingtonPost.com), Chris Palmer (American University), Rich Beckman (University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill -- all were discussing the unique characteristics of the web documentary. Look them up to judge for yourselves whether their comments about web documentaries in my original article is credible or not. I will, from my knowledge of this area and subject matter be able to add quite a bit of substance to this Wikipedia entry. But I'm reticent to spend any more time on this if a) it still is at risk of deletion, and b) being considered as a sub-category of film documentaries. I don't know if it's appropriate here, but I've posted the original article on my blog. If it's acceptable to publish my blog's URL in this discussion so that others can read the original article for background on this discussion - in addition to the references that I've already provided -- I'll post the URL here later. Thank you. Russellfsm 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to delete or keep is made by an admin but any editor can merge articles. What this article really needs is to be beefed up with material from reliable sources. (An expert's quote still needs to come from a reliable third-party source, otherwise it's original research.) Regarding my qualifications, don't kid yourself that even most of the editors here are "experts" in every area that they edit. Closenplay 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read both the Reliable Sources and the Original Research explanations, which brought me to the topic of "Citing oneself." Unless I'm missing something, based on Wikipedia's criteria, the article I wrote that was published in Documentary magazine by the International Documentary Association qualifies as a source (I can cite publication #, page, date, etc.), and that as long as I follow the NPOV policy, I can site that article as a source. In terms of reliable resources, the experts interviewed in that article qualify as Primary Sources, so as long as I cite the source, I should be able to refer to their opinions. Also, by providing the link to the Hunter College curriculum for Web Documentary, and to the Museum and the Web article, I believe that I'm establishing that I'm not advocating an unpublished theory. So, I believe that the subject matter passes the tests, and I will begin to gradually work on "beefing it up."
Keep I would vote to keep this, if for no other reason than the author is trying to comply with Wikipedia's policies. I am, in many cases, a deletionist my self. Shoot em all and let Jimbo sort em out, I say. But this is an article that could have potential, especially as technology and media evolves. Slavlin 04:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is properly referenced, the concept is real and the original author is planning to expand. Perhaps if he didn't have to spend so much time here defending the article it would already be in better shape. Once your own work has been published - it ceases to be original research. There is no problem citing your own published work on wikipedia - if relevant, appropriate and not a conflict of interest. Paxse 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Birdmen and Escape of the Birdmen[edit]

Moving to correct location. No opinion. Calton | Talk 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original uploader of this article. It pertains to a film in the ABC Movie of the Week series. I utilized material found elsewhere on the web. Recently, an anonymous user User:66.235.22.207 posted a series of changes to the article including the following:

[http://www.angelfire.com/wa/birdmen The Unoffical Birdmen Web Page (Most information, including the Movie Ad were lifted from this Fan Site without permission]

I have concluded that User:66.235.22.207 is the owner of the fan site listed. The material on the site comes from yet other sources (including the original TV Guide posting from when the film was first aired). The Movie Ad on the site was itself from TV Guide. I considered TV Guide the source. However, the posts by this user compel me to consider that they are protesting the article.

Additionally, recent policy changes have been made about TV series articles -- to wit, no articles for individual episodes, per WP:NOT#IINFO . I felt the film overall to be significant and had hoped to see others enhance it, but that never materialized.

Note: Including Escape of the Birdmen, a redirect to the article under its UK title.

The ABC Movie of the Week article does list the title. Additional enhancement of it will be necessary, if I find the time. Given all these factors, (and unless User:66.235.22.207 says otherwise), I must ask for the immediate deletion of this article. -- Jason Palpatine 08:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind[reply]

Delete There aren't any sources to establish the real world significance. If adequate sources turn up later the article can be recreated then. Jay32183 02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KrakatoaKatie 13:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millenian[edit]

Hoax. Topic does not appear outside of Wikipedia; supposed "religion" w/ 1.5 million adherents, yet no ghits (a miracle?). Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MillennialismStrong Delete --Ali 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with either Millennianism or Millennarianism. Complete hoax! "Millenian" is not a term in the English language either... --Ali 02:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Appears to be a complete fabrication. Unless Milennianism is an acceptable alternate term for Millenialism I would caution against a redirect.PelleSmith 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the context, it's more likely to be a misspelling (and misunderstanding) of Millenarianism than of Millenialism — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, fake religion. NawlinWiki 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. Don't people know to spell millennium with two n's?? Placeholder account 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up. -- Jeff3000 03:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect to Iridescenti and Ali I don't think this has anything to do with Millenialism. Lack of Ghits for 1.5 million member group with such (supposedly) specific theology smells worse than carp on the dock status post 4 days.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, total bollocks. Burntsauce 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and redirect to either Millennialism or Millennium. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 09:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine-Cuban Friendship Association[edit]

Article about a non-notable organisation. 2 references given: one is just a list of names of organisations including this one, which tells us nothing; the other link is currently broken. Only 3 non-WP ghits. No other evidence of notability. So it's a new, small organisation which has so far attracted almost no attention. andy 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - next time please use ((prod)) first. -- Y not? 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why. I used ((db)) originally but you rejected that, so I gave the matter some thought. I realised that a ((prod)) can be unfair - the author may not notice it, nor may anyone else, so my individual opinion would carry the day. That's OK if the author has abandoned the article and it's clearly rubbish, but it would be wrong for this article which some people obviously take seriously. A ((afd)) explicitly invites other people's points of view, which is what I wanted to do here, and is also more decisive. andy 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why the kind gods of Wikipedia gave us ((prodwarning))! :) Anyways, what's done is done. -- Y not? 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've used ((prod)), plus the warning, on plenty of occasions and I always feel uneasy when there's a silence from the author. A lot of people only look in to WP irregularly. It's my personal style I guess - maybe it's a British or European need to talk instead of acting. andy 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a few things could be said here: 1) Tagging an article for CSD 2 minutes after its creation is hardly an act of good faith, 2) its sort of a custom to notify a creator of an article if there an afd going on, 3) regarding notability, I posted a comment on the talk page of the article. 4) New organization? Small organization? What is that assesment based on? --Soman 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Solidnet.org is down from times to times. Link can be retriewed from [43]. --Soman 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Please read WP:N to find out what "notability" means in Wikipedia. At this time the only two references within the body of the article are one link that doesn't work and one that is uninformative. There is no other evidence of notability and very little genuine information - the article does not say when and why the organisation was set up, how many members there are, where it is based, who thinks it's important and why, or even what it actually does. andy 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Absolutely not notable. -- Y not? 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <joke>Y is he not notable?</joke> Placeholder account 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not show notability, although the party in ref 3 might have been fun. As far as the article being tagged so soon after creation, perhaps hasty but there remain 4 days. Claim and source some notability and I will change my !vote.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Googlehit counts are difficult for this org, since its name is 'AMISTAD', which is a common Spanish word. Googling AMISTAD+Philippines gives 164 000 hits, most of the not related to the subject.
- Some pages that mention the group are: http://www.bulatlat.com/news/4-8/4-8-disquiet.html, http://ourthoughtsarefree.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54a/index-ee.html, http://www.geocities.com/migrante_youth/, http://www.isep.or.jp/other/spena/profile.html, http://qc.indymedia.org/features/peace/, http://arkibo.blogspot.com/search/label/politics, http://www.pinoyweekly.org/pw6-02/kult/kult_1.htm, http://lists.ilps-news.com/pipermail/info-bureau/2004-March/000188.html, http://www.yonip.com/main/articles/peace-justice-iraq.html, http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BCC881DF0-A8BC-4F53-9B3A-9049E5D0E38F%7D&language=EN, http://www.liberenlos5.cult.cu/index.php?&lang=1&declara=3&tipo=2&cont=firmas.php&page=1&letter=P, http://www.cubadh.net/index.php?cont=firmas.php&pais=179&tipo=2, http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-44/6-44-home.htm, http://www.pampanganews.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=766&Itemid=251
- In my personal opinion the notability is primarily based on that it is a politically active organization, connected to BAYAN (the main leftwing group in the country), and recognized as a referent by ICAP (the official Cuban institution for managing these types of contacts) and the Cuban embassy.
- The launching of the book Kasaysayan ang Magpapawalang-Sala sa Akin (Tagalog translation of History will absolve me by Fidel Castro) is noted at [44], [45]. Note that MP Satur Ocampo, deputy minority leader in the House of Representatives and a high profile figure in Philippine politics took part in the launching. Carl Ala, the translator of the book, is also a prominent activist, see [46].
- What do AMISTAD do? Some of the links above give an indication, the group takes part in various political protests. Also, see [47] for a presentation of the organization.

