< May 12	May 14 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Gives Back[edit]

Un-sourded American Idol episode. Delete, merge and re-direct to American Idol 6. Dalejenkins 16:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce and merge. As I understand it, it's not just a single episode but an ongoing thing that is supposed to come back next season (sort of like having a regular old telethon episode each season). If that's indeed the case, it might warrant a separate article in the future but right now, it's not really much more than an extra-long episode with a charity theme (it's a very nice idea; I'm just talking notability here). The celebrity list could probably go since it doesn't really add too much to the article and is a bit triviaish anyway. -- Seed 2.0 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in future, please add new nominations to the bottom of the list as specified in the AFD process. Otto4711 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Seed 2.0. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly large philanthropy event. --Infrangible 01:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second that keep. It was a charity event and educated millions of people about how hard poverty has struck our world through a popular culture event. Thank you, Lazylaces (Talk to me 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There's quite a bit to say about it. I'm not totally opposed to a merge, but I think the article could stand on its own. Zagalejo 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main American Idol article, and that for season 6 are both quite long as it is, hence the split in the first place. This was a significant charity event raising tens of millions of dollars.Seaphoto 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per plenty of sources, including coverage in major newspapers; also as a notable charity event. Calwatch 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a highly notable charity, do not merge with American Idol 6 which it has little to do with other than using it as a platform to raise funds. Burntsauce 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the one who did the original splitting off. The purpose was to reduce clutter at the AI6 page, especially since we have the extremely bloated finale to go yet. I really wish people would wait to put these up for deletion until some time has passed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And btw, it wasn't unsourced. It was just missing the references section. Fixed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's very much sourced, as there was much coverage of it, and I think it was a notable charity event. There's too much information to merge wit American Idol 6. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but then have the summary of it in it's own section in the American Idol (season 6) article, as it currently is. Wikipedians tried to keep it in the AI6 article, but there just came to be too much information, and it deserves it's own article at this point. - hmwith talk 14:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the season's article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason(s)? Zagalejo 00:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons already listed above (will probably be recurring, clutters AI6 article, etc.). MissMJ 02:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't like the argument above that it will "probably be recurring", as that is complete unfounded speculation, the charity and episode are still notable enough in their own right to warrant their own article. News sources ran articles on various aspects of this episode independent of their normal "Idol" coverage (for example [1]). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:54, 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. Hús ö nd 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Neighbor 4[edit]

Non noteable, uncategorised YouTube movie Dalejenkins 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They haven't even finished the Second Season, they still have no sources and they and still have no assertion of notabality --St.daniel ^Talk 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball or hoax. --Infrangible 01:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not asserting notability and violating WP:CRYSTAL. The main article about the series has already been speedily deleted. EALacey 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until 2011. Article made four years in advance, wait until the year of production and airing.--JForget 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it per nominator and similar comments above. Burntsauce 23:08, 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. Hús ö nd 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Neighbor 3[edit]

Non noteable, uncategorised YouTube movie Dalejenkins 15:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again no sources or assertion of notabality. --St.daniel ^Talk 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't happened yet. --Infrangible 01:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not asserting notability and violating WP:CRYSTAL. The main article about the series has already been speedily deleted. EALacey 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, lack of info, event still a good two years away--JForget 19:49, 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. Hús ö nd 00:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Neighbor 2[edit]

Non noteable, uncategorised YouTube movie Dalejenkins 15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, assertion of notabality. --St.daniel ^Talk 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax perpetrated by some high school kid. --Infrangible 01:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not asserting notability and violating WP:CRYSTAL. The main article about the series has already been speedily deleted. EALacey 12:53, 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 deleted by WP:CSD#A7. –Pomte 04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Neighbor (TV series)[edit]

Non noteable, uncategorised YouTube movie Dalejenkins 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See other two neighbors. --St.daniel ^Talk 15:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i had to delete the show from YOUTUBE.,..srry so u can delete the article if u want. We will still proceed with filming Season 2 this summer...Happy Editing :)

Delete Take a closer look. The picture of the "candidates gathered in the boardroom" is a couple of 12-year old kids (apparently with a lot of time on their hands). --Infrangible 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 Merged to Pearson Education --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PowerSchool[edit]

PowerSchool – (View AfD) Spammy article with no independent references. The fact that it's a Pearson company makes it significant in the market, but whether that makes it notable is another matter. I think this is a "source it or lose it" job. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delte for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 21:21, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads as advertisement; ~~probable spam~~, agree subject is notable but reads as advert and has no sources - needs work to avoid deletion Bigdaddy1981 00:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't seem particularly spammy; the proverbial Google search turns up 1,040,000 results; Google PageRank is 7/10. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I m not sure ghits is the least relevant for a product used by many school systems,unless intended to show merely that the product is widely used. DGG 01:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, news articles found mainly on "district chooses PowerSchool" or "district sends teachers to PowerSchool workshop" type. Others mainly press releases. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Pearson Education. PowerSchool was world's first web-based school information system and is very notable. Jyothisingh 10:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, non-notable software from a notable company, but information would improve article on parent company, imho. Lankiveil 10:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per Lankiveil - MrZaius^talk 11:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the parent company article as the software doesnt seem notable yet. Corpx 13:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yay! Our worst dystopian nightmares are coming true! --Infrangible 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment If merging, which article do we merge with? There's a half dozen pearson articles, but none explicitly for Pearson School Companies, mentioned in the article. MrZaius^talk 09:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

n/m. Can source Lankiveil's suggestion, but not the other. Merge completed - Surely there's consensus at this point to redirect. MrZaius^talk 10:36, 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 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital acting[edit]

This article reads like a how-to, and I doubt it could really become much else. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see a number of references to this phrase in various CGI industry spots with a quick search, but I'm not entirely sure this could be expanded out of 'definition' territory any time soon. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't be salvaged as is. DreamGuy 08:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a how-to with OR issues as well. Lankiveil 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 13:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above commentsCorpx 13:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per above. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much real information here, just a lot of generalizations. --Infrangible 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Description of a technique animators have used as far back as Walt Disney's first studio, and likely covered elsewhere. MDonfield 13:31, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 13:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue Grand Prix[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable college event. Delete. Bridgeplayer 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete go-kart race held at a college campus. No reliable sources (surprise!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. Sens08 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable kart race. Lankiveil 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep - Fact that its been running from '58 makes it somewhat notable. Also, their website its not random race. Corpx 13:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Seems to be somewhat notable, but no links, other than to the homepage, are provided. KJS 77 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Drunken college kids in speeding motor vehicles, this is a good idea? --Infrangible 01:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs sourcing, but I do think the subject is notable. Google News Archive and LexisNexis turn up significant press coverage, from which I discover among other things that Marilyn Quayle was the event's grand marshal in 1991 and that AutoWeek has called it "the greatest spectacle in college racing". Also, the length of time it's been running seems to raise it above a typical student event. EALacey 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - google news search finds a lot of articles about the event. Searching through the archives show a lot of coverage even in the past.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
Keep - As the above user says, the event does get more G-news hits than you'd expect from a campus event. It still seems like a not-atypical goofy college event and it hasn't received non-trivial non-local coverage, so I could really go either way. Ytny (talk) 21:17, 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 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and Opinion[edit]

Online ezine. No independent reliable sources have been found to indicate the ezines importance or impact on the world despite effort. Prod contested by creator of article (and ezine) with "you're making the decision based on fixed criteria over and above the quality of the publication, vouchsafed by the distinguished list of contributors. There are exceptions to very rule and Arts & Opinion is one of them"[2]. However articles from "distinguished contributors" are all reprints of articles published elsewhere. Recommending deletion. Siobhan Hansa 12:20, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's notable it should be verifiable as such. Author of article, from quote above, seems to agree that it is not but wants to be excused anyway. If it's as good as they say, and really does have the famous contributors listed there, then getting some other verifiable source that discusses it should be easy as pie. The fact that it's not, apparently, is even more troubling for a periodical making grandiose claims like that. If it ever gets such sources the article can be recreated. Until then it doesn't belong here. DreamGuy 08:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the contributors had written their pieces for this ezine particularly, then it would be notable. However, based on the article, it seems that they only reprint information. Not notable, in that case. Lankiveil 10:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. The creator claims it's so special it should be an exception to our rules, but fails to back this up with any convincing reasons why this might be the case. Alexa rank is 2 million+, which is very very poor. In addition, the article was created and almost exclusively edited by an account called "Artsandopinion", which strongly suggests this is a WP:COI/Spam case as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Infrangible 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spamvertisement. - Crockspot 05:56, 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 move. I will add a disambiguation template, modify the contents further as desired. W.marsh 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan (plant)[edit]

Page with a complicated history (moves, removes, deletes, ...) and quite complicated contents. As far as I can tell, there is no plant that would be referred to in English or scientifically as "Rehan", making the page basically unnecessary. "Artemisia rehan" gives 34 distinct Google hits[3] and 5 in Google Scholar[4], so it seems to exist (even though it isn't listed on the Artemisia (plant) page). I have found no reference to Holy Basil being called Rehan. The rest of the article (about the Qu'ran and the people) is irrelevant to the subject. A redirect would serve no purpose (nothing to merge, target has no more info on it, and title is not a very likely search term), so deletion seems the best option. Fram 09:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Rehan and fit entries to DAB standard, retain sourcable info pertinent to "Artemisia rehan" in this space, or maybe redirect to Artemisia rehan..? Murgh ^disc. 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one reference to A. rehan being called "rehan"; however, this was in the context of a discussion of biodiversity in Ethiopia, where the plant apparently has a different name. This whole page seems a farrago of nonsense and unrelated trivia. It might be best just to delete it and start over. Mangoe 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Create new disambig page Rehan, with links to name,place and plant. However none of the rest have articles of their own, so it would be best to redirect this page to Artemisia rehan, as suggested by Murgh. Rest of the content can be removed. Regards, xC | ☎ 07:58, 12 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, Fuhghettaboutit 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and edit. Eurgh, it's a mess. I go with the previous suggestion to make a disambiguation page (and check sources). "Rayhan" does appear to refer to basil, specifically sweet basil, and not Holy Basil. Tearlach 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move, as per Murgh above. The article is a mess as-is. Lankiveil 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Rename maybe as a disambiguation page per above --Infrangible 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move, per Murgh. Some of the items listed are simply dictionary entries and may need to be transwiki'd.DewiMorgan 17:44, 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. Hús ö nd 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A priori (mathematical modeling)[edit]

misrepresentation Cronholm144 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See articles talk page, the comment by Michael Hardy--Cronholm144 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as poorly-written duplication of Apriori algorithm. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per argument on talk page. Needs sources, references, etc Lankiveil 10:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, dupe. MrZaius^talk 11:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per above. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MrZaius. --Random ^{Say it here!} 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what? --Infrangible 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - near-nonsensical jumble of ideas. andy 21:51, 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 speedy delete per G11. Sr 13 10:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effective Inspirations[edit]

A new internet company. Article fails WP:CORP. This should be a CSD A7, but speedy tag was removed by a user other than the author whose very first contribution was removing the speedy tag. [5] Delete for the reasons above, and WP:SNOWBALL if at all possible. Aagtbdfoua 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To ADMINISTRATORS: Why is my Article being closed down? Jody H. 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)drummer4now[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (spam). It's a promotional piece per the nom. So tagged. Jody, per the GFDL, this isn't really your article, it's everybody's - and more importantly, we are not a means of promotion of your company. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant spam. Incredibly blatant spam. DarkAudit 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "All of the information Given on this article is property of Jody H., and is only intended for documentation purposes." Hmm. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam with just a hint of copyvio added in. —C.Fred (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Check my conversation with the author on the talkpage - he agrees that there are no sources that meet WP:RS about the organisation. --Fredrick day 08:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this monstrosity. "Feel free to make the following images as your desktop wallpaper!" My eyes already are bleeding from the sheer horror, why would I make it my wallpaper? DreamGuy 08:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A joke, surely. "All of the information Given on this article is property of Jody H., and is only intended for documentation purposes." Speedy Delete as nonsense. Lankiveil 10:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete I hate to just pile on like this but this is CSD material. The process and WP:WEB have been properly explained on the article's talk page. Nothing to do but hit the button, IMO. -- Seed 2.0 10:43, 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 smite with fire and brimstone. Krimpet (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Perspectives on Human Sexuality[edit]

Article presents an NPOV stance on a non-notable issue. The subject and point-of-view simply do not tie together. Doko124 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do you mean POV? Even so, it doesn't feel encyclopedic. Bulldog123 00:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my apologies. A bit hazy as of late... I don't think I even completed the deletion entry properly. 74.242.103.208 01:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it's cool. You're logged out too btw. Bulldog123 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt The title pretty much SAYS it's POV ... I may be a born-again Christian myself, but I don't see an encyclopedia article in this. Recommend salting it as well.Blueboy 96 01:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, not really POV. It gives a brief explanation to the issue at hand and doesn't really violate the NPOV clauses. I have to dissent with the need to salt this at this time; we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title itself makes it irredeemably POV ... that's why I think it ought to be salted as a precaution.Blueboy 96 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to read WP:BEANS. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Dennis The Tiger. An article may be writable about this, but it would need to be fully sourced. As it stands, the title explains that it does only present one POV. It could stand a little balancing, perhaps something about response from other groups. I could see POV problems if it was given a misleading title like Perspectives on Human Sexuality. Perhaps its a POV fork of another article, but this is a fairly significant subject within Christian morality. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a significant issue within Christian morality, but Wikipedia is not a medium for this. Unless the issue were quite notable (in a general sense -- not simply by Christian standards) then it does not merit an entire encyclopedia article of its own. So far, the subject article cannot stand on its own merits enough to suggest such notability. 74.242.103.208 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "a general sense." Are you suggesting that every article here should be significant to everyone everywhere? I doubt everyone in China cares about Canton, Minnesota (I live in the midwestern US and I don't care about it.) but that doesn't mean we should not have an article on it. A Google search for Christian sexuality gets 1,720,000 results and an Amazon.com book search gets 1,543 results. For now, the part of Religion and sexuality#Christianity and sexuality above the ((POV)) tag covers this effectively. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is only a subsidiary of Christian belief, and one that's importance does not extend outside of Christianity. That aside, there are issues with the POV suggested by this subject. i.e., should we have an article about Christian perspectives on Paganism? After all, that is of importance to the history of Christianity and development of the world. Not at all -- the subject is convered in numerous other articles, but doesn't need warrant an article of its own. This issue is the same. It has been brought up in other articles where relevant, but isn't so notable (or expansive) that it deserves its own article. 74.242.103.208 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"one that's importance does not extend outside of Christianity" -- eh? You mean the debate over whether or not U.S. foreign aid should go to birth control in Christian and non-Christian countries is not affected by Christian perspectives on sexuality? How much do you say that Brooklyn Bridge costs? Noroton 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete. In my opinion, this article contains extensive original research, but more importantly much of what is asserted is really only applicable to certain parts of the world, certain (admittedly major) sects of Christianity, and certain time frames. I don't think this topic is non-notable; Christian views (and even if this is kept, can we get rid of that sesquipedelian word "perspectives" please?) on sexuality have affected the political, military, social, and cultural worlds. However, Christian views on sexuality are far more varied worldwide than this article admits, and have changed significantly through time. This is a very good article on 20th and 21st century North American Catholic and Protestant views on human sexuality, but even as that it requires attribution. It might simply be easier to start again with a perspective through time from early Christianity to medieval times to the differences between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views to the increasing differences between the more liberal European and Canadian church views about sexuality and those held by most sects in the United States and developing countries. It's a notable subject, but this article is not the one the subject deserves. --Charlene 03:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of "Christian perspectives of sexuality" belongs only in articles where there is a clear correlation between sexual behavior and Christian influence. So far, the demand for this has not been extensive enough to warrant an entire article in itself. 74.242.103.208 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in what kind of weird parallel universe does the subject of the perspectives of the world's biggest religion on one of the most important subjects of humanity become "a non-notable issue"? Answer: A very, very distant parallel universe, nowhere close to the one we happen to inhabit. No opinion on this particular article, but the subject is so obviously worthy of an encyclopedia article that it's hard to know where to even begin to argue the point. Let me just point out that volume upon volume has been written on the subject, not just over the course of decades and centuries, but millennia. Noroton 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're conceding bias with your entire comment. Whether or not Christianity itself is notable is not the problem -- the problem is that this article covers an individual perspective of an individual issue without notable relation to the issue itself, or any counter-balance to the article's perspective in general. Keep in mind that Wikipedia seeks to present neutral, encyclopedia information. Unless we were discussing a notable social issue, (which is my entire argument -- Christian perspectives of sexuality is hardly notable enough to merit an article of its own) then articles covering a single perspective need to be kept strictly minimum. 74.242.103.208 06:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my tone. I don't handle being flabbergasted very well. I'll work on it. I thought notability had something to do with whether or not a subject was covered by reliable sources, or have the Wikipedia standards on notability changed that much since the last time I checked? I have no idea what your meaning is when you write "You're conceding bias with your entire comment". Bias normally has to do with taking sides. The only comments I've made are in taking sides on whether or not the subject is important. We have articles on all sorts of subjects having to do with particular religions. This should be no different. Religious belief is, actually, provably of some importance in this world. In fact, you can't understand the topic of how Western societies have treated human sexuality through history without delving into Christian perspectives, and that requires an article, not just a section of some other article. I'm not being partial to Christianity here: I think separate articles on what each of the world's major religions have to say about sexuality would be entirely appropriate. It offers enormous insight into not only the cultural history of sexuality but of treatment of marriage, treatment of women, of homosexuals, etc. Noroton 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete not because the subject is not worthy of an encyclopedia article, but because the article we have is not backed up by any footnotes or other kinds of citations, which the subject requires. The article should be deleted and rewritten from the ground up. My opinion would change if citations were added.Noroton 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are just about as many Christian perspectives on sexuality as there are perspectives held by non-Christians. It's like having an article called "What Black People Think about Spaghetti". Nobody can speak for them as a group (and any attempt to do so blatantly violates NPOV policy) and the things they could say wouldn't be significantly different from what anyone else says. DreamGuy 08:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the article should be deleted; as has been stated, the article contains relevant issues, its just from a bias POV. If anybody knows about this topic, I think it would be best to try to redeem the article than to simply delete it. Monkeymox 09:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm pretty sure that "Human Sexuality" is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, however this article is, and always will be, unacceptably POV. Lankiveil 10:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Reluctant delete, and not for the reasons given above. You can write an NPOV article on this topic, just like you can write an article on any other particular point of view. The problems I see with the article are: 1) poor title (perhaps Christianity and human sexuality and 2) complete lack of sources. There is plenty of material out there on this topic, and an article based upon those sources should be welcomed on Wikipedia. - Chardish 17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Rename, This page could be quite helpful if it was classified the right way. Looking at all of the arguments, its tough to make a decision based on what has been said, but I took into account whether or not this is worth keeping and whether it fits the criteria of Wiki-standards. First, this article would end up growing far too large if this title is kept. Not only because there are 300 sects of Christianity, but more because this title fits so many different topics. Second, the POV section of this debate is quite valid, therefore, the only material that could be allowed are from the leaders of the respective Churches (i.e. Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople etc.). By keeping this page, it will snowball in to questions like "Who can give a perspective" and "What is human sexuality". This page may be worth keeping, but it will likely prove to be too tough to maintain. Sens08 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relevance aside, just how would we go about presenting this topic in a NPOV? We aren't even sure if the views presented by the current article accurately reflect a fair consensus among the Christian community. As mentioned, there are several subsets and variations of Christianity, so defining Christian morality has more or less become subjective and demographic. I'm sure some Christians may even take offense at the assertions made by this article. It's just a horrible mess of an issue to have on Wikipedia. I think if we're going to cover the issue, we should only do so on a purely historical basis, and not speculate about modern Christian perspectives. 74.242.103.208 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possible sources include The unauthorized guide to sex and the church / by Carmen Renee Berry., Human sexuality and the churches : Sarum consultation /, The way forward? : Christian voices on homosexuality and the church /, Faithful conversation : Christian perspectives on homosexuality /, Authentic human sexuality : an integrated Christian approach /, Sexuality and the Christian body : their way into the triune God /, Sexuality and Christianity : a bibliography focusing on the Catholic experience /, Christian perspectives on sexuality and gender /, Found wanting : women, Christianity and sexuality /, Reflections on the churches and sexuality : widening the horizons : the address given at the Chr.... So the topic is clearly notable (although even many delete votes above concede this). Unreferenced is not a deletion criteria, last time I checked, if it's been established that the subject is notable. I agree this is a broad subject area and may need sub-articles to cover each branch of christianity in appropriate detail, but people, this is far more notable than the latest Lost episode or Pokemon character. Finally, although the article could definitely be improved, I really only agree with the delete and start-over philosophy if the article is absolute garbage, e.g., complete spam or hopeless attack ad. - Aagtbdfoua 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to me, notability isn't at issue - it's the OR factor. I for one don't question the notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every time you vote to keep, it makes the saints cry --Infrangible 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one reason which does not apply is original research There is neither research, nor an adequate compilation of material. The article is just a sketch, just an outline. There would be some point in having articles on manageable topics, such as "C.P. on divorce". 440 words on this does not constitute R of any sort.. Nor is it a useful guide to more specific articles-- just 14 see alsos? ten times as many are needed.

another reason that does not in my opinion apply is "NPOV". The apparent point of the article is to present the different Christian perspectives--it will be hard enough doing that objectively. That there are other perspectives is obvious from the title, and would be discussed in--to use my previous example-- "Divorce".

It's neither spam nor attack--just an inadequate article, and there would be nothing much lost if it were started afresh. DGG 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot possibly present a neutral point of view. There are a multitude of forms of Christianity worldwide, of which there are likely a multitude of views on human sexuality.--Xnuala (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering some of the supportive comments, I believe we should salt the article. This is purely on the basis that the subject cannot present itself in NPOV. If someone would like to propose a less POV rough draft, (maybe on the talk page) then I'll reconsider my position toward rewritting the article. 74.242.103.208 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are suggesting we salt it because of some dissent to deletion? That's not at all what salting is intended for. "Pages that are repeatedly re-created after deletion in unencyclopedic form or against policy can be protected from further re-creation." That is why pages are salted. As far as I can tell, this page has never been recreated in any form. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dissent, for the same reason that Z above dissents, and also because we should not have to tell people not to stick beans in their nose. If it is deleted and recreated subsequently, we react as per WP:CSD#G4, and place a ((db-repost)) on the article. If it still gets recreated, then and ONLY then do we salt the earth. Don't get so hasty, now! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm probably being a bit too hasty. I just think that if the proposal to re-write the article has met this much support without any convincing evidence that it can present itself in a neutral POV, then it would be precautionary to salt it and avoid the whole issue of having the debate resurrected again. On a side-note, I have a dynamic address, so my IP may switch ranges ocassionally. I hope this doesn't come off as sock-puppetry. I should probably start logging in... 74.242.103.155 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mnyeh, no worries. That "Remember Me" box at the login prompt proves useful, just use it wisely. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few sources to back up these claims would help this article very much. It is certainly a notable issue, NPOV may be a problem be a problem, but I am not entirely sure. This is when sources help. daveh4h 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- Aagtbdfoua 22:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR--Sefringle 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of the articles linked to from this one are in desperate need of clean-up due to POV-violations. I was looking over them today, but I doubt I have the time to deal with all of them simultaneously. Can others please look into these? Thanks. 74.242.103.175 16:21, 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 Right Where You Want Me by User:Nardman1 (duplicated article). Nom withdrawn. Pea ceNT 04:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right Where You Want Me (song)[edit]

Created by sock of banned User:Josh Gotti which makes it a candidate for speedy deletion but reviewing admin declined to speedy. Song is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Nardman1 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, I've redirected to an already existing article about the single. Nardman1 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the album. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't see that the song itself is independently notable enough for an article. Lankiveil 10:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Does the fact that I have never heard of this top-40 artist make me out of touch? --Infrangible 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article already exists at Right Where You Want Me. (The album is at Right Where You Want Me (album).) --Paul Erik 05:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete due to duplicated article. Comparing the two versions of this article, looks like the sock made some copy and paste.--JForget 19:55, 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 speedy delete per A3. Sr 13 10:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treason in the Flatlands[edit]

A one-sentence article on a self-published book (complete with amazon.com link). Fails WP:BK. Victoriagirl 00:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable: fails WP:BK. On top of that, the article has zero content which, considering that this is a self-published work, is almost bordering on WP:SPAM. -- Seed 2.0 01:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination and Seed's comments. Victoriagirl 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hedging on a SPeedy Delete A3 - the only content is a single sentence saying the title, who it's by, and the year of publication, and there's a link of where on Amazon you can purchase it - to me, that's pretty much a content-free article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Daniel 5127 02:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3. DarkAudit 03:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam... or snail-delete it you have to, just make sure it's deleted. DreamGuy 08:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, frankly, anything with publisher listed by one of the more notorious vanity press outfits, like AuthorHouse, LuLu, iUniverse, etc. should be presumed as speedy deletable without twice as many references proving notability than for normal books. Paying some outfit to print your stuff is an admission that it's not notable enough to find even a small press willing to publish it. DreamGuy 09:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn self-published book. Lankiveil 10:41, 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. Krimpet (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes a phone number[edit]

Lists can certainly be quite useful, but this is taking it a bit too far. We don’t need a list of everything that can possibly be listed. Delete as Listcruft and per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. As far as I can tell from the links, 3 real pages link here. This has been through AfD twice; it was Kept in October 2005 and got no consensus in November 2006. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have a phone number in the name and are otherwise unrelated. Otto4711 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an indiscriminate list. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's comments in the previous afd. --- RockMFR 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR, by which I mean per Uncle G elsewhere. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, idiosyncratic list with a non-notable underlying concept.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm pretty much a deletionist, but Wikipedia is not paper and it's far more interesting than many other articles here that most people would never dream of deleting. There's no major reason to get rid of this, and the fact that it survived two votes already makes it seem like certain people are just pulling the we're going to vote until I get the answer I want thing. DreamGuy 08:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like it when people keep trying again and again to get an article deleted because they don't like it. Plus I agree with Dream Guy Theophilus75 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - over a year went by between the first AFD and the second during which time consensus was modified from "keep" to "no consensus." Six months passed between the second and the third. Hardly the mark of an organized effort to nominate and renominate until the desired result is achieved, and suggesting that the nominator is engaged in that sort of conduct strikes me as something of a failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of indiscriminate, unencyclopedic information if ever there was one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft Hut 8.5 09:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first thought when I saw this was "wow, we certainly have everything here... but what is it for??" Unencyclopedic. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 09:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as Otto4711. Punkmorten 09:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some lists are useful. This isn't one of those. Lankiveil 10:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, but turn into a category. As per nom. Dalejenkins 15:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this would stand as a category. Otto4711 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks a lot, now I have that song in my head.
Delete per nom. Time for Ricky to lose that number....Carlossuarez46 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Uncle G's comments in past discussions. Most of the arguments I'm seeing for deletion are too vague or flimsy to convince me otherwise. Terms like "indiscriminate" and "unencyclopedic" need some fleshing out before we can have a real discussion here. Zagalejo 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Where else would I find this information if I had a need for it? ...and as a radio programme director I can think of plenty of reasons why I might. --Gene_poole 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what's 'indiscrimate' about this list, it has very clear criteria for inclusion. As Gene Poole says, this list is going to be useful to some hard pressed radio producer - or Bob Dylan in theme time radio hour. Saying that it's incomplete is an argument for adding songs to it, not deleting the whole article. Wikipedia isn't paper. Nick mallory 04:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Wikipedia is not paper does not mean that every article gets a free pass. Regardless of the storage medium of the information on Wikipedia, any individual article still has to meet the appropriate policies and guidelines. Otto4711 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G's comments in previous AFDs. JavaTenor 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia, not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I know we aren't supposed to use our basis as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think that if we have articles about songs with names, songs with places, and songs under one minute, we might as well have this one, too. Useight 15:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that you understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping this article. Otto4711 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, the criterion for inclusion is crystal-clear, and self-verifying. Third AFD, and sometimes consensus does not change. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the wise arguments made by Uncle G in previous debates, common sense has not changed since. Burntsauce 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly indiscriminate reason for grouping these songs together, and can never be complete. - fchd 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I must confess that the comments from Uncle G which seem to be cliching it for so many people seem to be eluding me. His arguments in both previous debates are pretty weak.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list of information. Acalamari 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because it's true (and sourced) doesn't mean that it should be included in Wikipedia. Even if the article itself is not indiscriminate (i.e. it has clear inclusion criteria), that doesn't mean that WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply. In my opinion this article is not of any encyclopedic use. Pax:Vobiscum 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Categorise - This is worthy of a category but not an article. A1octopus 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those citing Uncle G - his argument in the last AFD is quite uncompelling. He cites a guideline for lists but his cited guideline states that the creator (and by extension, the defenders) of a list must be prepared to explain why the list contributes to the state of human knowledge. I don't see any such explanation in any of the AFDs of this article. He goes on to cite a slew of lists about presidents of the United States to justify this list. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument. Each article must pass policies and guidelines on its own regardless of the existence of any other article. Even if one were to ignore that flaw in his argument, since the last AFD of this article a number of those lists have been deleted, so that particular reed has grown rather slenderer. Finally he states that it is possible that someone might be interested in this information. We delete articles every day that people are interested in, because they don't meet policies or guidelines. That somethign is interesting is not automatic grounds for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Uncle G's arguments are weak, they do not address the objections to this list raised in the nomination, and opinions relying on them should be discounted. Otto4711 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Uncle G pointed out, this list is well-defined and unlikely to attract original research. Furthermore, the songs listed do have something in common: they lead people to call the numbers, a fact that has been noted and even used as a form of marketing. See this article, particularly the last paragraph. —Cel ithemis 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article cites two songs which have inspired crank calls (one of which, Alicia Keys' Diary, does not have a phone number in its title) and speculates about a third. If you think that is notable, feel free to write List of songs which have inspired prank telephone calls and see how that develops. In the meantime, these songs are still a loosely-associated list of things with nothing in common but the presence of some digits in the title. A list can follow the list guidelines by being well-defined in inclusion criteria and still be unsuitable for Wikipedia if it fails policy. Otto4711 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the main policies in question (not indiscriminate, not a directory...) are perhaps the vaguest policies on Wikipedia. Zagalejo 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be that you like the article and you don't like the policy. Otto4711 04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? This article is rather similar to List of songs about telephones, with many songs appearing in both lists. Are both really required? Or could they be merged into a single article, thus removing one "pointless" list but still keeping the basic information? (Mabuzzer 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Believe it's been said but this is just a directory of loosely associated things which Wikipedia is not. Can't believe this survived AfD twice. Goodnight mush^Talk

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie McCarthy (socialist)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO- non notable member of a minor Scottish political party- has never reached elected office. Thunderwing 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to exist as an attack page on Tommy Sheridan, and to host the external link to the letter. --Dhartung | Talk 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DreamGuy 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN politician from a fringe party. Lankiveil 10:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- I have requested speedy delete for some of these Scottish Socialist Party members in the past but it seems they have been recreated again. Astrotrain 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which SSP members? PatGallacher 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, as the person who created this article I am prepared to accept it being deleted, providing the content about the letter he sent (including the external link) is copied to the Sheridan v News International article. If we do delete then Charlie McCarthy (disambiguation) ought to be deleted as a consequence. Mustafa Bevi 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just go ahead and add it. DGG 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Sex club"?, is this like a model airplane club, but for getting it on? --Infrangible 02:10, 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 as WP:OR and failing WP:TRIVIA should it be cut-and-paste merged. If anyone wants the content to merge some referenced content into the main article, just ask --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden trivia[edit]

Fails WP:TRIVIA by its very concept, as well as WP:OR Userpie 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate unsourced list seeking to capture every mention of Iron Maiden regardless of how pointless and trivial. Otto4711 05:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to something more encyclopedic sounding, source things as appropriate and remove some of the cruft. There are plenty of mentions here that are noteworthy and interesting yet not suitable for the main article. DreamGuy 08:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into Iron Maiden, then delete this crufty article. Lankiveil 10:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per above. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 13:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is almost totally unsourced. If some of it must be saved put it on the articles about the individual points not in the main Iron Maiden article as it would interrupt the flow (I'm thinking mostly about mentions in soundtracks), but otherwise delete. Phydend 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. KJS 77 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above with no redirect. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band glorifies poking holes in women. --Infrangible 02:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia (and "references in popular culture") is by its very nature unencyclopaedic. - fchd 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, a non-encyclopedic ball of trivia. Burntsauce 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iron Maiden, most artists have trivia sections embedded into their own article not into independant or split articles.--JForget 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fine as long as it is not a cut and paste add of a trivia section. The material should be incorporated into the text. If that can not be done, then delete. Vegaswikian 06:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is my suggestion. Please don't rename to something more encyclopedic sounding. As I am fond of telling the sales people I work with, "A sprig of parsley on a turd does not make it a steak." Slavlin 05:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / delete per Vegaswikian. That is, merge only if you are inclined to put the effort in to do a reasonable job. DewiMorgan 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is trivia, not encyclopedia. awgh 18:49, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bernier[edit]