--Soman 09:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of this information is available in the article. andy 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't indicate notability G1ggy^{Talk - Chalk} 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wigg Daddy[edit]

Delete - doesn't quite meet speedy deletion guidelines as spam, unfortunately. Non-notable rapper, no reliable sources to indicate he passes WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC or WP:N. Created and edited entirely by the subject under two different accounts making it a blatant WP:COI problem. Otto4711 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crap. Placeholder account 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where to start with this one? We could get rid of it on the grounds of being crystalballery because he is only said to be the stage name of Raa Daddy, but then Raa Daddy would fail WP:Music and WP:Bio because he's never been heard of outside of some obscure place in B.C. Alternatively the article was created by the subject so it is also blantant conflict of interest and vanity. That's strange in itself, because surely Mr W Daddy himself would know whether or not he was also Mr R Daddy? In short, therefore, can we just get this rubbish off our encyclopedia as quickly as possible? A1octopus 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agustin Aguayo[edit]

Non notable person. May be listed at List of Iraq War Resisters but does not merit an article Kimon^talk 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No offense but with every war there will be people who oppose/not serve when asked, it doens't make them notable. Wildthing61476 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography. --Nehrams2020 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as unverifiable. If anyone comes up with sourced information they can either create a new article with that or add it to imaginary friend. If anyone particularly wants the history of this page to help with that they can ask me or another admin for it, but without sources there may not be much use for it. Petros471 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary enemy[edit]

Based on google search, term is not used in psychology and is a neologism. Only pages that link to it are imaginary friend and a couple of unrelated articles on military terminology. Antonrojo 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified. Placeholder account 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with imaginary friend. --Candy-Panda 13:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with imaginary friend. Trendall 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if real phenomenon and otherwise covered, which I gather to be the case. Yell at me if it isn't. --Kizor 23:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is not a real phenomena in psychology. A search for "imaginary enemy" and psychology in google scholar returns around 40 hits. The 40 that are actual psychological research use the term in the sense of 'hypothetical enemy' (as in 'the subject were told to picture a real and imaginary enemy'). Merging the armchair psychology into the equally-blighted imaginary friend is a partial solution, and possibly the remaining military usage might hold water. Antonrojo 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the term is used for a longer period of time (not a neologism) within the context of the military and in the media. In psychology the subject is indeed understudied.--Brz7 10:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with imaginary friend once verified Think outside the box 10:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imaginary friend, if indeed it is a variation on that well established theme. Include a recommendation to cite with reliable sources (and tag the section appropriately with "citation needed"). Let the authors there either accept the merger and support it with verifiable sources, or delete the materials as unverifiable and non-notable. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we have no sources. Slavlin 04:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Krimpet (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of Sealand[edit]

This seems to be original research and is unreferenced. My initial plan was to merge this into the main article Principality of Sealand; however, that article already has a sensibly sized section on legal issues. Instead I must recommend this for deletion as an unnecessary fork, over detailed for an encyclopedia, and unreferenced original research. kingboyk 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article to de-bloat the Sealand page. When I am not so busy I can clean it up and cite sources, but at this point in time I do not have time. -Indolences 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is it about this topic that makes people think it needs more than one article to cover everything? It's a micronation. There are never more than ten people on the island at a given time. I had more people than that over for a barbecue last week and we didn't adopt a flag, a coat of arms, or contemplate our legal status. Everything that needs to be said about the Principality of Sealand should be done in the main article. --Cyrus Andiron 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - That there are never more than 10 "inhabitants" of Sealand may be precisely why the legal status is interesting. Malc82 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, but I would like to point out to local Wikipedians that I like barbeques. --kingboyk 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can point out many more ridiculous articles. Sealand has been around for 40 years. How long was your barbecue? -Indolences 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't barbecue for 40 years, what with the job and all. But seriously, I don't see the reasoning behind this having its own article. At this AfD it looks like these forks are going to be deleted. I see no reason why the legal status should not meet the same fate. Why can't everything Sealand related stay in one article? How is a non recognized principality of ten people worthy of more than one article? And if not for WP:POINT, I would source and cite my barbeuce, it was one hell of a time. --Cyrus Andiron 01:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmmm...summer cookout/declaration of independent state, giving me ideas. In all seriousness, all that can be said about the legal status of Sealand is in the Sealand article. Wildthing61476 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Someone moved the page from Sealand to Sealand (HM Fort Roughs). IT was later moved to its current home, Principality of Sealand. The person who put this article for deletion has put many other Sealand pages on the chopping block. I would say this person does not have a NPOV having previous dislike for Sealand and other "micronations". --Indolences 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same old retort from micronation fans, and it's getting tiresome. Discuss the nomination not me, please. As it happens, I think Sealand is quite interesting and definitely notable. The article on Mr Bates is really quite good. However, that doesn't mean we should have an article on every little facet of this entity, and we should also respect what the reliable sources say: it's not a country, it's a curiosity. --kingboyk 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right. I apologize. Now that I think about it I can't think of any way of saying it. I guess It's me who is not NPOV :( -Indolences 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. You're invited to the bbq! :) --kingboyk 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The odd legal status of Sealand is definitely notable enough to be more detailed than the section in Principality of Sealand and this article shouldn't get much longer than it is now. Malc82 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already too long imho. More importantly it's original research. Where are the sources? Piecing together an interpretation like this, without reliable sources which tell the same story, is most definitely original research and by definition not encyclopedic. --kingboyk 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and I wouldn't call this indiscriminate information either. hateless 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Normally, I'm not one to nitpick, but WP:PAPER is an essay. In no way is it a policy, it merely reflects the opinions of its authors. Also, I don't recall anyone saying that this article was indiscriminate information. I think it's unnecessary, but not indiscriminate. It definitely deals with Sealand. I just think that anything Sealand can be covered in one article. --Cyrus Andiron 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not paper is policy, see WP:NOT. This is a response to the nom who said the article was overdetailed, which in the context of WP is not paper, is irrelevant. hateless 07:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hut 8.5 20:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if page is improved. -Indolences 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable and has references Thunderwing 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an interesting article which supplements the main page nicely tdg1986 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but if deleted make sure the sources that are in the article get merged into the relevant section of the parent article. PubliusFL 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a content fork, and it won't kill anyone. Not all content forks are evil. Placeholder account 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sealand has probably had more claim to existence as a MN than any other and seems to have had a detailed treatment in the legal system of more than one country. As an aside I would protest any BBQ-related micronation articles as systemic bias against those created around just a beer keg, not all of us can afford steak.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth keeping (and is sourced) back in to main Sealand article. It's not a content fork it's a piece of the main article that should never have been split out in the first place. - fchd 07:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs cleaning up and better sourcing but the topic is notable. The content can be slimmed down and possibly merged back. BlueValour 08:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, somewhat redundant. >Radiant< 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the nomination, my first thought was to merge, but it looked like the main article already had an adequate legal section. If somebody wishes to take an editorial decision to merge, and if it holds up, the AfD becomes irrelevant and I'm entirely happy with that. There's no disagreement from me that it's a valid topic but I agree with you it needn't be a seperate lengthy article. I think also that it needn't be an original essay which this seems to be. --kingboyk 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sealand is without a doubt the most "important" and legally relevant micronation of them all, and if this article were properly sourced, and not filled with original research, then I'd say keep. If it were just an issue of taking the time to properly source the article, I'd also say keep, but as it stands, I'm not sure anything can really be said—that isn't already in the main article—that isn't OR. So, delete without prejudice to recreation if and when verifiable non-OR information about the legal status is obtained. Any little bit that isn't already included in Principality of Sealand but which is properly sourced should be moved over, however (but that's not really a vote for merge). Lexicon (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already redirected. NawlinWiki 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super mario bros Z[edit]

Already another page with the same name; this one is not capitalized. SuperSonic 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario Bros. Z. No need for redundancy, they're the exact same article. --Cyrus Andiron 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cyrus, above. Already done. Whether the target is notable is at question. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Ryan Postlethwaite 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pano2QTVR[edit]

The page was created by Wuz, who is Thomas, the developer. It is a barely notable software package and as such it seems to be simply a method of promoting his sites. Localzuk^(talk) 18:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in nomination Please check the page history. The page was not created by me, I just reverted vandalism. I have added a notability section at the talk page. --Wuz 00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas: It doesn't matter if your friend Yuval created the page or you did. The only purpose of this page is to promote your software. You may be able to find a panorama utilities page that you can get away attaching your link to but having a page dedicated to your commercial software is over the top. John Spikowski 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put some light on the reasons for this AfD I should mention the sponsors of John Spikowski are Kekus, RealViz, Easypano,.... [48] which are competing products. --Wuz 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, my nom is slightly wrong but the editors of this and related panotools pages are all interlinked with the various projects and commercial ventures - seems like a giant promotional effort by some. Localzuk^(talk) 10:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the Panorama Tools page is valid and should be part of the Wikipedia. It's the foundation to spherical panorama creation and other projections. The other commercial products listed are taking a free ride on the page. When Yuval Levy discovered the Wikipedia, he created a page for many of the software products that are peer supported on the PanoToolsNG list. (see also - section pages) John Spikowski 10:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Localzuk, since you are the one who created this AfD could you please be so nice and comment the initial nom (it's a nomination, right?) in a way so that we have a valid statement to debate upon? I'm a little bit confused about what might be the reason to delete the article. What makes you think that this app should not have it's own article? Thanks. Just for the record, I don't even have a PC that can use this software, I'm interested in the software because it's AFAIK the only app on the market that has the feature list of Apple's old QTVRAS - which I still work with on a dedicated Mac. Someday I might have to buy a PC and it will be because of software like pano2qtvr! Einemnet 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of this page is a duplicate of whats on the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page. John Spikowski 09:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it's the other way 'round: it looks as if you grabbed content from several articles like PTLens, Pano2QTVR and PTgui and maybe several others to feed your newly set up article Panorama_Stitchers,_Viewers_and_Utilities before asking to delete the original articles. Einemnet 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl, Editing the Wikipedia doesn't require approval from the PanotoolsNG management. The combining of the panorama promotional pages into a page with some notability to it is what the Wikipedia is about. The Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities is a unbiased page giving all panorama offering equal treatment. (something your management group has a hard time understanding)
Keep The article needs some more work but is important since it's about a very specialized software for post-processing of panoramas and VR objects, see QuickTime_VR#Objects . It has features that Apple provided long ago with the (classic) application "QuickTime VR Authoring Studio", a software that is missed on new Macs. After adding some content and a link to a review it looks to me better than another example from the same category Freeware: EasyOffice. There are small projects with small articles but I think it's worth to give them both (article and software) a chance to develop. Einemnet 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I just point out to whoever closes this that many of the editors who have !voted on this are linked to either the software itself or a competing project. Localzuk^(talk) 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I'm happy to see outside interest in the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page validity process. John Spikowski 20:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Localzuk, an AfD is AFAIK a debate and not a vote. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I see it as a discussion where comments as well as specific keep or delete recommendations can be commented by other wikipedians with the aim of reaching a consensus about the future of the respectice article. Keep or delete is just a statement from a person that can or should be commented by others. So we are not talking about votes here, are we? Einemnet 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence the negation of 'voted' in my comment using the exclamation mark (you will notice this being used by many editors when they refer to xFD's, the other practice is to strike through the word - it is a tongue in cheek reference to the fact that these are discussions and not votes). I am merely pointing out that you, Wuz, and Jogn Spikowski are all members of this project, linked to this project or in a competing project. Feel free to comment, but don't comment spam (you don't have to reply to every comment...).-Localzuk^(talk) 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article reads too much like advertising or promotion, and does not have adequate support from reliable sources. The Panorama Tools article I think makes the grade, but not this one. EdJohnston 04:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some more work, I agree, but the software is a kind of one-and-only for a lot of reasons, for extracting cube faces from panos, realizing QTVR objects (it is the only fully featured pro tool to do it) Even in the freeware version it is an invaluable compain to make .mov panoramas from stitched equirectangulars. It is a software we continously refer to, in the panoramic photography world. it would be nice if someone googles it he could find a reference in the wiki. luca.vascon
- Note: The above user is an anonymous user signing as a non-existent user.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If it's Luca Vascon from Venice, Italy, he is a professor at the University in Venice and host of the 2005 Panotools meeting. We should ask him to set up a valid wikipedia account if he's willing to join the discussion and or contribute to articles. At least he is signing with his real name. If someone suspects a sock puppet an administrator should check his IP address. Einemnet 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we get feedback from others not directly associated with the project? Lets focus on the reason the page is up for deletion which is notability and if a the software should stand on it's own rather then being part of the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page. John Spikowski 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Yuv 04:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept.
Keep This article should be kept. And it would be better for John Spikowski to close his private war against the PanoTools community
Keep.150.187.28.25 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:The previous 4 responses. -- This is not a vote. Please provide an argument based on policy. --OnoremDil 13:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible Snowfields[edit]

small and obscure private business that does NOT meet the criteria of notability C5mjohn 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was convinced by the theme park comparison that many ski resorts are notable (thousands of visitors a year, coverage by local and national pubs, and fame to at least the local area[but I still don't like the argument "but i've heard of that place"]). So I will only focus on small, obscure, and unpopular (probably private) ski resorts. Like this one. C5mjohn 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wrote it. There aren't that many skifields in New Zealand - around 30. I think Wikipedia's interests are best served by having comprehensive coverage of *all* skifields, even if a couple of them are really quite small. We're a reference source, and it's really not that unlikely that someone will want to look up Invincible Snowfields, in the same way they would look up Snow Farm, Snow Park, or even Mount Dobson. Also, what is meant by "private" in this context? Isn't virtually every skifield everywhere (with very rare exceptions like Mount Donna Buang) run by a private entity of some kind, whether a club skifield or a bigger corporation like NZSKI? So consider: is the List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand better off with *every single* skifield in NZ, or with 28 skifields with the notable exceptions of one or two that were deemed not notable? Stevage 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, incidentally, what is so "not notable" about it? Just so we're clear. Reply here, it makes more sense. Stevage 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to determine notability. A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. Wikipedia:Notability C5mjohn 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deletion of the article would not remove it from the list (which ought to be comprehensive). --Limegreen 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, we would have a list of items with links to articles, except for this one item, which would just be plain text, possibly with a URL? That sounds less desirable than the current situation. Stevage 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no URL. And there's plenty of precedent. Often they're left as red links, although it depends on whether something is likely to acquire an article or not (see e.g. List of towns in New Zealand (towns generally being notable enough so they're red linked), or a list like this University of Otago#Notable alumni and alumnae where there is both plain text and red links). --Limegreen 04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ski resorts generally are notable as people live there. This is a business for which I could find no sources on Google News or Google News Archives. Nor are any reliable sources provided there. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand until we have enough material from independent sources for an article. Capitalistroadster 06:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is listed on snow.co.nz[49], but not off their main list of skifields. It's certainly not very notable. I'm a keen SI skiier, and I'd never heard of it. - Limegreen 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The language in that snow.co.nz overview gives the impression that it was written by the business which makes it a non-independent source (basically an advertisement). C5mjohn 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an oversight to me. It's been added to the list in the dropdown box at the very end, but the main list hasn't been updated yet. Well, that's how I read it, anyway. It's obviously a pretty new ski area. Stevage 04:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That really depends on how you define "independent". I don't doubt that the information was either copied from, or supplied by, the skifield. However, I don't see that as any different to a newspaper leaning heavily on a press release for an article. --Limegreen 04:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a unique ski field in the way it operates and is published in all good lists of New Zealand ski fields. It exists following the precedent of every other ski field in New Zealand. Many magazines have published articles and several famous skiers and borders have visited the field. Sources [50] [51] [52] [53]. This one particularly highlights the uniqueness of the field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maelgwn (talk • contribs) 05:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand a bit. This is a notable subject. (1) Notability is preferably determined by the quality of the source(s), not the quantity. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline does not require multiple sources. An independent review in the SKImag means a lot in terms of notability precisely because this is such a small operation. (2) The entries in the various lists may have been written by or based on material from the skifield itself, but not all of them are ads. In fact inclusion in such lists & travel org catalogs also has fact/quality checking aspects. Example: if a skifield does not live up to its description, it would be removed from the list before long. Therefore they can be used to confirm the quality of the SKImag review. (3) If other editors would want to keep the article but (unlike me) feel that a policy or guideline stands in the way, a consensus to ignore the rule(s) may be in the cards. AvB ÷ talk 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't even a rule to ignore - it's phrased as an excuse for a subjective opinion - David Gerard 09:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed; just pointing those who feel otherwise to the option of ignoring it anyway. AvB ÷ talk 10:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for verifiability - "notability" is entirely subjective, as can be noted by this ~~user-page-less~~ nominator's stated plans to remove articles ~~pretty much for the sake of it~~ (struck - that was uncalled-for, I apologise - 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)). Is it verifiable? It certainly appears to be, per Maelgwn - I mean, are you saying it's fraudulent or doesn't exist? Is it a useful article? It completes our coverage. Does it serve the encyclopedia to delete it? Noting said here convinces me on that score. This nomination is fundamentally misguided - David Gerard 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. AvB ÷ talk 10:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the chimera of "notability" continues to be part of why AFD is our second biggest public relations problem after living biographies. (And may put AFD in danger of a similar Foundation smackdown.) - David Gerard 11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If, as was asserted on the wikien-l mailing list, this is the only non-notable ski slope in its country, then perhaps it should be considered notable for this, kind of like the Interesting number paradox (except that, unlike integers, ski slopes are a finite set). *Dan T.* 10:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That thought had occurred to me too :) Stevage 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per David Gerard. Ab e g92contribs 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Useful discussion of the chimera of "notability" on WT:AFD here - David Gerard 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, no evidence of significance, argument for inclusion appears to assume that Wikipedia is a directory, and that inclusion of one, some or most foo means we must include all foo, which is incorrect. Ultimately, lack of independent sources establishing objective importance. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in some cases, it can be useful for Wikipedia to have a complete set of foo... like all of the popes, even really obscure ones from the fifth century; and all of the towns and villages, even ones with tiny populations. *Dan T.* 14:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the SKImag is not an independent source? AvB ÷ talk 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS "Skiing -- www.skimag.com is a good place for skiers who are still deciding where to go." AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per David Gerard. Stoodended 04:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Maelgwn (talk · contribs) provided multiple independant sources. One of them would be enough to establish it's notable, the others can be used as additional sources for information. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The www.skimag.com review shows that there's room for expansion of this article; frankly, I see no justification whatsoever for deleting it. The only arguments given for deletion are that it's not notable (but it is, per Maelgwn above), and that there are no independent sources (which there are). This one should be a no-brainer. Js farrar 17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per David Gerard.-gadfium 02:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simen Nystad[edit]

Speedy delete this attack page, please. It is obviously making fun of some kid. Clerks. 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (attack). Clerks, you can use the ((db-attack)) template for this sort of thing in the future, rather than spending time creating an AfD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schofield (Sports Photographer)[edit]

non-notable person C5mjohn 19:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible a speedy delete)- fails WP:BIO Thunderwing 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom - non admin close. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Spygear[edit]