This article has hardly any encyclopedic content, is non-notable according to WP:BIO and reads like an advertisement Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 01:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't like it because its very existence encourages that the entirely misguided "most letters" thing will never die, and whether this kid wins or loses his fight with cancer, the organizations and hospitals and probably even his family will have twenty years of cards pouring in to regret. there are two sources begging people NOT to participate and one egging them on. This is very much a bizarre manifestation of a moral hazard. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wish the kid well; those who believe in the mass mailing variety of "complementary medicine" can canvass for it elsewhere. -- Hoary 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak Keep' -- mutliple independent references to newsworthiness. The whole thing is rough on encyclopedia standards but can't see how there's any real reason to delete at this time. I imagine at some future point and the record (if he gets it) goes to some other sick kid, sure, but for now I just don;t see the point of deleting. If we have enough space to host pages on which Pokemon character looks most like a turtle or whatever we can have a page about a sick kid in the news. DreamGuy 09:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thirty thousand cards aren't that many compared to other sick children who have done things like this before. And the child's illness, while tragic, doesn't net him notability either. Lankiveil 10:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not 30.000, but more than 125.000.[6] The goal is 350 000 000 cards. --Helon 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this is one of these things were one should morally say keep, but, although it's been in the news recently, isn't quite notable enough. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 13:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I get cancer, I'm going to request lap dances. --Infrangible 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and if not now, after May 30 when she will have failed to break the record. If it did, then it would be N.DGG 03:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally it's BLP--he's a minor--only 8 years old, and he can not conceivably give us consent. His parents seems to have decided for him, but we don't have to follow their view if we think it might harm the boy. DGG 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The motives for this article seems to be about gaining publicity for the boy in order to receive the letters, instead of an encyclopedic entry, in my opinion. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Possibly merge to an article about the phenomenon of requesting mass mailings to children with terminal illnesses.--Xnuala (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dreamguy - it's at least somewhat notable and newsworthy, unlike some of the awful fancruft out there.DewiMorgan 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that other crap exists... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DreamGuy. This has become something of a media phenomenon, and it's therefore notable. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 19:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fontainebleau Memorandum[edit]

The subject itself may be something worthy of an article, but this is not written in an encyclopedic way which explains it. fraggle 01:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced by end of AFD. This is an interesting sidebar but I'm not sure it's much more than that, i.e. content that belongs in a brief form in another article. The document has its significance but wasn't influential, and the article is barely worth stubifying. --Dhartung | Talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content of this article seems unsalvagable, however notable the subject might be. Not that it actually asserts said notability anyway. Someguy1221 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with those above me, while its certainly interesting, this memo isn't notable on its own. Lankiveil 10:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete — Per above. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somebody's awful angry about something. --Infrangible 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we agree that the Memorandum correctly predicted a disaster for us all if the new nations mistreated their irredenta? Do we agree that the source of the Memorandum is cited, as are the two documents giving reports of that mistreatment? Should readers of the Memorandum also have documents that prove its worth? The British document is primary. The American Mercury is reputable. Does anyone out there assert the documents to be invalid? Or that a disaster didn't come when the Memorandum was ignored? Should people have easy access to this informaton?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jn25b (talk • contribs)

Comment. The Mercury article is about events in Czeckoslovakia. While these petain to the memorandum, the Mercury article never actually mentions the memorandum, so it does not verify its notability at all. Further, the only remotely salvagable material in the article is the fact that Lloyd-George predicted a new war would occur, this is only notable if it itself received some form of direct coverage in the media, either then or now. No evidence of this has been provided, and it's not even mentioned on George's own article. Someguy1221 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercury article supports the Foreign Affairs article, and both tell us that Lloyd-George tried to keep his grandsons alive. For what purpose would either of them need to reference the Memorandum? The Memorandum, together with those articles, tell us that the politicians were either incompetant or evil or both. This is proved by counting the dead, and the girls who grew old sleeping alone and died without issue.

Comment. Without a reference that actually discusses the memorandum all you're proving here is WP:OR. Someguy1221 05:45, 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. Sr 13 09:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Kasper[edit]

Sounds like someone who opens for other acts at present--likely not notable. Blueboy 96 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nn-bio. Makes no assertion of notability. fethers 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a speedy deletion candidate because it does assert notability (Emmy award nominations, writing for the sitcom Rosanne, for example). Sancho 02:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is definitely asserted. I found a reference, and the other material can be referenced... I don't have the time at the moment though. Sancho 02:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may be a conflict of interest creation though... the creator was Kasperdeb3535 (talk · contribs) Sancho 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Some references given, some notability argued. Probably not the most notable person out there but is a mjor part of an active play that according to this link has lots of independent mainstream press coverage. DreamGuy 09:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the awards she's won don't suggest she's the cream of the crop, but she at least has them. Lankiveil 10:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. More notable than one might guess from reading the initial content of the stub. — Athaenara ✉ 13:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per award nom and media coverage. --Infrangible 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Nowhere near a speedy deletion candidate, please try again. Burntsauce 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to awards, work for the Roseanne show and some (although) little references.JForget 20:01, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV in popular culture[edit]

A trivia article that violates WP:TRIVIA. Most of the points are just simply a quick mention of MTV in a song or television episode that is non-notable to MTV (and questionably notable to the episode or song). Most importantly, perhaps, the article is not sourced at all. It is just a collection of trivia and Wikipedia is not a trivia guide. Phydend 02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An outstanding and well-sourced article could be written on the cultural impact of MTV. This is not it, is not close to being it and will never be it. Unsourced indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every mention of MTV in any medium regardless of how unimportant or transitory the reference. Otto4711 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up: This article was originally part of MTV and was split into its own article because it got so long. A similar article, Jeopardy! in popular culture, was also nominated for deletion in the past. They decided to keep the article but clean it up, keeping only notable references. Something like that should be done here, instead of deleting everything in the article. --Samvscat 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up per Samvscat Bulldog123 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - MTV has tons of references both small and big in culture. A lot should be cut out but what remains will be far too much to stay on the main article. Delete it and the people who like to add this crap will just shove it onto the main article again, and it'll just get split off again. Nominations for articles of this type are a complete of waste of time and out to be speedy kept just as a practical matter. DreamGuy 09:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - dozens of these articles have been deleted over the last several months because not everyone buys into the we have to keep it so the main article will stay pure style of argument. The way to handle this sort of garbage in an article is to delete it, not fork it off into its own garbage article and make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and most of those deletions were probably in error because of too many people buying into the "I'm too lazy to clean it up to make it a good article so I'll just delete the whole thing" argument. DreamGuy 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, they were deleted because of the growing consensus that articles that consist of nothing but lists of "In this TV show, a character said Blah" are worthless and unencyclopedic, telling us nothing about Blah, the TV show where Blah was said or the world around us. In those rare instances where the articles were initally kept with the earnest pledge of editors to whip the articles into shape, weeks or months went by with nothing being done to the article and they were frequently re-nominated and deleted. Otto4711 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook as per WP:TRIVIA. Having a list of every time MTV is mentioned on TV or radio is fancruft of the most odious variant. Lankiveil 10:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge. MTV raised an entire generation (see The MTV Generation), affecting a large majority by becoming its own culture. However, it seems that every topic piece comes up with its own "x in popular culture" article, and honestly, there isn't too much importance laid on this article. Keeping it isn't a bad idea, as it isn't a waste of space, but it would be beter used in another article. Sens08 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't you mean the sociopathic rich kid reality show network? --Infrangible 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does provide a list of notable items. Calwatch 07:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what, specifically, is notable about, for example, In the film A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Rodney Eastman's character Joey is watching MTV just before he is attacked and murdered by Freddy Krueger? What does knowing that Joey was watching MTV as opposed to VH1 or pro wrestling or One Life to Live tell us about Joey or Freddy or the film or MTV or the real non-fictional world? Otto4711 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back. Is there anything about MTV, at least in its current incarnation, that is not trivial? How can you tell? If this information was thought to occupy too much space in the article in chief, keeping it here is the right thing to do. If it is imagined that this information is too disorganized, the right thing to do would be to move it to a subpage of the talk page and post a link on the talk page, for the convenience of future editors. Data serventur et ruat caelum. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references to something in "popular culture" are by their very nature unencyclopaedic. Don't even merge this stuff back into MTV. - fchd 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no sources, will always be a list. Exists as a huge trivia article. daveh4h 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinant information to MTV and let "them" trim it down to the bare essentials. Then redirect to there. We do not need a comprehensive list of every time someone mentions MTV on the television, or in films, books, newspapers, spring break vacation sites and trip reports, or in private family disputes over how the kid is "wasting time staring at the MTV all afternoon". --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:30, 21 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 09:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2007 Josh Turner album[edit]

Page contains almost entirely information of a speculative nature, with only one of the tracks listed as confirmed. Personally, I see absolutely no point in having this page around, and I think that it should be deleted since so little is known about the actual album in question -- it's actually a repeat of what can be found at Josh Turner. Heck, the page's creator doesn't even know the name of the album yet! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic information yet. Eventually, but not now. The article can be re-created later. (Similar discussion just occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U2's 16th album). Sancho 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sancho. Is it my imagination, or are these being created more often all of a sudden? -- Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I share that observation. Methinks people need to stop rushing around when they hear the rumour of a new cd and WP:CHILL. There's no award for starting an article. -- saberwyn 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and all other similar articles when they come up. DreamGuy 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL and others apply. Come back when some more concrete information surfaces. Lankiveil 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as crystal ball. Possible recreation at a later date, but no earlier than a point where the title, tracklist, and specific release date can be cited and externally verified through the use of reliable independant sources. -- saberwyn 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Imcomplete article, unreference, violation of WP:CRYSTAL. -- JForget 20:03, 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 10:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Barwell[edit]

Non-notable person according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). No references Grover cleveland 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO and contains no references establishing notability. The various offices seem like a claim of notability but none of them is really significant. Deputy regional chairman? You don't say! --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 08:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a minor and nn politician. Lankiveil 10:50, 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. W.marsh 13:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Geniuses[edit]

The article does not establish its notability (CSD A7) ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable 65.241.15.131 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Public access is last generation's YouTube. DarkAudit 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.DewiMorgan 19:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third party sources found on internet, besides official website.--Kylohk 09:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Womanizer[edit]

~~Numbered entries by Nominator - To outline a less then simple AfD nomination.~~ Nominator withdrawing AfD request and asking for speedy close. Addhoc found a more then suitable reference. Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been unreferenced since Dec 2005, and fail WP:V
The article passes WP:N with over 750,000 ghits
None of the first 100 ghits offer more then a dictionary entry so there is little hope it can ever pass WP:V with WP:RS
The article is little more then a Dictionary entry and a list so it fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
The article has about 120 incoming wikilinks
Both womanizer and philanderer are well described at Wiktionary already so transwiki to there is done
The article was prodded and de-prodded relevant communications can be found in the articles history, User_talk:PrimeHunter#Womanizer and User_talk:Jeepday#Womanizer

I can't see this article every passing WP:NOT or WP:V Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator vote Delete and categorize Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence that this is a noteworthy topic. Goldfritha 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if we can have an article on both types of wife beater, we can manage one on this significant cultural topic. I don't think straight google is the place to find sources, try Google News Archive and Google Books for a better basis of a cultural article. Not only is this a social phenomenon, it's also a literary one. The womanizer/Casanova/rake has a longstanding place in drama and poetry. (He's never gotten much respect in Puritan America, though!). I think this is an important and encyclopedic topic that should be saved. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References exist, even though they have not been added. More than a dicdef. Obviously an encyclopedic topic. --- RockMFR 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't even understand how someone could thikn this is worthy of deletion. It could be a lot better, yes, and perhaps could use a better name (Womanizing?) and might even have something out there already tthat could be merged with, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. If the article isn't that's a failure of the editors and not the article. DreamGuy 09:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - google books returns sufficient viable sources. Addhoc 13:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the keep votes above, I had this same conversation with User_talk:PrimeHunter and my response remains Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it and The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. In this case I did not remove the content I submitted it for deletion. Find a single encyclopedic worthy reference, add it to the article and I will withdraw my AfD request. WP:V is clear The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. I have looked and did not find a single reference that would support an article that will pass WP:NOT#DICT. Jeepday (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why the reference I added isn't acceptable? Addhoc 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a fine reference, seems you did that while I was writing my rebuttal. I will withdraw my AfD request. Jeepday (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of the withdrawal request from the nominator, this article should still be deleted. Paragraph one is a dictionary definition, paragraph two is a list of examples (without sources) that support the dictionary definition and paragraph three is a list of fictional women (unsourced) that in the opinion of the editor are examples of whatever the female version of a womanizer is (and which are quite frankly ridiculous: Blanche DuBois? Hardly). The reference that was added is pretty much a dictionary, which since this is a dictionary definition doesn't really save the article. I agree that the topic of promiscuity is encyclopedic, which is why there is an encyclopedia article called Promiscuity. Otto4711 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Could be much more then a definition, just needs to be updated. --T_{Talk to me} 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like an article that could easily be beefed up. I would rather keep this. A history of the term would definately make interesting reading and, thus, I think would be fine WP content. Slavlin 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - if you like what it "might" become, that's great. When someone comes along who wants to make it become that, they can create the page and do so. For the moment, nobody is working on this dictionary definition page, the first two paragraphs remain a dictionary definition and the last remains off-topic. The previous unsigned comment was added by DewiMorgan. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.

Comment: I actually do agree with you for the most part. I have AfD'd several articles and had them kept on the basis that it could be something. That seems to be the consensus opinion on it. Don't delete it if you could re-write it. Slavlin 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep It is a concept as well as a word--as is clear from the first sentence, because it explains the use of several possible words for it. It scould use some expansion and some more refs, but that should be extremely easy. We delete unsourcable articles, not those that are still lacking sources. Similarly, short articles that should be expanded on are also not appropriate for deletion. Most of the articles in WP could be considered to fall within that class. Though articles up for deletion that lack references enough to show importance are often expanded there, it is a very clumsy way to improve articles on things that do seem notable--it is much easier to simply expand them than to send them for pointless AfDs. DGG 07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not address that this article is a dictionary definition. Or, if you prefer, since it lists synonyms, a thesaurus entry. Sourcing is not the issue with this article. Dictionary definitions can be very well sourced, but that makes them no less dictionary definitions and no less unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is nothing that an article of womanizers could cover that the article on promiscuity can't and doesn't cover better. Otto4711 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; User:Otto4711 has suggested a merge to promiscuity. There is a fairly strong lack of consensus here, but I don't see anything on either the keep or delete side that would not be addressed by a merge and redirect to promiscuity, both sides have good points and neither position would be adversely impacted by the merge. Assuming (just for argument, not taking sides) the contention of a non-notable dictionary entry, that would be acceptable as Part of the article on promiscuity. The keep side is arguing to keep the content, no one is claiming the article is particularly up to stand alone criteria, and if someone ever wants to carve it back out and build it up, that would certainty always be an option later. Jeepday (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is referenced and well-made; it just needs a fixer-upper. Besides, I know a lot of womanizers — take me for instance ;) ~I'm anonymous
Keep Topic is clearly notable. Some potential references for expansion after short Google search: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Current content is not merely a short dictdef and seems acceptable until somebody comes along to improve it without having to start from scratch. PrimeHunter 23:44, 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. Sr 13 09:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Huston[edit]

Delete - Does not have the sort of roles that would pass WP:BIO as an actor, there appear to be no independent reliable sources to establish notability. Otto4711 03:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From Gsearches and IMDB, does not pass WP:BIO as either a dancer or an actor. --Charlene 03:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real notability demonstrated. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO which is unlikely to change since Mr. Huston appears to have retired almost 25 years ago. -- Seed 2.0 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 17:12, 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 delete. Sr 13 09:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet[edit]

There is no independent discussion on the topic. The Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet is described in the PhD thesis of Jon Harrop and also in some papers by him. There are some references in papers by other people who probably use the wavelet. However, they don't state clearly that they use this wavelet and they don't give any description or analysis of the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet.