Comment Googling Spy Gear Adventures does bring up 79 Ghits so possibly more N than I gave credit for, but still don't see anything to warrant keeping — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the time being, Team Spygear should probably be merged into SpyGear Adventures, which is a noteworthy series of books, having been reviewed by School Library Journal and various discussions in Publisher's Weekly. Team SpyGear needs some cleanup (I originally rescued the book from speedy and made the viable stub that's there now for the time being), but it's on my list for attention. Also, I'd refrain from the term "walled garden" in this case - every new topic starts out small in these cases, especially if (what's likely) a younger person read the books and felt ambitious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd go with that and withdraw this nom. I confess that I read "9 May" in the edit history as "9 Mar" and thought it had been unimproved for two months. I agree it's inappropriate to delete an article that's less than 24 hours old — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Myers[edit]

self-promotion. This author has co-written and self-published one book which has poor reviews and ranking on Amazon Deb 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:BIO (note the title is also the name of a Bad Girls character) Thunderwing 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; related to other current AFDs. Placeholder account 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and move to Bushie, nomination withdrawn, good work Dhartung! NawlinWiki 13:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushy[edit]

Unsourced neologism. The only use of this I've actually heard of is Kyle Sampson's notorious "loyal Bushies" memo, see 2006_Dismissal_of_U.S._Attorneys_controversy. That doesn't seem enough for a separate article. NawlinWiki 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but source. A term with 2800 Google News Archive results that are free is obviously notable. The term actually dates back to his dad's term and was in a 1992 Safire column (behind paywall, sorry). Personally, I would rename the article to Bushies as you really practically never see it in the singular form. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not written neutrally, and the epithet is not significant anyway IMO. Placeholder account 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to keep; thanks to Dhartung for sending me a note to check on this article. It's everything you could ask for in an article - perhaps even DYK quality. Placeholder account 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, it's definitely in widespread use well before and outside the context of that one memo. Whether or not it should have an article, I'm not sure. I couldn't find any articles that actually talk about what definies a "Bushy," and I'm afraid that without that, all we have left is point of view and original research. I think that's a far bigger problem than notability.Chunky Rice 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm politiclly active and i've only seen it used once. It's definitely not notable enough to warrant an article.--Tdl1060 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Keep. Article has greatly improved and has backed up claim to notability, but I would suggest moving the page to a title along the line of Bushie (political term) as the current title is too generic.--Tdl1060 14:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If by any chance it could be referenced and npov-ed, then it could be remade. Right now the article is virtually informationless. →Ed Gl 22:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Happily changing to keep due to tremendous article improvement. →Ed Gl 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have thoroughly rewritten the article, demonstrating the term's uses, history, and prominence, and providing definitions given by important conservative writers (neither especially complimentary). The old article's polemics were completely jettisoned. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per rewrite and move to Bushie. Still needs some work, but a world of improvement over the original version.Chunky Rice 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there may be references that one might google, these are accidental, and not suggestive of a notable trend. The article is little more than a prestige piece for those who snigger at such politics. Further, in Australian terms, the expression would be generic, so that this application would lead to similar articles for many things, equally undeserving. DDB 07:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry is now referenced and looks solid. That's good, because the term is used in my locality and has been for several years now. KrakatoaKatie 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until Aber Falls Into The Sea[edit]

Fairly clear case of self-promotion - the authors are unknown, the book is published by Dinas, the self-publishing imprint of Y Lolfa, and has a poor ranking on Amazon Deb 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Placeholder account 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement Bigdaddy1981 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Avram[edit]

This seems to be a local news story wrapped up as a "micronation". Only 2 sources are provided: a regional newspaper, and a coin collectors' magazine - fails WP:RS. Only 3 incoming links from mainspace, only 1 if micronation articles are discounted. Questionable notability. kingboyk 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Spurious nomination. Article is also well-referenced, and describes persons, events and entities that fall well within the sope of WP:N. --Gene_poole 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be spurious to nominate an unsourced, near-orphan article on an unencyclopedic topic?? --kingboyk 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Edison 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spurious keep "vote". Not notable. >Radiant< 09:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen this micronation mentioned in a few places including a lonely planet style book. I'll try to find it to add as a source. -- Chuq (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and unverifiable Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if one wants independence and titles, why stop at Grand Duke? Carlossuarez46 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I once voted to keep this article, it now seems to me that the article is on the wrong subject. The subject should be John Rudge, former member of the Parliament of Tasmania and notable eccentric. This micronation material should be a section in the article about Rudge (which doesn't currently exist.) Isomorphic 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a good indicator of the unbalanced coverage we have on Wikipedia. The "micronation" gets an article but the politician doesn't? Which one had more impact on people's lives? --kingboyk 11:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I think that's a good indicator of the problem with this nomination. The only reason the name John, Duke of Avram appeared on the ballot in which he was elected to the Tasmanian Parliament was due to the publicity surrounding the federal court case arising from the creation of his micronation. This is simple cause and effect stuff. Had there been no micronation, there would never have been a politician - and while the politician is long-gone, the micronation continues to exist, minting coins and doing whatever else it does. --Gene_poole 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that nominator modified the article greatly in the few minutes prior to nominating it for AfD. While I assume this was done in good faith, I still suggest editors look at the previous verison of the article when making their vote. Also related to what Isomorphic said, check [54] - he is listed in the parliamentary history as "AVRAM, Duke of (John Charlton RUDGE)". -- Chuq (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say greatly, I just removed the infobox. However, as always, caveat emptor, editors should always check the history of articles nominated for deletion. For a start, they may be looking at a vandalised version. --kingboyk 11:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if kingboyk and Gene Poole can have an oppositive debate within this framework about a politician and what made him notable, then it stands to reason the reason he is notable, is itself notable. I'm not against a move to name the article after the politician if it can be turned into a biography of him. Both should be somewhat easy to source for anyone with a library card, but maybe not on the web. SchmuckyTheCat 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references have been added by others and myself. John Vandenberg 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well written and has sufficinet footnotes. In-text references for specific points would greatly help prevent a nomination like this again. —Scouter Sig 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable. The politician is also notable, he was in Shadow Cabinet of a State government in Australia. Orderinchaos 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been exanded and more references added since tagged for deletion. Lawsuits surrounding it and election of leader serves to add to the notability of the micronation. Guycalledryan 07:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with the person above(PLUS I like it,too)

New Babylon 2 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets verifiability requirements. I will assume good faith but I am uncomfortable with a nominator making a fairly significant change to an article before sending it to Afd. Yes, one should check the hx, but removing the infobox substanstially and negatively affected the appearance of this article. It could be taken as a POV edit reflecting the editor's opinion that this was not a micronation, when that is the very essence of the article. We shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but nevertheless it has a real effect on our judgement. As mentioned on a similar AfD, proponents of this article with access to the sources should make a real effort to improve the article.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Petros471 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaedaism[edit]

Delete a non-notable neologism which for an "ideology" of perhaps the most talked about terrorist group in the world, has 10,700 hits on Google. --Revolución hablar ver 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who wish to discuss the specific ideological basis of Al Qaeda per se, rather than the broader movements within which it fits (Islamism, Wahhabism, etc.), I think this is legitimate -- although Binladenism has twice the ghits. Both appear in serious journals like Foreign Affairs and are defined by e.g. Council on Foreign Relations, meaning it's about as academically grounded as it gets. The CFR is the body most representative (not without bias!) of foreign policy expertise in the US. The problem I see is that this is likely to be hijacked by POV-pushers with the latest du jour linkage of al Qaeda to whatever is hep that week. It would need to be pretty scrupulously sourced. It might just be best to merge back into Al Qaeda.--Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Al Qaeda per reasons given by User:Dhartung Wl219 13:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Al Qaeda or at least give a good reason for the reader as to why this needs a separate article. Slavlin 04:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Al Qaeda. I can see the concept behind proposing this as an ideology, but it is too recent and too poorly defined. Maybe one day people will use the phrase with the degree of commonality of islamism and Wahhabism, but noot yet. Euryalus 09:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete: no reliable sources, no assertion of notability. Krimpet (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. Z[edit]

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

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

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

Looks to be some animations created by fans of these video game/animated series. Problem is that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of notability. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it? Is it dragging away people from this site? I doubt it. This site shouldn't delete it because of it not being notable. It's a very popular series on Newgrounds, and a lot of people view it on youtube. It is getting very popular, and this article isn't hurting the site, but should be helping the series. No reason for deletion. DON'T DELETE!!!!!!!!

-EBboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.134.28 (talk)

If you have to ask why delete it, then not only did you not read my statement above, you also didn't read through this AfD. The answers are herein. I am not giving the answer again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find no reason to delete this article. The series has already made its popularity accross the internet, and Newgrounds has already placed their eye on the series. In addition, if you check out video sites such as YouTube, you will see that they partially contain the episodes for the series. Sure, I'm just an obnoxious person that nobody has to listen to, so Wikipedia knows what's best for the wiki itself. I don't see how an article like this can be deleted. And if this is the case, I don't see why WikiPedia hasn't already deleted a few articles that promote web sites such as Serebii.net, and Smogon.com themselves. What's so good about them anyway?

-Faltzer— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltzer (talk • contribs)

Having searched for those 2 sites within wikipedia, I found Serebii.net and Smogon.com are used as references to articles related to Pokemon. The general consensus is that all those pages are notable according to the notability of fiction guidelines.--Kylohk 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it. This series has been rated front page on Newgrounds for all 5 episodes, and an highly anticipated 6th episode. Furthermore, they've been uploaded to Youtube, where over 2000 viewers suscribed to the uploader. The creator of Newgrounds has talked with the creator of the series (Mark Haynes) and they've even considered the series gets it's own page on Newgrounds. The series is truly a masterful blend of action, storyline, and art.

~Private Zulen (From the forums)

Screw you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.217.180 (talk)

Delete per nom. I also wouldn't be opposed to speedy via CSD#A7. This page consists almost entirely of description of the series, and the only claims of notability are it's allegedly large fanbase and fansite, neither of which constitutes a reliable and verifiable claim of notability. Someguy1221 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete The article gives an idea of the series popularity, providing the number of views and rewards it has recieved on Newgrounds

— 74.75.71.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WaltCip 13:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ya know, I wouldn't call that very reliable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Sockpuppetry, the assumption of bad faith, and lack of notability in the world of Wikipedia is criteria, in my opinion, for an unchallenged deletion.--WaltCip 13:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what would those regulations be?

Delete Non notable flash series.--カラム 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Keep it. Super Mario Bros Z is highly regarded as excellent across the Internet. Wikipedia should be more generous. Article criteria?! Bah. Wikipedia is supposed to be the FREE Encyclopedia, not the 'if this isn't something we like, remove it' Encyclopedia. Has it done anything wrong? Exactly. ~Jack Rowsell~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.105.67.90 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— 91.105.67.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WaltCip 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it is also not a collection of indiscrimate information, a blog, a web directory, or a collection of non-noteworthy neologisms.--WaltCip 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, does not meet WP:WEB. QuagmireDog 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already requested not to delete, so I just want to say that we should have a page for web animations that are notable but not notable enough to be their own articles. and as an addendum, to give an idea of the popularity of the series, here are links to all the episodes Newgrounds pages.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/308690

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/314226

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/323940

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/339499

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/363800

Notice how every one of them has over half a million views — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.71.44 (talk • contribs)

OK. It means that there have been over 500,000 page requests of those individual pages. How is that notable, and how is that reliable? Considering that I can just run wget in an infinite loop to access a page and gain a similar effect, Wikipedia really can't consider a webhit count to be reliable as a source of notability, nor can it be considered verifiable. Not saying you would, but the point is that it can be done - and therefore it's not usable for the purpose. Check those links for what we consider to be per regulations here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what are the regulations that I should check for? And what would be undeniable proof of notability?74.75.71.44 10:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked to them. Read the links in my previous message to you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of external media coverage or any other reliable mentions makes the subject not notable enough. The game may be on Newgrounds, but how can you guarantee that it is widely visited on multiple sites with similar content to NG?--Kylohk 11:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete - This animation has had millions of views on newgrounds , does that not give it credibility.— 142.167.26.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WaltCip 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that there is clearly sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in the works, no, a million views on Newgrounds does not give it credibility, otherwise there would be almost every nonnotable Newgrounds Flash and video up here. If you desperately want this Flash up, I suggest you go here.--WaltCip 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Ok, if some of you guys say that Super Mario Bros. Z isn't noticible as much, why won't you guys Google Super Mario Bros. Z for once before making this idiotic deletion thing for it. Not only that it's noticible on Newgrounds, it's also noticable on YouTube, Jetstream, and other forms of video sites that are spin-offs to YouTube. Once you search SMBZ on Google, the results will come back with more than 25,000. Besides, there will always be articles being made by fans, isn't that one of the main things what Wikipedia was created in the first place? If it isn't, then all of us shouldn't be on here in the first place. Jn314 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)aka NessMasta — Jn314 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WaltCip 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete -This is very well known flash-animation so I don´t see any point deleting this. You can easily find information about series and episodes of this flash, links to fan page and where to watch this animation. So I say don´t delete this! Esa Nalle — Esa Nalle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is ridiculous. We are being bombed by single-purpose accounts. Doesn't this attribute a speedy deletion?--WaltCip 21:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The notability (or more accurately, lack thereof) must be kept independent of the actions of the contributors. What they should be aware of, however, is that this is not a vote, this is a discussion on the notability of the article. Simply repeating the same unfounded argument over and over isn't going to sway whatever admin closes this case. Someguy1221 21:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this article gets deleted than i am throughly disappointed in wikipedia. This a very real , very popular , and very good flash series. For every existance there must be an explanation. Why not explain this valid existance on wikipedia? I myself have never watched the series so i support this from a view of logic and not a fan's view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.26.125 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC).— 142.167.26.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. If you feel this is a notable subject, find an independent, reliable source confirming that. Please look at WP:Notability (web), WP:RS, and WP:V for more information. Someguy1221 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I cannot give you a write up on the series which is what you want. Your ignoring my other points on the debate and falling back on the one you disagree. So a written link on notability no , but proof should be 1500 suscribers on youtube , 2100 members at a forum dedicated to smbz , a chatroom filled with 30 people all the time , a fan site which garners thousands of hits a day. The proof is before you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.26.125 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - Comment. As we have already explained to you, neither of these passes muster as a reliable or verifiable form of notability. Someguy1221 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a helpful hint. If this flash series is popular, has it been mentioned in any animation expositions, and has it been reviewed by a third party website? I've seen websites that specialize in reviewing flash games. If you can find at least one, it will meet the criterion of WP:RS.--Kylohk 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this one please it looks like maybe a hoax yuckfoo 00:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a hoax, it's real. It's just not notable by Wikipedia standards. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Don't Delete This series is very popular, has a large fanbase, has won numerous awards on newgrounds, and has many more episodes expected. 209.102.241.25 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)— 209.102.241.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, I have an acount, but it's on Wookiepedia. 209.102.241.25 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so how does this make it notable per Wikipedia standards? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all persons voting Do Not Delete AFD is not a vote. This Flash animation is cruft, nonnotable, and has no verifiability outside Google, Newgrounds, and YouTube, which are not reliable sources. We do not judge a deletion based on popularity, but by its encyclopedic content.--WaltCip 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment And we know what you're trying to do. This is pure votestacking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Walt, the template above covers this fine - and keep in mind that the admins will take the commentary into account when they close this. Just relax, it'll close in due time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After browsing through 5 pages of searches in Yahoo, I found a french site that mentioned the series: [55]. I checked the site, it's not a forum, it's more like IGN, French style. The site might a secondary source, since it covers many different consoles and mp3 players. Cheers.--Kylohk 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, Kylohk, but if that's all we can dredge up, it's not going to survive. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, my delete opinion above still stands then. I was just trying to give them a chance, but looks like the activity of anons has decreased substantially today.--Kylohk 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would these few sites be credited as notible?

http://gonintendo.com/?p=2333

http://poisonmushroom.megamanempire.net/?p=1189

http://divineomega.co.uk/mario/super-mario-bros-z/

http://www.nintendo-master.com/blog/darklinkgc:index

http://blogs.ign.com/knight801/2006/04/30/15257/

Jn314 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC) aka NessMasta[reply]

Those 5 links lead to either Blogs or Livejournals. According to the verifiability guideline, those are considered to be self-published sources, and are not accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia.--Kylohk 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Actually the first two arent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.26.125 (talk)

No, they're all blogs. Not really that reliable, and certainly not notable. WP:N and WP:RS, as several people on this page alone have pointed out, will point you in the right direction. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wikipedia please give us more time and we will get refrences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.26.125 (talk)

You've had four days thus far, that's plenty of time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost season 4[edit]

Completely unverifiable original research marked by the original creator as being his/her opinion anyway. After all, wikipedia is not for things made up in one school day. vLaDsINgEr 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete When you here "my predictions" you know its not following WP:CRYSTAL. DBZROCKS

Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, a free webhost, a soundboard, a discussion forum or a repository of essays. Resolute 04:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and everyone else. Maxa megalon 2000 05:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Tom harrison (a7). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD.

Victor Lu[edit]

No info on any of the books supposedly written by this fellow--looks like a hoax. Blueboy 96 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete an article on a 16-year old Canadian kid, written by an editor who contributed to nothing else, claiming to have published a non-existent book and acted in a Thai film. cab 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been speedied by Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Given that it has been recreated three times in the past three months, should it be salted as well? Cheers, cab 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn as the article now goes some way towards demonstrating notability and providing sources. Thank you very much to the editors responsible. I've left some comments and suggestions for improvement on the article's talk page. kingboyk 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frestonia[edit]