There is much more details and discussion at Talk:Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet (including conflict of interest and accusations of spam and stalking) but the above is in my opinion the salient point. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the academic papers did state clearly that they use our product that implements (only) this wavelet. Jon Harrop 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't find any clear statement in the paper by Christie, Taraskin, and Elliott (arXiv:cond-mat/0406248. The paper by De Nyago Tafen, M. Mitkova and D. A. Drabold indeed says that it uses your product. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is exactly what I found too. In both cases the coverage of the wavelet was extremely brief. See Talk:Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet#Notability criteria for a more thorough discussion of the results found. (Requestion 07:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - Yes. This wavelet started life as something of an academic curiosity only of interest to waveleticians but it is now used in all of the major branches of science by scientists and engineers all over the world. Most of its users do not understand it in detail, they just use it. Conversely, I don't understand what the genomicists in Switzerland do with it, or what the Australians using it to analyse sleep patterns do with it, or what the analysis of heterodyne velocimetry data done by the guys at Los Alamos National Laboratories is all about. I just know that they're all using it. So you're not likely to find a detailed discussion of this theory in their papers. Jon Harrop 09:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Christie was our first user. Jon Harrop 09:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So Jon, are you saying that your commercial Mathematica notebook CWT product implements only the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet and nothing else? (Requestion 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - Our time-frequency analysis product computes continuous wavelet transforms using the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet. It only provides this wavelet. If you want to use other wavelets then you must code them up yourself. Jon Harrop 09:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Work has been peer-reviewed (Ph.D. dissertation from Cambridge and several papers), so does not qualify as original research. So as suggested by Jitse, the crux of the issue is "notability". Here it seems to me that being published in peer-reviewed journals and having one's software used by other researchers is sufficient, even if very marginal. I realize this is not as noteworthy as in pure mathematics, as applied guys are always publishing stuff everywhere...:-p; however Jitse's comments on the talk page for the article are very similar to what I just wrote. I would like to know what changed Jitse's mind from "marginal keep, not worth nominating" to "AFD nom". --C S (Talk) 04:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was when I said "what if Requestion doesn't know his arse from a quadrature mirror filter?" that tipped the balance for Jitse, who replied "Your comment attacking Requestion was singularly unhelpful and loses you a lot of respect.". So I strongly advise you to not mention Extreme Ironing. Jon Harrop 05:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion did indeed change. I used to think "it's in the gray area, not worth nominating", while I now think "weak delete; let's get a decision". I changed from abstain to weak delete because of the extra information that was brought to the talk page. However, I usually don't nominate "weak deletes", so more important is another development: the continuous fighting around the article and related external links. I think it would be good have a wider discussion, get a decision on whether to keep or delete the article and close this chapter. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two important quotes from the WP:SCIENCE notability guideline are "unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, focusing on such research in a Wikipedia article does not adequately conform to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, in particular the section on undue weight" and "papers covering the contribution have been widely cited". As discussed for three weeks on the talk page, the cited references do not appear to meet the thresholds set by those two questions. (Requestion 07:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - Several problems with just quoting WP:SCIENCE like that. First it's just proposed. Secondly, it's generally been agreed by those working on the proposal that "significant" and "widely cited" depends greatly on the specific subfield or discipline. Lastly, this proposal has gotten very little input from mathematics editors, which is particularly significiant given the proposal's qualifiers on the dependence on what is normal in a discipline. I actually participated in this discussion, and some editors agreed they should ask for input from the WikiProjects they intend the proposal to encompass. But they never asked WikiProject Mathematics, so I wonder if this proposal can even be said to include mathematics (which many people do not consider a science). --C S (Talk) 13:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, WP:SCIENCE is a "proposed" guideline. If we choose to ignore WP:SCIENCE then what are the alternatives? Using only WP:NOTABILITY does not seem like a good option to me. The WP:SCIENCE notability guideline is well written, coherent, and it contains a lot of useful wisdom from many notability experts. I agree, since it is only a proposed guideline, that we should not quibble over words like "significant" and "widely" but instead focus on the spirit of what WP:SCIENCE is attempting to accomplish. I'm active over at WP:EL and my experience is that the guidelines are in a constant state of flux; wording is frequently being refined, new sections get added, obsolete ones get refactored or deleted, new issues get resolved. It just part of the Wikipedia guideline / policy making process in action. If no one uses WP:SCIENCE then there will be no motivation to improve it. (Requestion 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment You're basically asking regular editors to decide whether some incredibly, incredibly abstruse (but possibly quite notable) mathematical concept is notable or not. The majority, if not all of, the editors who do regular AfD patrol won't have a clue what a wavelet is, let alone whether this specific form of wavelet is a) real and b) considered notable in the mathematical community. We're lucky if we know how to turn on our calculators. I think you have to submit this to a panel of experts. (PS. Only on Wikipedia can there be a massive flame war *and* edit war about something like this.) --Charlene 07:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, there's no way this is going to work. This article could be one huge hoax, and I would have no idea. --Haemo 07:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAC. We should be able to determine if WP:SCIENCE has been met. (Requestion 07:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. This saga began as a medium spamming of ffconsultancy.com external links (see User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Jdh30_Warnings for details). Then a conflict of interest (WP:COI) problem was found with the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet article which spawned the Talk:Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet#Notability criteria discussion. Next the Morlet_wavelet became involved when Jon Harrop added a bold "superceded" claim that a couple editors objected to (see Talk:Morlet_wavelet#The Morlet wavelet was superceded by the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet for details). In summary, this article has two problems: 1) it is being used as a promotional tool and 2) it lacks WP:SCIENCE notability. This demonstrates a repetitive pattern of abuse. For another example take a look at this recent snapshot of the User:Jdh30 page. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). (Requestion 09:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, our product is the only product that implements this wavelet. However, all of the research into this wavelet was done in academia and all of the results are publically available accordingly. So you are free to use it. Jon Harrop 10:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to my understanding of WP:SCIENCE neither " being published in peer-reviewed journals" , nor "having one's software used by other researchers" are enough to establish notability, by a long shot. A couple of citations are not enough to qualify, certainly not in a field like wavelets where truly significant work gathers hundreds of citations (e.g. [14]). Beside this, this article is apparently being used to AFFIRM the importance of the author's work. Here is not the place. Stammer 14:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring all the side issues, it comes down to demonstration of notability. Computing/physics topics, even obscure ones, are very well-represented on the Web. If this had current notability (even on the academic paper circuit) we'd be seeing more than 100 Google hits. Tearlach 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure whether a handful of citations necessarily gives or ought to give N in other areas, but I am sure it does not necessarily do so in science. About 100,000 scientific papers a year have 4 or more citations. To make an individual discovery notable as a subject, whether in a paper or thesis or whatever, takes more than that. For methods work in general, I concur with Tearlach that it takes many more than this, though I do not know the details for this subject--for subjects I do know such a claim would be absurd. Are there other grounds: not as the basis for an add-onto Mathematica--most such are NN. When it becomes a standard method, then it will be notable. It's early days yet. Though the inventor is an expert, entering into the argument to this extent is an example of why we have rules about COI: a person can fairly describe what his work is, but cannot fairly evaluate its importance.

For any non-scientist who's gotten this far, I'd recommend keeping track of the COI--this applies to experts as to ordinary people, and it doesn't take an expert to judge. DGG 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SCIENCE. In addition, Jon's statement above that [t]o the best of my knowledge, our product is the only product that implements this wavelet raises serious COI concerns on its own, and this wavelet not being implemented by others futher exacerbates the notability concerns. --EMS | Talk 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SCIENCE criteria. Violations of WP:COI, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and WP:SPAM. (Requestion 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete. If there were even a half-dozen papers by independent groups directly on the topic of this kind of wavelet, I think that might be enough. But one publication cited by three or four independent papers that use this material incidentally (and, seemingly, would be happy to use any other kind of wavelet as long as the code worked) doesn't seem like enough to me, and clearly fails to meet WP:SCIENCE. No prejudice against re-creation if, a few years down the road, this kind of wavelet takes off and picks up hundreds of citations. —David Eppstein 17:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreating once it gets a wider reception. It's a bit sad, because it is an interesting work and one cannot deny the mathematical argument behind this. But this should have no influence on inclusion decisions. Wikipedia isn't the right place to announce that your newly discovered method X has superceded old method Y. Wikipedia will report once this has happened in the field. --Pjacobi 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are too few independent mentions of the content, but the icing on my cake is "our product is the only product that implements this wavelet" statement. Let the experts write papers and review the concept, and let those papers and reviews be published. Then the article can be re-created. The COI issue here looms too large for me. KrakatoaKatie 07:30, 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. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 16:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerz Heaven (forum)[edit]

This website fails WP:WEB and is extremely non-notable. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete GreenJoe 04:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it will be notable some day. In the meantime, the article looks spammy. Delete. -- Hoary 05:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure spam, no notability argued, concept behind it seems very unlikely to ever be able to reach notability guidelines without some major fluke of publicity somehow, and Wikipedia is not the way to try to get it. These kind of pages don't meet WP:EL guidelines, let alone full articles. DreamGuy 09:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn-web, grotesquely non-notable. A website "created in May 2007" and doesn't even have its own domain name?! Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you people want to take a look at yourselves. The domain, for your information, is bought and we are moving to it next week. Of course the page isn't going to be up to standards yet - it was only created yesterday. So perhaps you pompus gits should realise that we took time to create a page before going flaming us (and I do know the irony of flaming you about flmaing us). Now get your heads out of your arses, and respect that we are people who want to help Wikipedia as much as you do - we just need help in doing so. If you want to help Wiki, then help improve the article rather than being complete pricks. You can ban me or do what you like to my account, but at the end of the day, you are the ones being the arseholes about the page and indeed its creators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.227.233 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete per A7. 'Is known for' is no assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB with no independent coverage whatsoever. There are guidelines for articles, and that's what we judge articles based on. This article does not meet those guidelines for web sites. Attacking your fellow editors does not help you make your case. Read and follow WP:CIVIL. DarkAudit 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps if you read what they said, you would notice their attacks on me. So don't try and make it out as if I was the only one in the wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CatfireTom (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Borghetti[edit]

A fashion photographer or digital retoucher of fashion photos. Seems highly competent if you're into that sort of thing, and verifiably a fashion photographer or digital retoucher, but this is about as far as it goes. He gets one interview in an online (and dead trees?) fashion magazine. He doesn't seem to have any notability in the world of photography: there's no mention of a solo exhibition, a book, or whatever.

The biography is, we're told, Based on the biographical note from the official Bernardo Borghetti's website; not an independent source.

There are links at the foot of the article. Let's consider them:

The links are:

www.bernardoborghetti.com.br - Borghetti's official website and portfolio
- Borghetti's, fine to list here, but not acceptable as a source.
Borghetti's Flickr
- Borghetti's, fine to list here, but not acceptable as a source.
(in Portuguese) Cover and fashion editorial for Zelo Magazine May/2007
- The only text I see in this page is the single phrase em desenvolvimento. It imparts no information whatever. (Am I perhaps missing some required plug-in? If so, this wretched page doesn't even condescend to tell me which plug-in it is.)
(in Portuguese) Citation from someone's blog (May/2007)
- Merely a blog, thus not an acceptable source.
(in Portuguese) Interview to Studio Z Fashion Magazine (2005)
- OK, this is acceptable. The problem is that it seems to say very little. (Though it's pretty excited about it! With exclamation points!)

The source for the quoted praise for Borghetti is claimed to be www.retouchpro.com/. This web page doesn't mention Borghetti. I now see that what the writer of this page -- the SPA Wiki5150 -- meant is this thread, but this is mere chitchat among pseudonymous users of a discussion board.

The article first got a CSD template (do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself), Wiki5050 promptly removed it, but did add some information. A bit later I turned up with this series of edits, removing an impressive looking list of links to non-existent other-language articles, doing a little clarification and adding various templates, notably "Unreferenced". An IP removed the "Unreferenced" template without adding much in the way of references.

Borghetti may be on his way to some fame as a photographer. If/when he achieves this, he'll richly deserve an article. Right now, I see almost no evidence of notability. More worryingly, I can't find verification for the stuff that the writer admits cames from Borghetti's own website. WP:V says: Delete. -- Hoary 04:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty thorough nomination, but given the non-English "sources" probably mostly called for. Seems to fail WP:BIO not to mention WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When one of the references is actually labelled "Citation from someone's blog", that's not a good sign. The only reliable independent coverage cited is from Studio Z, and I don't think one interview is sufficient for WP:BIO. EALacey 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a fairly substantial thread centered on trying to determine how Borghetti - or anyone else - could justify keeping this unreferenced article on such an unnotable and meagre subject. Pinkville 18:23, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge of Night (song)[edit]

This article is about a song from Lord of the Rings: Return of the King that is less than a minute long. The song itself does not fulfill notability guidelines (WP:MUSIC), there is a lack of available relevant sources for the article, ~~it is not linked to any other article,~~ it is basically a rehashing of the plot of the film it's from~~, and, finally, it may constitute as copyright violation with the posting of the lyrics~~. Several strike-outs, as several problems have been remedied. María (habla conmigo) 04:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed the lyrics to resolve copyvio concerns. TerriersFan 00:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No assertion of notability. Article is poorly sourced. --Bryson^{Talk}^{Edits} 15:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) - I do believe that this song is extremely qualified for notability, as layed out by [15]. Please see for yourself, but The Edge of Night meets #4, #10, y #11. #4: This is the signature song of Billy Boyd, so that one is met. #10: Pippin's song is, behind Into the West, the most well known of the songs from Return of the King. And if any of this fails to satisfy you, as I believe it will, The Edge of Night hits #11 right on the nose: it appeared in a major motion picture. Bmrbarre 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the cited guidelines above are only proposed guidelines. María (habla conmigo) 23:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And please note that there are no other existing guidelines laid out for ~~singles~~ songs. Bmrbarre 23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the song isn't a single because it wasn't released. María (habla conmigo) 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The correct title of the track is The Steward of Gondor (featuring Billy Boyd) ([16], [17], [18]). The vocals of the song that make up The Edge of Night are found at 2:34-3:35 out of a track that is only 3:53 long. The song (meaning Steward of Gondor) is, along with eighteen other tracks, part of an award winning soundtrack, and yet only one other song exists as an article: "Into the West (song)." There is no question of that song's notability, however. María (habla conmigo) 01:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you feel you must, then please move the page, and instead of complaining about the sources, please help me to source it. Thanks. Bmrbarre 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference, perhaps layout should follow that of 'Into the West' there's only enough for a paragraph and some tighter references. 'Into the West' needs references & citations as well, since it has unsourced statements.Tttom1 04:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the article should be rewritten to principally focus on Tolkien's original poem [19] (which appears in a totally different context in the book) since the song derives from that. The original has been adapted/set to music by other parties (The Tolkien Ensemble, at least - see Complete Songs & Poems) so info about their versions would then go in the article, which should be named "A Walking Song". In any case the article should belong in the categories Category:Middle-earth poetry and Category:Middle-earth music. Uthanc 11:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were to be entirely rewritten to focus mainly on the song, I can see two potential problems with it: first, the article name does include the fact that it's a song, so if a majority of the focus is changed, it would have to be moved -- which would be no big deal. Second, what are the chance of finding reliable/critical/relevent sources about the poem? I think there would be a less chance for that then finding them about the song. María (habla conmigo) 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides The Lord of the Rings itself, Tolkien scholarship may have produced material about the poem. I don't really know... What are the Wikipedia notability standards for poetry? At least the author is famous/notable, and it appears in a famous/notable work... Uthanc 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that turning this article into an article on the poem with the song only taking up a little part of it is a great idea. Check this out, Uthanc: is this what you mean? [20] I'm really busy for until next tuesday, so I will not be able to do any major work on the article. In fact, I'm doing a term paper on the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Bmrbarre 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Support Uthanc's idea of creating an article about the poem itself, where its use in the movie can be discussed also. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:34, 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, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its present form - this does not meet the proposed song guidelines at WP:MUSIC. That a film score won an Academy Award does not mean that every segment of it is notable. The notion of writing an article on the poem and discussing its various musical interpretations is a good one. Otto4711 05:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An entire article about a song lasting less than one minute that appears in some movie? MiddleEarthcruft. Condense it into a single short paragraph at most, and merge it somewhere. -- Hoary 08:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. Might work as a small bit of text on some other article, but don't need to merge to do that. DreamGuy 09:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 17:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki? When I read WP:MUSIC, the third paragraph is "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." I'd suggest that this is one of those times when the rules of thumb aren't applicable. This isn't about whether or not The Edge of Night was a hit song or that the source for its existence isn't verifiable. The song comes at a dramatically important moment in the film (read:notable), by a major if-not-main character (read:notable), yet the information in the article can't readily be condensed into the film article. Potentially shooting myself in the foot, I'd say that this is a perfect case of Pokemon test. More charitably, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. If it's only Keep or Delete, I'd choose Keep. All that said, Wikia does have a LOTR portal, with an article on A Walking Song ([21]). That article does mention briefly the connection to The Edge of Night. Perhaps this article should be moved over there with appropriate links from that article and Pippin's. 74.134.59.45 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started a draft on a rewrite focusing on the source on the article's Talk page. Uthanc 18:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the page under discussion was extensively rewritten and moved after the comments above. Carcharoth 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as overhauler) as the article is now focused on the original poem. Lots of references. (It's now A Walking Song. Move this page?) Uthanc 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are problems with sourcing independent secondary references, but that is a problem to be discussed on the article's talk page, not by deletion. Carcharoth 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - moving the page during an AfD may not have been the right course of action (I can't remember what the guidelines say), but it has clearly illustrated the right course of action for the topic, which is now subsumed inside a larger article. Carcharoth 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice work on the restructuring. The page move was fine but the AfD should stay under its original name. TerriersFan 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as original nominator, I have no problem with keeping the new version of this article, provided that "lots" of references is traded for "appropriate" references; a.k.a. no Geocities sites, for the love of Mithril! María (habla conmigo) 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed those Geocities sites, replaced with the soundtrack itself (liner notes). Uthanc 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthy of an article, god knows there's plenty of other just as notable articles that are allowed to stay. Its famous in its own right, it stands as an extension of Tolkiens other work, its very nice to hear in the movie version. It deserves to stay. Dafing 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A song that is played in an Academy Award winning film should be considered notable. Also, sufficient reliable sources have been added to the page.--Kylohk 09:41, 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 speedy delete as A7 by NCurse. Resurgent insurgent 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kakkat house[edit]