Unreferenced, near orphan article about a non-notable London street. kingboyk 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this was a major and long-running news story, which ran for years and led directly to changes in English law. It's easily expanded & referenced (I see another editor's already added some) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources doesn't mean any old crap found on the web. I'm British too and never heard of this; I accept I could be wrong but let's see multiple non-trivial independent and reliable sources please. That means newspapers, books, periodicals, well regarded websites only. --kingboyk 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - already referenced, and an important part of London counter-culture history. Nick Cooper 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed the references so that their title and date would show, rather than just the URL. The obituary is from The Guardian, a major British daily newspaper. Time Out London, another reference, is a reputable magazine and web site. --Eastmain 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks and, yes indeed, those publications are certainly reliable sources. However, that's only 2 which isn't "multiple"; I haven't checked them yet to see if they're non trivial. If you can find a few more and they seem to meet WP:RS I will of course withdraw the nomination. Cheers. --kingboyk 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two certainly is "multiple." The primary definition of "multiple" is "more than one." I think this one is of borderline notability, but probably worth keeping. I'll look for a couple other sources before voting. PubliusFL 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it can be argued that multiple is 2 or more but I'm not sure that's how the guideline is meant to be interpreted :) I look forward to seeing the results of your research, as I said I'm not interested in deleting genuinely encyclopedic material and would withdraw the nom happily if I'm wrong, but it didn't look good when I nominated it. Thanks again for your input. --kingboyk 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've managed to track down a source for Geoffrey Howe's backing for the project & for the partial recognition of independence by the English courts, and added some more references — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - YMMV, but my observations of Wikipedia talk:Notability‎ over the past couple of months suggest that the "multiple" language has been controversial for a while, and discussion of it tends to hinge on the question of whether one source can be sufficient to establish notability, or whether more than one is always necessary. PubliusFL 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spurious nomination. --Gene_poole 23:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious argument. Find a better one. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is well referenced at this time. Is there some sort of feud re: micronation articles going on? If so, perhaps it should end. Most of these articles may perhaps be on the fringe but the topic has general notability, I've seen television specials and read articles in general interest magazines about the broad topic and some of these 'nations' in particular.--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 05:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, just an attempt to clean them up and delete the rubbish which has met some entrenched resistance. If this is a legitimate article mistakenly caught, worry ye not it will be kept! --kingboyk 10:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Cooper. Is referenced and culturally historic London section. --Oakshade 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing of the article is much improved from time of nomination. I've found a few more potential sources for the article - sources that seem deal primarily or at least substantially with Frestonia. First, there's Mutoid Waste Recycledelia and Earthdream on the site of ABC Australia's "Four Corners" program. Second, there is a series of newspaper articles from 1977, which I can't read but which appear to be specifically about Frestonia. These articles are probably substantially identical (e.g. based on wire service material) but maybe someone with Lexis access can extract useful material from them: "Squatters apply for UN membership," Kennebec Journal (Augusta, Maine), 5 Nov 1977; "London squatters set up republic and look for a seat at the UN," Winnipeg Free Press (Winnipeg, Manitoba), 5 Nov 1977; "London district 'secedes'," Valley News (Van Nuys, California), 3 Nov 1977. PubliusFL 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks a bit like scraping the bottom of the barrel. The Mutoid Waste Company article, for example, mentions "Frestonia" in passing and it really doesn't give the impression of it being a micronation - more of an anarchistic squat. It reminded me a bit of Trancentral or Freetown Christiania, and certainly of the New Age travellers. The Mutoid Waste Company are still quite well known, they appear at the Glastonbury Festival I think. Perhaps this should be an article on that form of counter-culture rather than being fixated on the claims of nationhood, which seem trivial at best? --kingboyk 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking somewhat better now, thanks for your work. --kingboyk 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Kingdom of Humanity. Sandstein 18:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads[edit]

I suspect this is a hoax. It seems implausible, has very few incoming links, and I couldn't find much of any serious note on Google. A previous AfD in 2005 failed to validate the article yet strangely resulted in it being kept. Hopefully this article can be cleaned up and referenced, if not it should be deleted. --kingboyk 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note: On evidence presented below, I'm happy to agree to a merge and redirect. Suggested targets seem to be Kingdom of Humanity or Spratly Islands. I'm not sure which is more appropriate; more input would be welcome. --kingboyk 13:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) with Kingdom of Humanity. Looks like a continuation of the same thing, but not a hoax any more than micronations in general could arguably be described as hoaxes. Besides the reliable sources that are already in the article, the "Republic" is apparently discussed in a 1982 publication of the Philippines Cabinet Committee on the Law of the Sea Treaty (just to show that it was taken at least somewhat seriously by other nations in the region). The book Law, Power, and the Sovereign State: the Evolution and Application of the Concept of Sovereignty (by Michael Ross Fowler, Penn State Press, 1995) treats Morac-Songhrati-Meads and the Kingdom of Humanity as the same thing, as does the single entry for the two in The United States in Asia: A Historical Dictionary (David Shavit, Greenwood Press, 1990). PubliusFL 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reliable sources in the article. I see an angelfire site and another home page. There's a book, but alas I don't have access to it. Do your sources corroborate this line? - "Schneider and his cabinet all drowned when the ship they sailed on sank in a typhoon near Mindoro Island". --kingboyk 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know about that specific line, but I don't see any reason to assume bad faith. We shouldn't establish a rule that "reliable sources" means "online sources," and it seems clear that the book does talk about Morac-Songhrati-Meads. On pages 168 and 169. I can also tell from Google Books that it actually calls it "Kingdom of Humanity/Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads" which is more evidence for a merger. Also, The United States in Asia (which I cited above) uses the Samuels book as one of its sources. The United States in Asia also cites The Annals of the Philippines Chinese Historical Association 6 (1976): 63-67. Bottom line, I think it's fairly clear that it's not a hoax, there are probably more reliable sources available offline than what's already in the article, but a single article should be enough to cover both the Kingdom of Humanity and the Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. PubliusFL 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No of course not, but it still smells like a hoax to me. Not the micronation so much as the article. Also, there should be multiple non-trivial sources. If we can't find owt at all on this it's not verifiable. --kingboyk 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of a walled garden of vanity "micronations" publicized on websites of their founders/ "heads of state". Fails WP:N and WP:A. Edison 23:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you actually read the article? This is not a vanity website thing at all, as the entire verifiable history of the micronation predates the Web. There is no website of its founder/"head of state." And there are reliable sources cited in the article and discussed above, so I'm a little confused by your bald assertion that it fails WP:A, at least insofar as you're using that as a reason to delete rather than trim to what can be verified. PubliusFL 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep part of a comprehensive group of articles on micronations-- adequately sourced.DGG 03:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge and redirect (per my comments below) The sources listed by PubliusFL need to be cited in the article. I have no access to a library that would have them but the chances that they are all false are pretty slim. --killing sparrows^(chirp!) 07:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently though the books treat them as the same entity, so the obvious result would be to merge. Let's see what Publius can come up with. --kingboyk 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, I see what you mean. A merge and redirect to K of H seems valid as M-S-M is the successor to K of H.--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you change your recommendation to merge then please? Thanks. --kingboyk 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Spratly Islands. --Gene_poole 13:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and propose merge/redirect/expansion in the normal manner. John Vandenberg 15:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be more helpful to deal with the merge now in the AFD, then one debate takes care of it all, especially as consensus seems to be leaning that way. --kingboyk 15:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge this, unlike many micronations, was an attempt to hold territory. SchmuckyTheCat 15:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, overly specific topic. >Radiant< 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, references were produced Steve _(Stephen)^talk 10:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salad Fingers[edit]

This article was previously nominated for deletion here, and the result was keep. Now, I am aware that nominating this article will bring down the wrath of all that is Holy, but I must point out that it remains totally unsourced. The arguments on the previous debate basically fall into a couple of categories - "I've heard of it, therefore it is notable", "It gets lots of views, therefore it is notable", "I like it, therefore it is notable", "I see no reason to delete it, therefore it is notable". None of these are compelling arguments for it being encyclopedic content - and that is the crux of this. Encyclopedic content - it is beyond debate that it is a popular flash animation. However, the hallmark of encyclopedic content is notability - which must be backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. This article had none at the previous debate, and it has not gained any since then. I have done my best to try and track down some, and have had no luck. The fact that, in the time between the two debates, none have been added strongly shows that this is not only totally unsourced, it is, in fact, unsourcable - especially from a notability standpoint. Without reliable sources that back up the notability of an article, it cannot be considered encyclopedic content - and this article has none. The previous debate felt that it was acceptable to overlook this, for some reason not explained, but I would either like this reason explained, or this article deleted.

~~In short, this article has no reliable sources and totally fails notability guidelines, popularity notwithstanding.~~ See below! Fixed! Haemo 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-reasoned nom. There has been plenty of time since the last AFD (seven months ago, so there is no issue with the renomination) to add sources, and none have been added. Without them, the claims of popularity (even though I know the series is popular) are not verifiable or attributable. --Core desat 22:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for same reasons as above. I can't argue with this. --Releeshan 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per all the delete arguments in the first nom. That AFD never should have been closed as "keep." Otto4711 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because it's on Weebl's site doesn't mean it's notable, it just means it's on Weebl's site. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep. Ghostieguide's arguments are compelling. Clean it up. The usual counterarguments on WP:AADD, however, still apply. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might be something of inferior nature, but it's documenting its existence, and THAT is what encyclopidiae are all about. It's well written and thorough and fun to read through. I've always considered Wikipedia as a source for information about everything conceivable, so I vote KEEP. --Bjrndlw 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC) — Bjrndlw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, plus something being well-written doesn't mean it doesn't have to have reliable sources. --Core desat 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd suggest we edit the entry down to sections that can be sourced to the episodes themselves (as primary sources), such factual-only episode summaries (no speculation!), and other short, relevant bits. That seems in line with the countless other episode summaries, book and story summaries, etc. found throughout Wikipedia. Exerda 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, cut it down to pure facts and it'll be a fully legit entry in any encyclopedic collection of articles. Salad Fingers doesn't have to be deleted in it's entirety because it might have some unclear sources. Watching episodes provides information like names and places and themes. David Lynch' and Michael Haneke's cinema never gives any resolution or answers, and still there's articles about their work. Furthermore, speculation can actually give some more insight in the series and the characters, as long as it's marked as such. Still a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjrndlw (talk • contribs) — Bjrndlw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The problem is that it doesn't have any reliable sources. How can we cut something down to "fact-only" levels if we have no reliable sources for the article? Again, this article has no sources which either assert, or support notability. How do you justify disregarding Wikipedia guidelines in such a manner - beyond asserting that other stuff exists and so this should too? --Haemo 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are in the animations and in at least one interview with David Firth. The facts are the characters, their names, the atmosphere, the means of animation, its creator, the music used, and all that together creates the Salad Fingers universe, which thereby claims its identity. That's the source. What examples of sources are you looking for then? It appears Salad Fingers is being banned due to subjective taste-matters. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what more sources, apart from these existing and verifiable pieces of art, you need. Is it documentation of some kind?--Bjrndlw 22:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - of course it's documentation. What interview? Why isn't it cited? Why are there no reliable sources talking about these aspects of the show? Why is the "source" for everything a subjective judgment call about the content, rather than an encyclopedic source? Most importantly - why are there no sources that back up notability? Why is this article unsourced after literally months, and a previous deletion debate? None of these questions have been answered sufficiently, and there is nothing subjective about enforcing notability guidelines for articles. --Haemo 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then someone should clean up the article. And since no-one is willing to do so, I guess deletion is the best option. There are interviews and there are pretty cool ideas on this matter. There's just no-one to enter it here. But you didn't understand my question. Where should Salad Fingers be documented? Is it only worthy noting once Leonard Maltin has written an essay on it? Or when some newspaper thinks it was Salad Fingers that made some 12-year old kill his grandmother? I'll just mirror the entry, look it over a few times and maybe recreate it again once this one has been deleted. I still don't understand and it's still a keep for me. Bjrndlw 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read about reliable sources and notability, you can see that it outlines guidelines for what kind of documentation is needed in an encyclopedia article. And I did look for sources of this nature before nominating this article - but I couldn't find any. I hope this helps explain my rationale for deleting more clearly. --Haemo 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SALAD FINGERS IS THE BEST CARTOON EVER! This guy took an extreme amount of time thinking these cartoons out and drawing them down. I think that he needs some credit for all his hard work. KEEP THE ARTICLE!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.20.171 (talk • contribs) — 208.72.20.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep- I think that as long as it remains popular and people wish to know more and talk about it, this article should be kept running. If the author wants to create this article, let him. Put up a section for opinions on the cartoons. They are deep and interesting and deserve their place in the Wikipedia. --Wrayth 10:35, 13 May 2007 (CST)
- Please give WP:INTERESTING a read. Please also note that Wikipedia is also not a video review site. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, since it has no reliable sources to back up the assertion of notability, and therefore is of questionable encyclopidity~~. :) --Paul Erik 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job, Ghostieguide, finally bringing some referencing to the article. I'm switching my vote to keep.--Paul Erik 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge notable content into David Firth --208.96.106.167
Keep, notable Skuld^‡ ^insult 22:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your compelling argument interests me - would you care to spell it out? --Haemo 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, go fuck yourself. Skuld^‡ ^insult 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Classy. --Haemo 23:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ;-) Skuld^‡ ^insult 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, notable, This article is interesting and I found it useful when the cartoon came up in conversation several times. It is certainly popular in modern culture and interesting as a new artistic medium, the article needs sourcing but there is a wealth of content about this cartoon on the net, Cant really understand how this got tagged. to lose the pages history would be a denial to future researchers looking up new forms of media effecting the internet culture. Ghostieguide 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I'm back again. I think the 'notability' of Salad Fingers varies quite a lot from person to person. The popular culture-argument is a good one. Just curious, Haemo, are you a fan of fiction and/or art? Because if you were, I think you'd be interested in keeping this. I don't think personal interest should decide over whether or not to delete wiki-entries. Again, it's about everything, and Ghostieguide has the best argument yet. Bjrndlw 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC) — Bjrndlw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You might check out WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. In short, we're actually not "about everything". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - Okay, the argument just advanced is this: It's interesting and useful, and will be useful to researchers in the future, and it can be sourced. Of course, not only are all of those fallacious arguments, this hasn't addressed the problem in the first page. This article has no reliable sources which back up, over even assert, notability. None. Zero. Zip. It's been around for literally years without any, and somehow survived an AfD with none - on basically the same hollow arguments as have just been given. This strongly implies that it is in fact, unsourcable. The encyclopedia has given this article ample time to source itself properly, and it has not been done. How long do we keep an article on the basis of "can be sourced", before it becomes apparent that it's not ever going to be? Two years? Three? Until the heat-death of the universe? This argument is totally hollow, and if it's the "best argument yet", this article should be strongly deleted. Oh, and my personal views have absolutely nothing to do with this debate. --Haemo 21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found sources, Even a mention in court...I`ve also expanded the intro to add a little depth, hopefully fixed now. cheers Ghostieguide 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability can be tricky with this medium but I think they have been viewed widely enough.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Page views are not a means of establishing notability under the guidelines. --Haemo 21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone added some sources, and I didn't notice. I removed the unreliable ones, but now it looks like there are enough to keep the article. Good job everyone! --Haemo 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very informative article, with a few decent sources, and comprehensive descriptions of the episodes that more or less match with the content of those episodes. Given the sources (not many, though decent) it should be left, no reason to delete it. --Mattinasi 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks good, has some references, notable subject... why exactly is this on afd? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because originally, it didn't have any references. As I explained, even I, the nominator, no longer support deletion. --Haemo 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because salad helps me digest more delicious foods. Jerkcity 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another internet flash cartoon. !vote above me should probably be discounted.--Wizardman 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added one more article to the list of references (now 5)[56] and I believe that this article clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Paxse 10:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coins of the Hutt River Province Principality[edit]

Novelty coins issued by a farmer who has decided his farm is a sovereign state... They are not and were not ever legal tender in any recognised country. Quite interesting, and great for a coin collectors guide, but encyclopedic? I think not. kingboyk 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Principality of Hutt River. --Gene_poole 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable (if there is any) information to Principality of Hutt River. If none, then just redirect to the main article. JoshuaZ 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. May also be worth adding Hutt River Province Principality Dollar to the nom. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Hutt River Province and the dollar as well. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the issue of the Hutt River Principality (it has changed its name, by the way) is a lot more complicated than just "a farmer who has decided his farm is a sovereign state", but this can easily be merged into the main article. JRG 05:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only that which is verifiable from reliable independent sources. Independent, that is, of Hutt River. Guy (Help!) 06:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as no sources provided. Delete as an advertisement for a commerical product that is not notable per WP:N note 5. Assize 08:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notable subject but not necessary to have in separate article - the coins, while in real terms equivalent to chips at the casino in terms of buying power, nevertheless are in collections all over the world. Orderinchaos 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Important but is too narrow. It is a valid encyclopedia topic but is too narrow.Neranei 01:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it alone If people are interested the info it is here; why get rid if it? Are the servers overloaded. Because of what it is Wikipedia can have articles on all sort of wakki things. It this less important than some pop star.Charles Esson 01:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the Hutt River province is certainly notable and has a lot more of a solid legal foundation than other micronations, but there's no real reason for this information to be seperated out. Lankiveil 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. This is an editorial concern; the contents of this article clearly should not be deleted entirely. John Vandenberg 09:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not sufficiently relevant as an article, but interesting nevertheless. WWGB 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate content into Principality of Hutt River. KrakatoaKatie 13:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (in some form). Whether this article stays as it is, renamed, or merged, does not require afd to decide. Please use the article's talk page to obtain consensus to do any of these. Petros471 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for the 2007 Labour Party (UK) Leadership and Deputy Leadership Races and new Prime Minister[edit]

The article is a list of meaningless information. It provides no real meaningful encyclopedic information. This article is the same as creating an article such as Timeline for the 2012 United States Presidential Elections for the Republican Party and other Conservative Right Wing Parties. T_{Talk to me} 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a chronology of events relating to the Labour leadership and Deputy leadership campaigns relating to Tony Blair's original announcement that he was not going to stand as labour leader for a fourth term and through to the end of that term, it was originally part of the 2007 Labour leadership election article, but the size of that article was becoming too large and it also contains information that has since been removed from the Next United Kingdom general election article. It is linked to all three of those articles and so avoiding duplication of information. The information is no more meaningless than the rest of Wikipedia, it cites sources and is in the order of events. All that will happen if it is deleted is that those three articles will probably start to reincorporate that information seperately. There is also a difference with the US Presidential Elections in that the winner would still have to face a full US Election before they became President whereas the new Labour leader becomes leader in a situation in which the leader of the majority party by convention is made Prime Minister without a General Election on the resignation of the existing Prime Minister--Lord of the Isles 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and Rename: I think it is a very interesting article. It is certainly useful in being specific: the topic of Tony Blair's fall as leader has been spectacularly drawn out and covered almost unceasingly over the past few years in the UK. It is very instructive and interesting to see this story in the form of a timeline, and I believe will be useful for people studying this matter in the future. So, all in all, though it is a ponderous title, it is a good article. Perhaps change the title to something a bit shorter? Perhaps rename it something like Timeline of Tony Blair's resignation as Prime Minister or Timeline of Tony Blair's resignation as leader of the Labour Party (my preferred title) - which is what it is really about, or Timeline of Labour Party (UK) leadership elections, 2007, to keep in common with the article it was split from. Clavecin 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007. I understand the basic principle of splitting articles, obviously, but what is left at the parent article is not a lot. This information is highly encyclopaedic, important and relevant, and should be kept, but should be re-united with the information it belongs with. Furthermore, it should be de-timelined and the information put into prose sorted into sections by category, not chronologically. But under no circumstances should this article just be deleted, it contains some of the most important information in Britain right now. Jdcooper 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with slight merge to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007 per Jdcooper. The information needs to be de-timelined and synthesized; there are going to be articles in the British press about this subject every day for the next month and a half, but adding each day's information in this format doesn't constitute encyclopedic format. --Metropolitan90 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, rename to Timeline of Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007. The current title is a tad ridiculous. I would probably !vote to merge/keep this article, but cut it down. A lot of trivial events do not need to be mentioned. Resolute 04:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as recommended by Resolute. The analogy drawn in the proposal is fallacious - the leadership of UK political parties is not at all parallel to either leadership or presidential candidacy in the US system. Additionally, the nearest comparable US process is the primaries for the 2008 election, not the 2012 one. The election in which the new party leader will compete cannot happen later than mid-2010, and moreover, the new party leader is virtually certain to become the UK's head of government immediately. AlexTiefling 11:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main events to the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007 article, and get rid of a lot of the irrelevant info here (e.g. Start of Financial Year, Charles Clarke endorsed for the Labour leadership by the Beard Liberation Front etc.). - fchd 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - when I created it out of the leadership article I had wondered about the name somewhat, but it seemed silly to have one just for the leadership election, as the Deputy Leadership Election was running parallel and inter-related, and had only been raised as an issue because Tony Blair was going, in addition because Labour is the majority party and Tony Blair was the Prime Minister and his successor was almost certainly going to be the new Labour leader it seemed bound up with the issue of Prime Minister. I suggest that it be renamed to Timeline of Labour Party (UK) leadership elections and new Prime Minister, 2007, for one thing there is obviously going to be a lot of news in relation to the Labour Deputy leadership because of the number of candidates and likelihood of discussions between announced candidates to narrow down this number to 3 or 4 and then the probability that the final result will be decided on preference votes.--Lord of the Isles 17:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wanting to delete an article because the name is longwinded is stupid. --Philip Stevens 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that is not why the deletion is being proposed. Jdcooper 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but that's what everyone's picking up on. --Philip Stevens 05:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the name is ludicrously long, but that's not itself a valid reason for deletion. --RFBailey 07:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge This article is very interesting and will be even more so in the future as a part of history. If it can be merged/have a new name, even better. Dewarw 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - for the reasons outlined by others above e.g. Lord of the Isles. Agree with Clavecin's suggestion: Timeline of Labour Party (UK) leadership elections, 2007. Tom 11:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename - for a relevant comparison, see Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 where the timeline was starting to dwarf a fairly significant (and subsequently featured) article and so needed to be hived off into Timeline of events in the Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006. Timrollpickering 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Cleanup. utcursch | talk 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Mounted Amplifier[edit]