Non-notable house/settlement. Was prodded but recreated after deletion so I'd call that contested. —dgies^t_c 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the prodder. No evidence of notability. J Milburn 11:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is pretty unclear on exactly what it's describing, but as written it doesn't appaear to be encyclopedic and it certainly isn't sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Starblind, its pretty unclear as to what it is describing, if its deleted as a result of this discussion then re-created again, admins could consider salting it.The Sunshine Man 17:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability whatsoever. DarkAudit 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 doesn't apply to places. —dgies^t_c 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a place, it's a name. DarkAudit 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: It's a house. I removed the original A7 tag. It is NOT a person, group, company or any form of web content. Please re-read WP:CSD#A7. In this case, it doesn't seem to cover enough, but it is our policy. Let's stick to it. J Milburn 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The way the article is written, it's a family name, not a building. Closest parallel I can give off the top of my head are House Atreides or House Harkonnen from DUNE. DarkAudit 19:54, 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. W.marsh 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venerable Pedro[edit]

This page really doesn't make a lot of sense. There are a lot of different people named Pedro, who have been described as venerable. Whichever Pedro wrote about Valencia, should have a page. Maybe this page could redirect? Otherwise delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe this just needs clean-up: http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/fll/11319062/articulos/CFCL9898220353A.PDF —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter the Venerable, a far superior article (and the subject of the PDF you linked). This one smells like a hoax. No results in Google Books under Pedro or Peter. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I see no need for the Redirect unless there is some evidence that Venerable Pedro has been used for the real guy. DGG 03:45, 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 deleted by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 08:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmartic ice blaster[edit]

What is this? Is this a fictional character that anyone recognizes? Cannot see what it needs a WP article for. delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. It would seem to be a non-notable fictional character, and the source milieu is not identified. Otherwise, it's an outright hoax. Either way, it's non-encyclopedic in its current form. —C.Fred (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is the second contribution from User:Jcmelen38 per his edit history. The other, Cum gobbling act of 1884, was so nonsensical as to be nominated for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 07:46, 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. Sr 13 09:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Reeves[edit]

Being attacked by an alligator isn't notable. Someguy71 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a memorial site Hut 8.5 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Many tourists underestimate the dangers of swimming in Florida ponds and some are attacked by alligators (not as many as the media would have you believe but still). Few of those attacks result in death, as the article correctly points out. But neither of those facts do in itself make a death, as tragic as it may be, notable. I'm all in favor of educating people about the dangers of dealing with wild animals (that's why we have those signs posted everywhere) but this isn't the place. NN. WP:MEMORIAL -- Seed 2.0 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and WP is not WP:MEMORIAL. Carlosguitar 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, death from misadventure is not notability Bigdaddy1981 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, death by alligator does not make someone notable. KrakatoaKatie 07:46, 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. Wickethewok 04:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widelands[edit]

Does not satisfy notability guidelines WP:N and no reliable independent references. The happypenguin link is a user submitted review (anonymous at that) and the strangegamer link is to a wiki (unreliable according to WP:EL). A contested prod, with the suggestion that a google search reveals lots of hits; however as far as I can tell all these hits are download sites, forums, blogs etc; no professionally written articles or reviews; and nothing was added at the time of prod removal. Marasmusine 07:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 07:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing WP:N. If the game receives coverage from reliable sources when it's released, the article can be recreated. EALacey 13:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per impressive notability: A search on Google for widelands settlers turned up almost a thousand of results, which is a lot for a game that is alpha and not really playable yet.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide some specific results that satisfy WP:N guidelines? Marasmusine 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That Google search provides only 256 unique non-Wikipedia hits [22], most of which are FTP sites, blogs or forums. I can't see anything that hits WP:N. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consider the alpha stage / not really playable status of this game, and then one could argue this supposedly 256 (2^8) non-wikipedia related unique hits are _a lot_.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 235 non-wikipedia related unique google hits for "Marasmusine"! Not bad for someone that hasn't done anything notable. Marasmusine 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. No evidence of available secondary sources. Incidentally, an online handle I abandoned two years ago returns well over 600 hits on Google. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least, instead of deleting, it could be merged with the apropiate settlers article (maybe settlers II).-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally would have no issue with a small 'remakes' section although it might be considered going against WP:EL. Marasmusine 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, delete - Another article that cannot provide reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. And as has been demonstrated by two other editors, search engine results are just as unreliable a reason for keeping as they are for deleting, unless they can be supported. Instead of saying 'We should keep this because it's in development but still has 250 Ghits', how about actually provoding a couple of those 250 websites that are reliable sources? DarkSaber2k 08:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing against it coming back if it ever gets released as non-alpha, and becomes popular. But no, a few hundred hits is not notable.DewiMorgan 19:15, 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 (and commemorate at WP:DAFT!). Krimpet (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Finns as fascists in disguise[edit]

Hopelessly partisan title, Military history of Finland during World War II already exists. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete the issues within this article are addressed elsewhere in a less partisan manner--Cronholm144 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- and if there's not something in the speedy delete criteria to get rid of this crap on sight there ought to be. DreamGuy 09:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting invaded by the Soviet Union doesn't make you 'fascist'. There's already a decent article on the Winter War, this is just rubbish. Nick mallory 09:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork of decent established article Hut 8.5 10:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5. I can't really see a reason to keep it (or its editing history for that matter) around. -- Seed 2.0 10:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and original research. DarkAudit 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Original Research Thunderwing 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, pure OR. --Stlemur 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above, absurd title. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:19, 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 under CSD G5 - Pages created by banned users while they were banned. Adambro 09:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCR's mascot Highlanders[edit]

Creator of this article also made one for UC Riverside Mascot. I think they should both be deleted and redirected to UC Riverside. —Gaff ^ταλκ 09:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all pages immediately. They were created by an obvious sockpuppet of hardbanned user SummerThunder, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. szyslak 09:09, 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 Speedy Delete under CSD G5 - Pages created by banned users while they were banned. Adambro 09:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Riverside Mascot[edit]

See somments for UCR's mascot Highlanders —Gaff ^ταλκ 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, created by banned user SummerThunder, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. szyslak 09:13, 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. Sr 13 09:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Seven[edit]

Apparently non-notable school team. (Contested WP:PROD; see the talk page.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Points noted on talk page, but this team isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Even very specific seearching brings up no notable ghits. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 09:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection says I, as Seven-Seven have a supporter base of 1000 + ...what kind of school team has THAT many supporters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.168.106.41 (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask any high school football team in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc. DarkAudit 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them. Some American high school football teams get 50,000 people out for each game. Some Canadian high-school hockey teams can get out 10,000 in small towns. --Charlene 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Using the search terms "Seven Seven" +futsal, I didn't find anything on Google about this at all, not even a confirmation of the team's existance. Also, the "1000 supporters" claim above fails to impress even if it's true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage, so fails WP:N. The claims that the club has many supporters and is known "around Hobart" are irrelevant unless they can be backed up by reliable sources. EALacey 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable football team. It can have as many supporters as it likes, but unless they get covered by a reliable source they shouldn't be included here. Hut 8.5 14:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. Only source is their own page linked three times. DarkAudit 14:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite my comment above about 1,000 fans not being a big deal, if this were notable in Australia it would be notable for Wikipedia. However, the low number of Ghits and the fact that the article isn't attributed to independent reliable sources leads me to believe it isn't notable even in Australia. This isn't taking place in Zimbabwe or Guyana, where something highly notable might not have any online references whatsoever. Australia has a huge web presence, and any current event that should be popular with young, tech-savvy people but which doesn't have a large number of Ghits isn't likely to be notable. --Charlene 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One person's noteable may well be anothers not worth bothering with. An encyclopedia, espeically one such as this which because of its online world wide community vision should have no limits - should HAVE no limits. Sitting on your high horses denying young people the right to have their achievements included is discriminatory and smacks more than a little of elitism. Restricting content that is defamatory or offensive or incorrect is acceptable (although I have noticed, not always enforced) Restricting content because you have deemed something that is important too a group of young men, their families, friends and supporters at the bottom end of the planet becuase its not significant to you is high handed and just plain rude. It's not like you have a limited number of pages and your running out!

So much for an inclusive online community. Best be careful all powerful administrators or wikipedia will become no more inclusive than the old outdated forms of communication and restrictive information dissemination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.106.41 (talk • contribs)

Yulia Onsman

Reply You are right in that Wikipedia should not use subjective notability tests, and Wikipedia does not. The agreed test, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability, is that something which has achieved coverage in reliable sources should be included. It has yet to be demonstrated, by anyone, that this article passes this test. I'm sure the achievements of this team are very important to those involved, but that's not the issue here. Just because anyone can edit this encyclopedia doesn't mean anything can be included. Hut 8.5 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Wikipedia should review its attitude to what should or should not be included in its encyclopedia. Before this article was established, there was no preceding article on anything entitled 'Seven Seven'. Why is it, when an article with at least some substance to it is posted, does Wikipedia Admin decide it is their right to delete such an article, preferring wasted space to an article that has information useful to some. Would it not be wiser, fairer and in the best interests of gaining the vastest encyclopedia possible, to allow these articles until such time as another article of the same title is submitted. Then if there are two proposed articles of the same title, it can then be put up for discussion, which is the more important or notable.

If this article is deleted, then 'Seven Seven' will once again go back to being empty, just space, waiting for the next dictator named Seven Seven to attempt to rule the world. Waiting for the next business called Seven Seven to go bankrupt and create a government scandal. It is ridiculous that Admin of this site have such stupid, for lack of better term, guidelines and rules. Let the article stay until such time as a more notable and important one is submitted. Its a disgrace that what is apparently meant to be a public, democratic encyclopedia is turned into a censored encyclopedia where its purely a matter of opinion on the part of the admin to determine the fate of the articles. How is this a democracy? Shame on all of you for wanting this to be the Wikipedian way.

J. Tonmor

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 15:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanem Hussein[edit]

Sources are missing. High on a tree 09:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ah... what? "He says that his two wives and five kids are the best thing that ever happened to him after toilet paper and myspace"... non notable, unencyclopedic article. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 09:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and sections are nonsensical. Given that the creator was Ghanem88 (talk · contribs) it's probably also a conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 10:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/joke. Page was created today. The supposed underwear model-turned-CEO/linguist/business consultant may also happen to be a uber-secret agent since neither Google nor Alltheweb have ever heard of his existence. -- Seed 2.0 10:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a Ghanem Hussein who is an urologist specialising in penile dysfunction ([23]). The "modeling of underwear" might be a joke about that. Stammer 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. DarkAudit 14:37, 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. No references, no dice. There's already a pop culture section at Henry Darger where relevant material can be placed.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Darger in popular culture[edit]

This article seems to consist mostly of original research. It's basically a detached trivia section, consisting of various comparisons between modern popular culture works and the paintings of Henry Darger. All of these comparisons lack reliable sources; in fact, the article contains no sources whatsoever, and thus fails WP:V. If there are any reliable references for these comparisons, a few of the most prominent examples can be placed in the main Henry Darger article, but this page as it currently stands has no encyclopedic value. *** Crotalus *** 10:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced indiscriminate collection of information that in the opinion of any random editor bears some resembalnce to Darger or his work. Otto4711 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back into Henry Darger. The explicit references to Darger or "The Vivian Girls" are certainly worth mentioning in his article in chief. Anything else should be preserved on a subpage of his talk page rather than deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge back into Henry Darger - pop culture references are not OR and are permitted in wikipedia: in fact, they're a part of the standard template. If there's a song called "The Vivian Girls", it's hardly OR to call it a reference to the Vivian Girls. DewiMorgan 19:12, 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 delete. W.marsh 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Kylie Minogue songs[edit]

This is a really weird list (it's OR, unsourced, and has a confusing title 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)) Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 10:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How much of this article is or can be sourced and referenced? Some of the material may be of worth. However, in its current form, this is a confusing list of unreleased songs, incorrectly attributed mixes or covers, tracklist rumours, or snippets used at a single show or event. A start to salvaging this article would be for the editors interested in this material to cite using <ref></ref> where each particular entry in this list originated from. Failing this, delete as unsourced, unverfied, and possible original research and/or false information. -- saberwyn 11:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no references and looks a lot like OR. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 12:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:23, 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. W.marsh 21:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amigoster[edit]

I've speedied this once, but it got recreated. Just some non-notable website that makes no assertion of encyclopedic notability, does not pass WP:WEB or WP:N, and gets 9 Ghits. Moreschi ^Talk 10:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable website. The domain has been registered since 2003 but I haven't been able to find a whole lot of sources. On top of that, the website only appears to have ~5200 registered users at this point which would explain the lack of RS. -- Seed 2.0 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Website has been registered since 2003 but as invite only. Just recently finished alpha development and opened up to open registration which explains the low user count, lack of web notability and wiki hits. Notability has been mostly hard print from the Whittier Daily News and La Opinion. It did get deleted before but that was my fault since i wasn't quite sure how to format the wiki page to comply with given standards. After reviewing similar wiki's from various websites that follow the same content deployment platform of amigoster, I revised the wiki accordingly. Djbetoski Talk 1:25pm, 13 May 2007 (PST)
Delete, even page's creator admits above the site's "low user count, [and] lack of web notability". That's the problem with the site, and no amount of bold or italic or pretty web page screenshots you throw into the article will change that. Resurgent insurgent 20:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still non-notable, despite recreation; removed from List of social networking websites for that reason. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the reading "Notability guidelines" there are a few key things that dispute the claim for deletion by the editor responses to this article.
Notability is not subjective. Notability guidelines do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. WP:N
Also, another case for keeping this article is "Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"." WP:N The site usage has gone up 300% in the past month so its "attracting notice". Its safe to assume within time, web articles reviewing, praising, or recommending increase usage of the site will be available. This is why its stated on the article for users to contribute to it. Djbetoski Talk 3:25pm, 13 May 2007 (PST)

Comment - however much you throw guidelines around, this site is patently non-notable, as it was in its previous incarnation. For the creator to vote twice was inadvisable (I converted the second vote to a comment), but to defend the article this vociferously is abuse of Conflict of Interest (look it up yourself, as I don't intend to throw guidelines about myself). Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the article is not there to be used to increase the notability of the site, as you seem to think - that's an invalid function and an abuse of Wikipedia. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's not throw the guideline around, instead let's examine its misuse. Notability is not subjective because an objective standard is defined. It is, in short, coverage in independent, reliable sources. This has none.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:00, 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 merge paragraph three and redirect. Can't delete due to the GFDL. Daniel 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip K. Dick in popular culture[edit]

Another detached trivia section. The article content consists primarily of two things: trivial and uncontextual mentions of Philip K. Dick in unrelated works of fiction (which violates WP:NOT#IINFO) and cases where, in the opinion of the author, a particular fictional work is based on Dick's ideas; these latter comparisons are clearly original research. The article cites no sources or references. This article is a good example of what Wikipedia is not. *** Crotalus *** 10:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything except paragraph three and merge that to the main article - it is somewhat notable that the author has appeared as a character in the works of other authors. That one paragraph, if verified, should be placed in Dick's article. All the rest of it, composed as it is of original research and triviality, needs to be deleted. Otto4711 14:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can certainly verify that he appeared as a character in Philip K Dick is Dead, Alas (as the title would suggest!), as I have a copy on the shelf about 2ft from me — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I can verify that Dick appears in Of the City of the Saved..., because I wrote it. Phil PH 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Otto4711. Philip K. Dick *is* part of American popular culture. --Charlene 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Dick was a science fiction writer; his influence on other science fiction writers like Lethem should be covered in his article under Influence and legacy. I think the true "in popular culture" material will become brief enough to be manageable in the main article once influence is separated out and unnecessary detail is trimmed. —Cel ithemis 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything about influences on other writers into Philip K. Dick (and tag as unsourced if necessary), delete the rest. JulesH 18:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is no more or less significant than all other "popular culture references to..." lists. They are a standard part of the article template, and spitting them off when they become too big is just fine by me, but this list is short enough to fit in the main article.DewiMorgan 18:58, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted High School Musical[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 10:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. eLLe.Le 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this has been announced and is in pre-production. Dalejenkins 15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Tagged as such with ((future film)) and is stated in the introductory paragraph that it is a future film; per Dalejenkins. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalballery, there isn't enough verifiable information on this film yet to warrant an article. A1octopus 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still doesn't quite cross the line out of WP:CRYSTAL, so there's no clear indicator that this is anything but. Wait until it goes into production. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film in pre-production. No notable information has been released yet, including the plot, cast, etc. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Disney768User 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per Dalejenkins. I heard about this movie being announced. QuasyBoy, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The film has been announced and discussed. It is stated that it is a future film. 24.92.60.227, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per arguments above. Nothing notable or noteworthy yet (I would expect a cast list at the very least). An article would be fine in the future once more information is released, for now, a subsection in the primary article would probably suffice. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if its been annoced and has an IMDB page, then its not crystal balling. Jtervin 04:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this search Addhoc 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per Addhoc's search. 41 hits is barely a tenth of what "Payne and Redemption" gets, and that's not allowed a page on here yet, we're told.DewiMorgan 18:55, 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. Sr 13 09:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 2 (album)[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, vauge assertion of notability Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 10:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this isn't crystal in the slightest. It's been announced-there are pleanty of sources. Dalejenkins 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Crystal? It's all sourced and no speculation. Userpie 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)~~ But change song list to "Confirmed Tracks." Userpie 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're guessing the song order. Precedent is that albums don't get created until nearer the release date. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i mean the songs all have sources, sao just delete ones without the sources, cuz we all need them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.46.34 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Since Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, we don't need to specify 'confirmed'. That should be understood. We're guessing song order, yes, but NOT that the songs are there. They're all cited and confirmed. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ipstenu.--Paul Erik 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are kidding me, look at all those references. QuasyBoy 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet all relevant inclusion criteria. Certainly better sourced than most album articles. -- Satori Son 03:55, 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. Sr 13 09:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Hall[edit]

Non-notable residence hall. Page is mostly a joke site for people living there or in rival halls. I started to clean it up, but realized nothing is verifiable from external sources. delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 10:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN Remy B 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a joke page. Cricketgirl 18:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a dorm. No assertion of notability. Also POV. DarkAudit 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not seem to meet the criteria for notability. --CopperMurdoch 08:05, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information Clearing House (second nomination)[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)).

The subject fails WP:WEB because there are few or no reliable sources covering the subject. I looked over the previous AfD, and the arguments for keeping were not good. For example, arguments were made that the subject "seems notable" or is "clearly notable," but the people who made these arguments never backed up their reasoning with solid evidence. A gut feeling that the subject is notable is not sufficient to pass WP:WEB. It was also mentioned that the contributors are notable, and therefore the website is notable. That is not one of the criterion for passing WP:WEB. I am pre-emptively adding the anons tag based on the vast number of single purpose users that decided to chime in during the last AfD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:45, 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, Sr 13 10:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utter non-notability--ChaplineRVine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be like Newsmax, but less notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- this is a notable alternative news site, and this article has been on Wikipedia for a long time. There is no reason to delete it. --Wassermann 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and just because something has slipped under the radar screen too long does not mean it gets a free pass Avi 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case, the article having been around for a while is actually an argument for deletion. All that time, and not a single, solitary source even hinting at notability. This one's an easy call. IronDuke 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of very POV, isn't it? I think that then would require that we have an article on a rightwing POV site, etc. etc....Gzuckier 14:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a non notable political website. Nick mallory 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers -Doright 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure of WP:WEB criteria. There has been more than enough time for adding sourcing. Tewfik^Talk 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The web site is the work of one--anonymous--person, reprinting random articles without caring overly for copyright or proper sourcing. Non notable per WP:WEB. --tickle me 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the deletion of this article is just another example of Wikipedia's censorship and delete-happy ways when it comes to alternative news and websites; we are an encyclopedia...if it exists we should include it, no questions asked.

P.S. -- have you all ever bothered to look in Category:News websites? A ton of those are as non-notable as this one, but there is no move to delete any of those. Nevertheless, hypocrisy and 'selective editing' abounds here on "Wikipedia, The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Go On Deletion Rampages And Ravage The Project".... --Wassermann 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Also, If you don't think those news websites belong on Wikipedia, you should nominate them for deletion. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wassermann, WP is an encyclopedia. Please get familiar with WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. JFW | T@lk 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete big time per nom. There is not a single citation in the article other than from the website itself. <<-armon->> 23:46, 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 your wish is my command -- Y not? 15:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Complete Visual Guide[edit]

This is a pointless article, with no information whatsoever — « hippi ippi » 11:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article contains no content other than what's already in the title (ie. it's a visual guide and includes all three movies, IOW, it's complete). Tagged as A3. -- Seed 2.0 11:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Seed 2.0. Hut 8.5 14:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3. There's nothing there. DarkAudit 14:35, 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. Krimpet (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tin-foil hats in popular culture[edit]

Contested ProD, nominating for full AfD... another one of those "List of ___ in popular culture" articles.

Unencyclopedic content -- "Tin-foil hats in popular culture" (come on!)
Unreferenced / original research -- There are no acceptable/reliable sources because this isn't really a notable topic. Nor should wikipedia be an indiscriminant list of places you've seen someone wear a tinfoil hat. //Blaxthos 11:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 11:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic made me chuckle! Some, ah, thorough research has been conducted here, but as I can't imagine anyone ever looking this up and it seems to be OR, I must regretably vote delete (haha tin foil hats) Monkeymox 12:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items in the indiscriminate list have nothing in common beyond the presence of a foil hat and in a number of instances don't even share that. Ridiculously trivial article. Otto4711 14:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. Pretty soon I'm expecting an article entitled Popular culture in popular culture. --Charlene 16:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with Popular culture in popular culture? Phony Saint 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me while I find a brick wall... --Charlene 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps you can find some Brick walls in popular culture (I pray that's a redlink). Otto4711 02:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the better-known examples to Tin-foil hat on the basis that it can't make that article any less encyclopedic ... the photos and the external links are classic. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: was originally forked from tin-foil hat. —dgies^t_c 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The tin-foil hat is essentially a popular culture meme from the get-go. Any data thought to be too disorganized to appear as is in the article in chief should be moved to a subpage of the talk page for the convenience of future editors rather than deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 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 redirect. Although this is against consensus, the suggestion towards the end of the discussion seems to be more fit for this situation. Sr 13 09:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol (season 7)[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Anthony323234 11:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article does not contain any new information and adds up to 'there is going to be another season (which, by the way, shouldn't surprise anyone with the numbers they're pulling) and if they don't change anything, it's going to be just like this one' and nothing beyond that. -- Seed 2.0 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. eLLe.Le 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballism. DarkAudit 14:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seed 2.0, or in the alternative redirect to American Idol, since this article just extrapolates the show's past practices for another season. --Metropolitan90 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per BlastOButter42 :-) ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL Thunderwing 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten 09:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Neutral There are alot of variables that could influence this AFD, but I think it is just interesting, this situation. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol - I would have boldly done this already if it weren't for the AfD. It's best to keep this as a redirect page for the time being as there will be a Season 7, but there won't be anything but speculation to be added until the start of the audition stages a few months from now.B.Wind 00:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol - Preferable to deletion since it will be needed in a few months. Would only consider otherwise at this time if it is DEFINITE that Randy, Paula, Simon & Ryan will all be back for season 7--and then only with proper references. --RBBrittain 02:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. All signs point to a 7th season, and this will be necessary once the auditions are announced (which is typically in June or July). CrazyC83 14:26, 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. W.marsh 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daedal macabre[edit]

Non-notable online RPG (MUD). No Alexa rank. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB. No independent coverage. Only sources are it's own sites. DarkAudit 14:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not indicating notability; the external links consist of two official sites, a player group and a directory. And here's a hint for article authors: if you want to make a topic sound notable or even interesting, don't begin with "MyTopic is one of the many..." EALacey 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advice:Could someone advise me on why it is non-notable and probably guide me a bit? I'm new here. Some additional information: Daedal Macabre is a top 20 mud on the Top Mud Sites list. So a little help before dissing this article away would help.Kazurincwl 08:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:WEB for notability guidelines. An Alexa rank can be used as a rough estimate of notability, so can the Google results. As for it being in a top 20 list - where can the list be found? What are the criteria for inclusion? - Mike Rosoft 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. How about now? Not really sure how to use Google results as an indicator. Could I have another advice? Thanks.Kazurincwl 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the links added to the article, the coverage seems rather trivial; this is the only one that remotely might indicate notability, and I am being generous. - Mike Rosoft 12:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was looking at the other mud wikis for some guidelines, but I do not know how they managed notability. In any case, at the moment, I'm applying for an Alexa rank, will that help notability? Appreciated: Kazurincwl 12:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to gather more votes/comments. - Mike Rosoft 09:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The guy's new, and at least trying to rework: if you must relist within 24 hours, rather than taking it to the talk page, then at least have the common decency to answer his question about exactly what your criteria for notability are: if appearing as item 20 in the topmudsites.com's list is insufficient, then state why there are more than 20 links to muds on wikipedia, and what they do that this one doesn't.DewiMorgan 18:48, 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 as apparent hoax. DS 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papayana[edit]

No solid evidence presented for the significant presence of the term "papayana" within Buddhism; also, the article smacks of intentional bias against Mahayana TonyMPNS 11:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. -- Seed 2.0 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references are listed in the article and none have been forthcoming on the talk page. The article tends toward a POV presentation.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony that this article should be deleted. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there are no references or citations for "papayana" in any dictionaries of Pali, though it may occur as a hapax legomen or a nonce word in some late, as yet uncited, Pali work. Moreover, not only is the word seemingly quite spurious, but I suspect that this article was created as a veiled attack against Mahayana by certain disgruntled editors who have a bee in their wee bonnets about the historical Mahayana use and application of the term "hinayana".--Stephen Hodge 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Papayana"

Very Weak Delete, as insufficiently sourced. In my opinion, the article's content is quite credible, as it describes a facet of a very real clash of Buddhist traditions and POVs. Beside sounding indeed like a Buddhist sneer, pāpayana appears here as well as in the reference provided in the talk page. Stammer 09:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke?? The first reference above by Stammer seems to have nothing specifically Buddhist-philosophical about it - it seems rather to get a mention in the context of a woman's alluring sinuous movements (amusingly)! And the second reference does not even contain the contested term, as far as I can see. Or have I missed something?! Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:54, 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. W.marsh 13:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yalla_Ya_Nasrallah[edit]

Non notable and unencyclopedic Telecart 13:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as attack page. That's all it really is. DarkAudit 14:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#G10, attack page.The Sunshine Man 15:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack page. So tagged. Hut 8.5 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete at the very least, the lyrics would be a copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this article non-notable and unencyclopedic, but The Hawk of Lebanon is notable and encyclopedic? --GHcool 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete that one too, more copyvio lyrics. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to speedy delete that one too, then make an AfD for that one and vote for it there. Don't put "Speedy delete" in bold twice on the same AfD page. --GHcool 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable song, coverage in Der Spiegel. Removed lyrics per WP:NOT a lyrics database. cab 22:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ as apparently non-notable, also not a soapbox. It's been close to a year since this incident, so time to source this. I've tagged The Hawk of Lebanon for notability and will remove the lyrics, and will encourage editors to improve the references for that article, lest it share the fate of this one. I disagree strongly with the speedy requests. This appears to be an article about a piece of propaganda, who is it an attack on? - Aagtbdfoua 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - changed vote above, per comments from Fedayee - Aagtbdfoua 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the "The Hawk of Lebanon" too. I googled -wikipedia "yalla ya nasraallh" and it gave me 3,610 hits. Similar search for Hawk of Lebanon (I created that article) gave me 1,210 results including coverage from the CBC [24], ABC [25] and the Jewish Week [26]. We could remove the copyvio lyrics to improve the articles. - Fedayee 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agree this establishes the notability of The Hawk of Lebanon, but I don't see much mention of "Yalla Ya Nasrallah" in any of those three articles either. At least one more article would be nice to establish notability. - Aagtbdfoua 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable song back up by a link to a Google video and one off-hand mention in a German newspaper. If information could be found that showed it charted or that it was extremely significant than it may make sense to keep it. Also, for those doing the Google test on "The Hawk of Lebanon", remember to do the search using the original Arabic title. --Abnn 04:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does seem notable. Copyvio has been removed. Ab e g92contribs 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a note, I don't know what qualifies as calling something a 'popular' song, but this was an internet meme, not a pop song. It was never played on the radio or anything like that (I'm not sure that's true for the Hawk song though). In fact, I'd only heard about it recently, and I'm an Israeli, an avid internet connoisseur, and participated in a lot of the blogospheric debate around the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war. If I hadn't heard of it, to me that alone raises suspicion about it's notability.--Telecart 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. At the end of the day we are considering it as a piece of music, and by that yardstick, it simply is not notable enough for WP:Music. A1octopus 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not certain that this establishes notability, but the song was the subject of at least two articles (Hebrew language Ynet [27] & Maariv [28]), as well as on two major Israeli music sites ([29][30]). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until Hawk of Lebanon is deleted as well. Robbskey 13:12, 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 wasspeedy deleted as a copyvio. Non-admin close. --Seed 2.0 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cherokee Nation[edit]

Non-existent Federally Recognized Tribe Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They claim they are recognized. http://www.southern-cherokee.com/html/historicaloverview.htm

Someone else claims they are recognized. http://www.nativeculturelinks.com/nations.html Please cite your source that they are not recognized. --Kebron 14:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I have taken the liberty to remove the section markup to avoid breaking the log's layout. --Seed 2.0 15:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

delete - Non-existent Federally Recognized Tribe. Although a Southern Cherokee Group existed in ancient times, there is no credible evidence that the current group claiming to be the "Southern Cherokee Nation" is the same group, nor is there any method to verify this information as factual. This group does not appear on the Federal Registry of Native American Tribes Listed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs despite their claims they are Federally recognized. This article fails WP:V and in fact, there is suffcient evidence to suggest these claims are false on this groups website. There is also no group affiliated with the Cherokee Nation proper as the Southern Cherokee Nation. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once again, please show us this list? Where do we find it? Where can it be independently verified? --Kebron 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is referring to the list of Federally recognized Indian tribes that the Department of the Interior (or, more specifically, the BIA) periodically publishes in the Federal Register (the list is also available right here). Please note that individual states may choose to recognize tribes that are not recognized by the federal government. -- Seed 2.0 15:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