This page was speedied ((db-nonsense)), but it looks fairly sensible to me. Best get an opinion from a radio expert. Anthony Appleyard 23:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem like nonsense, but it is a jargon and abbreviation filled piece of unreferenced "how-to" that sure sounds like a cut and paste, since it appeared all at once and as the first contribution of a new editor. It is more detail than seems justified for an encyclopedia article on the topic. If not a copy off something, then it should be deleted as original research. Edison 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold; the term has been listed on TMA for a while[57] and appears to be in common use[58], and [59]. It looks like new contributor Pratick (talk · contribs) just needs some coaching. John Vandenberg 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some sort of advertisement, or how-to, or just unreadable "sounds like stereo instructions" essay. Sorry. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course it's unreferenced. That was one of the reasons why I've even speedied it in the first place. Also with the same reasoning as Fang Aili and Edison. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 21:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expert and reference tags, but topic seems more than notable enough for a stub. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to be a widely-used piece of equipment; tag it ((expert-verify)) and wait for an expert. I agree with John that Pratick may need help, so I'll leave a welcome message for him (he never got one - horrors!). KrakatoaKatie 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also tagged as unsourced. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite. The article is NOT encyclopedic In its current form. It is almost a "howto" and should be avoided on Wikipedia. It need a whole section about "who, what, when, where, and why" then go on to "how". -- Emana 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite seems misguided in a case like this. The article is informative, and someone interested in the subject will get more out of this than out of no article. The article has more technical specifications per capita than one might expect in an encyclopedia, but it doesn't seem very how-to-esque, but rather talks about the pros and cons of the system. On the other hand, if the worry is that this is a copyvio, then I'm begining to think delete and rewrite might be a good idea. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do we delete AND rewrite? Just Wondering... --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but: tag the article as unsourced. To me it reads like extracts from either a textbook or HAM Radio or similar communications handbook; or more likely, a website that serves the same purpose. It looks real - in the sense that it is far too sophisticated to be a complete fabrication (which would be cause for speedy deletion). It might even constitute plagiarism (also cause), but I think it is of value and should be kept somehow. If we have the sources from whence the information came, then it could be re-written by interested editors, with properly cited quotes to the sources (especially for the formulas), and paraphrasing to try to tone down the jargon. If it is not sourced with citations after a reasonable time, then apparently the originating and visiting editors lost interest or determined it could not be properly wikified. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum / Question - Does anyone know if there is a WikiProject for Radio Communications or something like that? If so, then perhaps we can contact them and ask them to improve the article, or post it on their "to do" list? They might not even know the article exists, and would love to fix it up. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to the addenda: Found it ... Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications - perhaps they can help. I'll post it on their page. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to give time for T-dot's excellent suggestion to work. Lots of detailed technical information here that I'm (we're?) not qualified to judge - needs expert attention. Paxse 08:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Jaggi[edit]

Prod contested with no improvement to the article. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO for reasons provided by the nominator. Burntsauce 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I don't know enough about wrestling in Europe to say if this person wrestled for one of the top companies there or not. If he did then I'd say that he would pass WP:BIO if he passes WP:V. If he can't then I would say he does need deleted. I would say that as for his participation in wrestling in the US, he does fail WP:BIO. Theophilus75 23:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete article and redirect. Orderinchaos 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coolest game in the world[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NFT, local-interest, non-notable and uncited, non-notable club/organization...take your pick. DMacks 00:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~suggest bundling.~~ DMacks 00:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this and it's redirect per DMacks. Resolute 04:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as no reputable secondary sources. Assize 08:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Apart (novel)[edit]

Nonnotable book, out of print. The article is not much more that a plot summary. Placeholder account 23:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have sources to establish real world context. Unless they are found during the AFD the result should be delete. Jay32183 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma code[edit]

While I was able to find this book on Amazon, there's nothing in this article or elsewhere to suggest that this book has "gained cult status amongst conspiracy theorists". Amazon reveals that it's published by AuthorHouse, a self-publishing company. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. On another note, the synopsis is lifted directly from Amazon, with only a couple of words changed, adding potential copyright infringement as another reason for deletion. --Darkbane 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there's a citation that can be provided to something discussing the phenomenon of the book's following as notable - which might merit entry change to something like 'Sigma Code conspiracy' or the like, I say delete. 11 May 2007 23:50 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.112.235 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable plus copyvio. andy 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to userfy it let me know and I'll send you the information in here.--Wizardman 03:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Arbuthnot (artillery officer)[edit]

The greatest achievement of this person was to achieve the rank of General 69 years (sic) after being commissioned as an officer. A nn tag has been previously removed on the grounds that simply being a general is notible. I can understand promotion in recognition of achievement but not longevity. I feel that, if the information in the article is true, it would be more widely referenced - maybe in the Guiness Book of Records. Also given the timespan of his military career I would have expected him to have some involvement in something/ anything. Aatomic1 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable by virtue of the number of men under his command. Nevertheless could use expansion. - Kittybrewster (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many men were under his command? It is not stated, and hence subject to verification, in the article. Aatomic1 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userify until a claim to notability is made. We are not here to reproduce the Army List - although this does seem to have been a "man of peace, except in his domestic life". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability demonstrated. Accomplishment != notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article makes no assertion of notability, other than the fact that he was a general in the British Army 69 years (?) after he was commissioned as a second lieutenant. He is not notable merely by his existence, nor by his military rank. Did he actually do anything of note during his long career? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable army officer in the British Army Astrotrain 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not listed in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,but several of his brothers are included there, & have articles here. No articles indexed in Historical Abstracts, No independent sources for notability. I regard the family's memoirs for this purpose as not establishing N, for they will include every last member of the family indiscrimately. They would be OK for bio detail if the subject were notable. DGG 19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched Google Books but found nothing helpful. Lack of notability is a concern mostly because it will be hard to find any sources. Also it will be hard to make any connections between this article and other WP articles. Should not keep this one for merely genealogical reasons. EdJohnston 02:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or send to User) until it can be demonstrated that we should care. The only notable element is that he spent so much time in the armed services, yet did nothing of note. And that makes kittens cry. - Tiswas^(t) 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I think?) or userfy looks incredible anyway. He was a officer in 1804 (so the youngest he'd have been was 14 - and born 1790 or probably earlier) - he was then promoted to full General in 1873 - when he was 83 at the youngest. Now, if that's true, then he would be remarkable - and probably worth keeping. But we'd need very good sources which we don't seem to have -Doc^g 09:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources of the dates are the Army Lists. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want us to keep the article based on the valuable information found in the Army Lists, does that mean you have laid eyes on the lists yourself? If so, can you please include a direct quote from such a list in the article? A reference consisting of 'Hart's Army Lists' does not cut much ice. Even the legendary DGG has voted against keeping this article, which should tell you something. EdJohnston 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I went to National Archives, Kew and looked at the Army Lists and noted the dates. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Saw the Future[edit]

Page appears to be created for vanity, in order to promote a non-notable ebook. --Uthbrian (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable ebook. Worth noting that Arthur C Clarke wrote a book of the same name.--Slp1 12:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a stub promoting a link to the ebook. If there are articles or reviews that make it notable, let's see the references. 11 May 2007 23:47 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.112.235 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Oak Super[edit]

Delete: Totally non-notable business/building. Peter G Werner 00:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and does not meet WP:CORP criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlosguitar (talk • contribs) 04:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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