States have no authhority to recognize Indian Tribes. See WP:NATIVE. State recognized Indian Tribes fail WP:V because they cannot be verified as being Indian Tribes. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I should have made clear that I was speaking in general (ie. there are Indian tribes that are officially recognized by one or even some states but aren't on the BIA list), and not so much in terms of verifiability. Thank you for pointing this out though. Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 16:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The entire text of the article is a verbatim copy of the first paragraph of this. Speediable as a copyvio? Deor 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The article is linked but I think it's still G12: no compatible license, no assertion of permission, straight copy by single editor, no non-infringing content. So I went ahead and speedied it as a copyvio. -- Seed 2.0 16:53, 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. Sr 13 09:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese dinosaurs[edit]

Fails WP:V, WP:OR, and just about everything else. The article's creator admits on their user talk page that the article deals with a movie that they are thinking about making someday. Deor 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [31]. Fails a load of criteria (WP:V, WP:OR WP:CRYSTAL etc), and the only source cited is a blog. Hut 8.5 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 17:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hut 8.5. I'll add that the blog doesn't even support any of the article's content. The title looked like it might be good for a redirect, but I couldn't find a suitable destination (List of fossil sites#Asia is too remote). EALacey 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The actual title could be a redirect to somewhere eventually, unfortunately I don't see anything like List of dinosaurs by country at the moment. cab 00:47, ((14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not a whiteboard. Wikipedia is not myspace. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to hash out a film plot. This article is totally unencylopedic and does not belong here. --EMS | Talk 14:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. sounds funny though. Bulldog123 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:37, 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 no consensus. Krimpet (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars[edit]

This is a non-notable list of locations that have only appeared in one game. They have no true real world context, and cannot be sourced by anything except the game itself and a few trivial sources. All that can be given are some brief descriptions, and plot summaries that can be covered amply in the settings and plot sections of the main article. TTN 15:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT a game guide Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable list; fails WP:NOT#INFO. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is this not notable? also deleting this would mean you would have to delete every single list of game locations on wikipedia. DBZROCKS 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good suggestion there DBZROCKS. Sounds like this article's deletion would be a good start. Can we change your vote to a delete then? :) Slavlin 04:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT game guide and nom. Mitaphane _?|! 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and if you find more of those game locations lists that DBZROCKS is worried about be sure to nominate those too. Otto4711 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless it gets far too long. One man's cruft is another man's noteworthy information, according to each man's interests. Some people follow videogames, some do not. See DBZROCKS above and the previous discussion in Talk:List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars#Speedily deleted. Does "and plot summaries that can be covered amply in the settings and plot sections of the main article" hereinabove mean a suggestion to merge with Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars? Anthony Appleyard 06:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When the cruft goes against set guidelines, then it's everybody's cruft. It doesn't mean anything if a couple people find it interesting. That comment means that this content is useless. It doesn't need to be salvaged. TTN 10:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, "Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are only essays and so have no weight when it comes to deletion". Otherwise, I might as well say, “Dur… according to the, um, Wikipedia:Pokémon test, any article more notable than the most obsure species of Pokémon deserves its own article.” Look at what it says at the very top, “This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors.” Taric25 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm talking about what I covered in the opening. WP:N: These show no true notability past the games. WP:FICT: They have no true real world context, and they can only have brief descriptions, and plot summaries. WP:RS: No non-trivial sources can be found. There are probably a couple others I could use, if I must. TTN 17:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is notable, because these areas show notability of the locations in other games notable games, such as Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros.. It shows real–world cultural impact, such as the song “Rawest Forest”. The sources so far are limited, but they are reliable: the game itself, Nintendo Power, and the song creator's website where one may hear the creator's songs and read their lyrics as well as information about the songs. Taric25 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The main article, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars has a ((plot)) tag, because it is too long, yet User:TTN suggests “plot summaries that can be covered amply in the settings and plot sections of the main article”? We just removed over 1,200 words from the plot section, because it was so long! The settings subsection points to the list of locations, just like featured articles such as Final Fantasy VII does with List of Final Fantasy VII locations. When the article was first created, User:Resolute nominated it for speedy deletion by placing a ((db-empty)) tag, which that user quickly removed once the article was no longer empty. In addtion, people were asking the same already–answered questions over and over again on Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, so it was refactored to include an FAQ section that points to the list of locations. It is also not the only list, since we also have List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. Furthermore, User:Boston2austin stated, “I don't agree with it being tagged for speedy deletion as this page adds value and information to the Super Mario RPG page.” The sources are not trivial at all: the website of Internet phenomenon associated with the song from the Forest Maze, the game itself, and Nintendo Power. Taric25 06:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot summary is crappy, but it can easily be cut down. You cannot compare this to those articles. FF7's page is pretty crappy, but those locations have been in five or so games and a movie. There is certainly more possible encyclopedic value there than here. You want to look at FF8's page, which is a nice looking one; that is what this needs to look like in order to stay. There is little possibility of that happening. The sources are trivial with how they're being used. The music belongs in an audio section, and the other is just useless in this context. TTN 10:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, locations such as Mushroom Kingdom, Bowser's Keep, and Star Hill do appear in other games. Second, List of Final Fantasy VII locations is not “crappy”. That article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Third, if there's any possibility of this article looking like “a nice looking one”, then you should discuss it on its talk page! Last, on when I provided a citation for the main article, you compliained of my citation style, since I use the vertical format. Although I prefer vertical, I switched to horizontal, because in our discussion you claimed, “After looking at some more FAs, it seems like one in twenty does use the vertical format, but I'm guessing those are older or something. And even then, they are much more condensed and to the point. The inline is the seemingly preferred format.” When I told you to fix it, you indicated, “This was more for the future than right now.", so I did it myself. Other Wipedians and I have removed over 1,200 words from the story, yet you state, “The plot summary is crappy”. I tagged the story section with ((plot)) in on March 2nd, and in all the time since then, you have not even edited the story subsection once. Your only contribution to the Plot section in all that time was to change characters back to prose. Taric25 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those aren't the actual locations. They're only used by name, and only one is even from this game. List of Final Fantasy VII locations is crappy by WP:FICT's standards. The writing is fine, but it offers no real world information. That is why it cannot be used as a model. What I mean by nice looking is the article in full prose with sourced, real world information along with the in-universe information. That would be World of Final Fantasy VIII. You can't just "bring that up on the talk page." I'm just saying that it is possible to shorten the story. Really, I don't care enough to recall the game and figure what needs to be done, and I have no obligation to do it. There is a difference between "fix it" and "completely overhaul it." TTN 17:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you neither care enough to recall the game nor feel you have any obligation to do so, then leave us alone. Go take a wikibreak and come back when you actually want to contribute. Othewise, you are wasting everyone's time. Taric25 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Mario locations. Comparison and description of locations appearing in one of the best selling video games franchises is noteworthy encyclopaedic content. See for example Realms of Arda, Major regions of The Elder Scrolls. User:Krator (t c) 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The user writing this article has done a good job. Instead of merging articles TTN, why can't you try to write a little on your own. Then we can see if you are worthy of calling this article for "crappy". The Prince of Darkness 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it could use a little tweaking but I find nothing wrong with this as a worthwhile suppliment to one of Nintendo's most recognizable games. Furthermore, the attitude that certain Wikipedia editors have been displaying recently is troublesome to me. I realize that being a WikiP admin is by no means easy but at least be a bit more sensitive to value adding pages like this one.Boston2austin 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I completely agree with Boston2austin. I believe that the current editor has done much to improve the article and with alittle guidance can have it up to standards. Also, deletion tag could have been avoided all together if the user would have mentioned the needed changes on the talk page.

Furthermore, I would like to point out the behavior of the tagging editor, TTN. His uncivil approach to other editors may be seen in the following edits.

In my opinion, it does not matter how much you disagree with another persons opinions... you should always remain civil to each and every editor at all times. On top of this, he has also been involved with this editor (User:Taric25) before in what is almost considered an edit war over Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars as he would not talk about changes first.

I would also like to indicate that this is not the first time User:TTN has been involved in such a dispute as you can see many more editors warn him and ask him to first speak of his edits and tags.

Editor ANNAfoxlover warns him

"Please don't make me waste my time on an AfD. This will fail it, so please just let it die"

Admin WjBscribe's warning editor for acting on his own accord, against the consensus

warning from Cooldude27109506 on similar article as WJBscribe's warning.

warnings from Cooldude27109506 (again) and Elaich

I could go on for a long time, as that was only from the last few hundred edits of the 6587 this user has made. I stress that the problem is not with this page... but on an editor(TTN) whose wikibreak is long overdue. Insult after insult... reckless actions time and time again... countless warning from other editors... acting without consulting others... going against established consensus... something needs to be done. this is not how the wikipedia community interacts. thank you for your time, Matthew Yeager 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exactly my point... you are not one to decide what is suitable and what isnt for this page. please do not remove text left by other users, my opinion on the article as well as the tagger is reliant. If it isnt... then it will be decided so by the consensus of the the editors. Matthew Yeager 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it belong? You are just criticizing my editing without even truly looking into it. This would only be necessary if this was a bad faith nomination, which it is obviously not. I have explained on your talk page anyways. TTN 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Yeager, I could not have said it better myself. You state, “In my opinion, it does not matter how much you disagree with another persons opinions... you should always remain civil”. That is much more than just your opinion. ☺ As far as consensus goes that no one user may decide what is suitable and what isn't for this page, see the talk page. Taric25 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it shocking that some users use the (alleged) motivations of the nominator as a reason to keep this article, while not responding to his (valid) arguments. Please, make no personal attacks, and discuss arguments, not editors. --User:Krator (t c) 07:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "This is a non-notable list of locations that have 1. only appeared in one game. 2. They have no true real world context, and cannot be sourced by anything except the game itself and a few trivial sources. 3. All that can be given are some brief descriptions, and plot summaries that can be covered amply in the settings and plot sections of the main article."

1. Only appeared in one game is not entirely accurate. I'm no mario historian but I know that at least Bowser's Keep and Mushroom Kingdom have appeared in other Mario games. If someone could expand my argument I'd be appreciative. 2. If you are arguing that by "No true real world context," that the environments are not based on terrestrial locations or have lead to adaptations in terrestrial enivronments its specious because any game based in a non-terrestrial environment validates your argument (which is probably at least 99% of all games ever made). 3. Well thats the purpose. IMO it does not meet the "game guide" status as it gives no real spoilers nor informs players of cheats, easter eggs, etc... I mean in terms of a "game guide" one could argue that the list of GTA III locations is a game guide.

Please build or critique on my input.24.27.16.238 12:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Those are recurring places that change throughout the games. They're nothing special in this game, and they do not justify its existence. Only one location from this game is used in later games, and only by name.

2. No real world context means that they have no impact or importance in the real world. There are likely no possible, non-trivial creation or reception references.

3. Game guide information is anything that would only be found in a game guide. A list of locations that can only be described is no better than describing each track in a racing game. TTN 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The 3D rendition of the locations in Mario's universe in this game is the first of its kind. Their description and comparison to the locations that appear in other games is limited at this point, true, but they do appear in other games. In response to your cliam, “location from this game is used in later games, and only by name” is refers to Star Hill (星(ほし)の降(ふ)る丘(おか) Hoshi no Furu Oka, literally “Falling Star Hill”). Nintendo reused Star Hill in the Japanese versions of Paper Mario (マリオストーリー Mario Sutōrī, literally “Mario Story”) and Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time (マリオ&ルイージRPG2 Mario ando Ruīji Ārupījī Tsū), where Mario locates the Star Shrine inside Star Hill. In the North American version of Paper Mario, Nintendo changed Star Hill to Shooting Star Summit. In addtion, the area in the new games contains token similarities to the original. A critical commentary, including images, is currently not present in the section of the article, and that is one reason why I have marked the article for expansion. Furthermore, it is not the only area that exists in other games. Off the top of my head, I can think of Mario's Pad, which appears in the cartoon as well as other games as Mario's House, Bowser's Keep, which appears in practically every Mario game, and the Mushroom Kingdom, the subject of many games in the Mario series.

2. The current real–world references this article has at the moment is limited, true, and that is another reason I have marked the article for expansion as well as need for citation. One such reference is from the magazine Nintendo Power which shows how the aera behind the Locked Door in Monstro Town references Final Fantasy. A further critical commentary of the vortex that Culex occupies, rather than just information about Culex himself, as well as images, are not currently present in that section of the article. That is another reason I have marked the article for expansion. Also, the internet phenomenon the song “Rawest Forest” dealth with real–life frustration gamers faced in the Maze portion of the Forest Maze.

“

♪When I play the game, I get lost in a phase.
Then I find out I'm stuck in Geno's Maze.♪♪

”

and

“

♪Exiting the forest is super simple:
All you do is follow these path turns
For the rest of your gaming life

Follow Geno's route here...
Follow Geno's route here...
Follow Geno's route here...♪♪

”

3. Game guides to not discuss cultural impact or resuse in future games. Taric25 21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I just stated that those locations are recurring throughout the Mario series. The fact that they exist in the game means little. Star Hill's inclusion in other games is your only actual example thus far. It's not even that important. Marking the article for expansion will only work if it can actually be expanded with something other than plot.

2. As I stated above, such information needs to exist for the tag to work. You have found to fairly trivial NP citations, which does little to even fill the void that this article has. “Rawest Forest” is hardly an internet phenomenon. It barely breaks 500 on any search engine, and it has no real world notability. You cannot provide those two things and just say "that's good enough for now." It shows nothing more than the fact that a couple of trivial things can be sourced, and nothing shows that they cannot be included in the main article.

3. First, you have to show that more than two of these have real world impact (even though none of them do as of yet). TTN 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, I've given examples such as Bowser's Keep and the Mushroom Kingdom. For example, doors 1–6 in Bowser's Keep in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars reference the same 6 doors in Bowser's Keep in Super Mario World. Star Road is another location that appears in multiple games. Although it appears in the game, during the ending, it is not a playable area, however, Star Road is playable in Super Mario World.

2. Again, essays, such as Wikipedia:Search engine test, are not policy. Also, how do you know what you're measuring? I just did a search for key phrases from the lyrics with quotes and came up with 3,940 results. The reason you my find so few results is, a lot of people discuss the song who are not quote the lyrics correctly. For example, this Japanese website shows the song lyrics, but the author writes, among many lines from the song, “Follow Geno's rootbeer”, instead of “Follow Geno's route here”, obviously from hearing, instead of the written lyrics. It's not unusual for people to discuss a song and not know its title and misquote its lyrics, so it's not unusual that you wouldn't come up with a large number of results. As that essay states, “in a nutshell: Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring.”

3. Do you think any List of locations in XYZ videogame artilces have real world impact impact? Do you think any of them are notable? Taric25 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. And those are not examples because they do not define notability of any kind. Cross-game reference are neat and all, but they fall pretty short of notable. Then there is the problem of actually getting sources for them that aren't fan sites.

2. That is not policy, but it makes it really hard for you to claim that it is a "phenomenon" on the same level as that whole Numa Numa dance thing. People discussing lyrics makes it notable how? To be notable in the sense of notable that this site uses, something usually needs an article, which is not happening in this case. It is quite easy to tell if this were an notable internet meme, as you claim it is, it would return many more hits than that. Even minor ones like "Loituma Girl" get tens of thousands just by name.

3. Not really. They lack any true encyclopedic information, and are pretty pointless. A few may be worth it, but in general, World of Final Fantasy VIII type articles would be much better. TTN 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:23, 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 10:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Guse[edit]

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author who fails to meet WP:BIO. A creation of Brucesilot and 216.80.110.114, two single purpose accounts. Victoriagirl 15:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable author whose publisher varies between the author himself and a vanity press. CIreland 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only statements that might imply notability are the supposedly exceptional download count for Stories of Hope and Courage and its status as "internet phenomenon", but the link included doesn't allow these claims to be verified. There are no relevant hits for "Joe Guse" on Google News Archive or LexisNexis. EALacey 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete conflict of interest article of a non-notable self-published author. --Evb-wiki 16:09, 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. I don't think notabily is established; one review is only a mention, another a minor and fairly trivial blurb. They don't provide enough information to indicate that this can be expanded into a full article. Article can be recreated if more sources are found establishing notability.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store[edit]

This was originally deleted as a CSD A7/G11. DRV overturned, finding that the sources given constituted an assertion of note, and evidence of non-spammy possibilities. The matter is sent to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see one full-fledged review, one capsule review, and one passing reference. Although the reviews are positive I don't see notability or importance asserted (it's about the only book in its niche). Pretty weak hook to hang the need for an article on. --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for its own article. I can image this as a EL to an article on iTunes or something like that but giving this book its own article is too much. --Abnn 23:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BK with multiple independent reviews, and is verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to iTunes, how's that for a solution? >Radiant< 15:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nonsensical. The book has no relationship to iTunes other than iTunes being the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. iTunes could feasibly have a section on books or media about iTunes. >Radiant< 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, it could. That wouldn't mean it would be sensible to merge this article, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh very well. Delete, advertising for a non-notable product. >Radiant< 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So how do you judge notability? It meets the standard, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, two independent reviews (even if one is "capsule") seems like just-barely enough to pass our minimum requirements, especially with a passing reference thrown in for good measure. I will admit that the topic seems almost inherently spammy, somehow, but if this were a book named "Fauna of Lake Baikal", I would pass it without a second thought, so, overcoming my prejudices against the topic, I have to concede that this is, probably, barely, good enough. (Won't weep if it goes, though.) Xtifr _tälk 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
smerge to an EL under itunes: delete the rest. DewiMorgan 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention in a cNet article and a couple of reviews (one a capsule and the other one looking like it weighs in at about 300 words or so) in two trade publications does not a notable book make. One can make any number of arguments that the book satisfies the absolute, rock-bottom "requirements" for inclusion, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that this book is prima facie non-notable. Oppose merging as per badlydrawnjeff's argument on the tenuous topical relationship between the book and iTunes. --Dynaflow babble 05:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources we have now are light, but enough... no real harm in seeing if the article can be improved and more sources found. When in doubt, don't delete. --W.marsh 00:40, 21 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. W.marsh 21:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzo Glitz[edit]

Spurious redirect created by an account with a long history of nonsense edits. Gary Glitter has no such nickname. Appears to publicise a hoax Bebo site. Demiurge 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Spurious. More of a speedy candidate, IMO - Alison ☺ 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per a3. Just a dubious redirect page. DarkAudit 17:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer and video game collector and limited editions[edit]

This article was deleted at this misnamed (it was actually the third one) AfD. DRV overturned for a very simple reason -- the article was never tagged for deletion. This creates a circumstance very unfair to any regular editor of the article, whose only notice would be that tag. Please always remember to tag articles when you nominate them! This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. --- RockMFR 19:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Most video and computer games come out in a single edition; the number with collector and limited editions (as defined by the article, discounting "special editions" that don't actually offer anything over a regular edition) is not unreasonably large. The list is not unmaintainable; it is nearly complete as it stands right now, and the items currently in the list need never change, as it's historical information. The list is useful; it's thoroughly annotated (which eliminates the most common reason for list deletion, that a simple unannotated list is better as a category) and collects information in one place that a user would otherwise have to collate from dozens upon dozens of other articles. This seems, to me, exemplary of an encyclopedic list. Powers ^T 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first AfD was justified in it's consensus as the article was but a stub as the time of deletion. Building from that an infinitely better article was produced that addressed the concerns of it being indiscriminate, unmaintainable, or useless. The 2nd AfD and consensus reflected these improvements and I'm here to support the article once again and highlight it's worth and notability to wikipedia. The intro makes it clear what a CE or LE is (and thus what the list aims to include), and in conjunction with the request "only NA released games are listed" - makes for a concise, reasonably sized, easily maintained (as one should only need to edit the article as a new LE is released) and defined list. The information provided in each entry is NOT found in the individual games' articles on wikipedia, and even if it were, a single page list is a far more efficient means of providing that info to users. The notability of CE and LE's could be understood by seeing the numerous articles that are written on major high traffics sites like IGN - sometimes multiple articles by the same website about the same CE (see Bioshock as a recent example here[32], here[33], and here[34] - which you can double for all the 360 version pages). Deusfaux 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete special editions should be convered in the game's indivdiual article. They need not be described in a separate article. hbdragon88 04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Powers and Deusfaux. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviewing the list provides a detailed breakdown of the contents of each limited edition, the condition under which it was limited (i.e. pre-order, etc) and is thoughtfully organized. At 75 items the list is certainly manageable, especially since, as Powers pointed out, the entries are historical and won't change. Should the list get too large, there are several ways to break it down into a manageable size, though List of fictional cats certainly shows that even large lists can have their place on Wikipedia. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Powers and Deusfaux. The scope of the list is very clearly and specifically defined, so the list isn't a huge unwieldy beast. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This article clearly shows how valued video games are, to the point where they become collector and limited editions. Moreover, it does a great job of showing that it is notable, rather than saying that it is notable. Taric25 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would actually be much more interested in seeing this organized by DATE rather than platform. I think that the progression of limited editions is more relevant than which system they roll out on. Slavlin 05:25, 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 10:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wirt Davis, II[edit]

Obituary for a Dallas businessman. No third-party coverage provided. Note on the talk page explains that his dad was famous. I don't think he passes WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 16:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Just a Dallas area businessman, really. DarkAudit 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, WP:MEMORIAL applies here not to mention this is virtually a candidate for speedy deletion. Burntsauce 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MEMORIAL - couldn't this be speedied? KrakatoaKatie 08:09, 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 10:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Gaming Coalition[edit]

Contested prod. Most likely a vanity article by some gaming group. Only cited sources are personal blogs, only gets one Google hit. Comment on talk page:

Due to the illusive nature of organization I challenge the move to delete the article on the grounds that whilst the only cited sources are personal blogs, Wikipedians would be denied knowledge if the article was deleted. When the article grows I expect that we can find more contributions to the article and to kill the article after two or three days of creation would be an irrational measure.

"Wikipedians would be denied knowledge" is not enough of a reason by itself. Wikipedians would be denied knowledge of my left pinky if I didn't write an article about it, but does anyone care? You can write an article about your organisation when it has actually gained some notability outside its own little inner circle. Delete. JIP | Talk 16:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable or reliable sources. Fails WP:WEB with no outside coverage. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument for inclusion. DarkAudit 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIn my mind there is no reason to assume that the sources cited are not reliable. Just because the sources provided are personal blogs is no reason to delete the article. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument for deletion. WP:IDONTCARE is not a valid argument for deletion.84.9.54.106 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: By far the most of the above user's contributions are to the article and deletion discussion. This is a possible conflict of interest. JIP | Talk 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal blogs are not independent reliable sources for a group. Phony Saint 18:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete gaming clan of some sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — 0 hits on Yahoo!, MSN, Google, and Ask jeeves; per nominator. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Some people in Finland invite their friends to play Age of Empires 2. They have a blog. They are mys-teer-ious. They do not assert notability. Serpent's Choice 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "small, elite and exclusive group of multiplayer online gamers" to me, that tells the whole thing. DGG 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Maxa megalon 2000 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument for deletion.

Non notablity is not a valid reason for deletion as more info should be given.@Serpent's Choice this is no place for sarcasm.

84.252.238.158 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supplied source is not reliable per WP:SOURCE, ~~plus primary notablilty criteria (WP:N) requires multiple references~~. And I'm sorry, but the tone reeks of self-promotion. Marasmusine 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, apparently 'multiple' has gone from WP:N; but opinion still stands. Marasmusine 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lets ignore the google number issue and look at ACTUAL guidelines and policies this article fails: It's got no reliable sources to support any claim to notability. The google test is not a set-in-stone test, but a returned result of 1 result, along with the article only having blogs as sources means there is a highly unlikely chance of any reliable sources, which means the article fails verifiability, which means it needs deleting. DarkSaber2k 13:16, 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 excessively badgerish. DS 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badger rating[edit]

Deprodded by author. Seems to be either a hoax or some kind of inside joke - either way, only source is unverifiable and the lack relevant of Google results suggests a lack of notability, even if the concept's creator is notable. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. Maybe not patent nonsense, but nonsense anyway. DarkAudit 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it weren't so well written it would probably have been speedied. CIreland 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a cunning hoax (although 'mad as a badger' is a real British saying). EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... basically a WP:NFT article, except with a dinner party instead of a school. Note that while it does link to a Guardian obituary, the obituary in question makes no mention of this "badger rating" concept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not bollocks then a neologism. BTLizard 04:22, 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, redirect unnecessary as the page has been renamed. Krimpet (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrium (Star Trek)[edit]

NOTE: This AfD has been submitted for speedy delete and redirect based on concensus by the original author, all the authors (except bots) and editor who listed the AfD in the first place. There doesn't seem to be any uninvolved editors for keep now. VK35 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This in accurate insofar as there is consensus. With VF35's move of the nominated article (specifically, addition of "Star Trek" disambig text to title, I'd rather see the thing deleted. --EEMeltonIV 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary compound with no real-world significance or impact. Would like to ~~redirect to episode in which it appears, but User:VK35 objects. This seems the best avenue to kill the material here, shift it to redirect.~~ have this lingering blurb delete -- odds of someone searching for "nitrium" in Star Trek context is minimal; odds of someone stumbling upon it with the "(Star Trek)" disambig text is non-existent. (As an side, but this collision of the minds is the second or third time I've taken an article to Afdeletion when a redirect is the preferred course. Is there another/a better avenue to pursue shifts like this? EEMeltonIV 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ RedirectI oppose AfD, not oppose EEMeltonIV. Nitrium was originally written by someone else, later got Prodded, then significantly improved by me. Redirect to Cost of Living (TNG episode) is not right because that article makes no mention of Nitrium (original mention was reverted out). If there's a large Nitrium description in the episode article, it seems out of place. I believe Nitrium is better written and more important to Star Trek knowledge than this compound (also in Category:Star Trek materials) [[35]] and also more notable than [[36]] (also in Category:Fictional materials), yet neither is AfD'ed. NOTE: I think Keep is the best choice, if Merged, then we should consider unmerging if there is opposition at the Cost of Living {TNG episode) article.VK35 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip about Ketracel White; it now redirects to Jem'Hadar. WP:Justbecauseit's(not)trueforotherarticles is not sufficient grounds to (not) keep an article. --EEMeltonIV 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to make clear: I oppose merging the nitrium content into the Cost of Living article beyond just a sentence, if that. --EEMeltonIV 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be advantageous to keep because if merged, there may be content dispute on what to keep (practically nothing versus some). There are already signs that this is happening.VK35 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same lack of real-world significance that makes it insufficient for its own article doesn't mean the same trivial, in-universe minutiae is okay to keep so long as it's copy-and-pasted into a larger article. Additionally, much of the current article's content -- and what was duplicated on the episode page -- cited unreliable sources such as Memory Alpha and some fellow's personal website. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction, which explains the importance of establishing real-world/out-of-universe notability, and reliable sources, which explains what materials generally stand up under scrutiny as appropriate for citing assertions in articles. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --EEMeltonIV 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cost of Living (TNG episode). The article practically admits its non-notability (..it is only mentioned once..). EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

corrected article to include real life use of nitrium. I just learned that it is not entire science fiction. It has uses in real life and in furniture. This may cause people to look it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VK35 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In which case Nitrium just needs a dab redirecting to Cost of Living (TNG episode). EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion I, the original author, actually have written very little of the current text, and am not engaged in documenting SciFi very much, so I simply know too little to have a serious opinion. Said: Rursus 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT as having no real-world significance outside of one Star Trek:The Next Gneeration episode. We don't even need the redirect. The cut and paste into Nitrium, AFD notice included, was also a poor idea. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge enough content to make it clear what's being talked about into the Episode article, make a disambiguation at Nitrium as it is a real world usage, but some people may want to look up the Trek name. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, it seems to me that there is a problem with communication here. As a suggestion for other steps, WP:3 is one option, as is WP:RFC or even WP:PM. But really, there's no substitute for effective communication with another user, and that may be something of the problem here. FrozenPurpleCube 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to rush things but I think there is a concensus for redirect. The most pertinent nitrium information has already been placed in the episode article. The original author, significantly contributing editor (me), and AfD listor all agree. The few others who opined on this AfD appear to agree, too. I have submitted this AfD for speedy delete. I have already done the redirect, thus keeping nitrium on the Category:Star Trek materials list so if others are looking at materials, such as dilithium, they can read the episode article.VK35 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move — Create a Star Trek section and then move the article to it. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have adequate secondary sources, and they are unlikely to be found. Jay32183 02:27, 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 per consensus. Nom withdrawn. Pea ceNT 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boss (video games)[edit]

Nothing but original research. Several of the claims may be unverifiable. While Wikipedia may want an article on this topic, this is not that article. Chardish 17:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix The article needs sources for some of the claims, but is otherwise sound. DarkAudit 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix as per DarkAudit. Dalejenkins 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup very important game-design aspect which could (and should) certainly have a decent article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This article may need references, but it is non-notable as I've found only 603 hits on Yahoo! search and 343 on Ask Jeeves in addition to having a certain POV. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup: Reference and remove POVs from the article. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a person or a group. Notability is not at issue here. DarkAudit 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Google searches do not assert or disprove notablility. DBZROCKS 22:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I already attempted to do some minor cleanup before, and commented out / removed some of the more egregious OR. That said, it is not all OR; the fact that bosses exist and general design items is not OR at all. AfD is not cleanup; if you admit that "Wikipedia wants an article on this topic," then something is better than nothing. It's not like what is there is libelous or anything. SnowFire 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is rediculus, bosses are a highly important aspect of video games. The only part I think is the problem is the critisism part, there is no reason to delete this at all. DBZROCKS 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and cleanup - boss characters are a vital component in the vast majority of retro video games, maybe still nowadays. The problems tagged on that page should be sorted out, but the notability of the subject is more than sufficient enough to guarantee the article a place in Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix --Exarion 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "While Wikipedia may want an article on this topic, this is not that article." AfD is not cleanup. Maxa megalon 2000 05:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup the heck out of the article. Yes, the article has crap that's probably OR. It has problems with attribution in general because there's no good easily accessible sources for gaming topics - you know, works that define gaming concepts. Our policies don't work in this situation; this is clearly a notable topic in video gaming context, we have to stick in some definition there (and if someone mentions "no information is preferred to unsourced information", I promise I get mighty cranky). Picking a definition of a boss from a reliable source is difficult, and there's probably few bits of research explaining them; all researchers seem to assume everyone knows what a boss in video games mean. You can throw these articles at AfD all day long and I guess the only result you can get out of these is that "this is a notable topic, we need an article about this, but getting the sources is difficult". So I advise everyone who tries to throw more of this stuff to AfD to just stick in the OR and source cleanup tags and let it sit. The issue is with the sourcing, not on whether we need the article or not. Unsourced material can live in article history and thus this is not a matter that warrants deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Useight 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. As a non-video-game player interested in game theory, I found this interesting and informative but, as has been mentioned, unreferenced (although I can understand that there would be few articles available on material like this). Accounting4Taste 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is possible at this point, but I would like to withdraw my nomination due to obvious consensus to keep. I still, however, believe that this article needs serious cleanup, if not a complete rewrite from sources. - Chardish 23:31, 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, CSD A7. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 09:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchar Von Dieu[edit]

seems non notable to me Postcard Cathy 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems slightly hoaxy to me. Search for UMPC TV on Google only returns Ultra Mobile PC hits. nothing about any TV network anywhere in the world. All we're left with is a bunch of YouTube videos. Not enough per WP:BIO. DarkAudit 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete - No claim to notability that can be verrified. A1octopus 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references that establish notability, appear to be home-made videos posted on youtube --Work permit 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Classic A7/nn-web: spammy article about some kid's youtube videos, which aren't even notable in a youtube context, as they only have a handful of views each (the "season finale" has 16 views and no comments). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable web content. nadav 11:19, 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 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spilt Milk (Band)[edit]

Article fails WP:MUSIC. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 18:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a hoax. ("Spilt Milk were asked to perform in the 2007 Eurovision song contest but sadly declined as they are scared of large audiences....") EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. And not a very good one at that. The sad thing is that this will remain for days unless WP:SNOW takes effect. DarkAudit 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lame, obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and as hoax.

Comment I have also removed the link to the "band" website as it is a redirect to Paypal. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 20:27, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 13:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted[edit]

I'm not too sure about this one. An anon pointed out on the talk page that this is not a released single (and therefore a hoax) and the album cover is just an edited version of I'm With You. This page is the only evidence to the contrary, it is selling it as a single - Amazon, Target, and eBay don't have it though. For now, this is a weak delete from me, pending evidence of the (non)existence of this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... but it isn't a hoax. It's a promo acetate, basically a CD-R made by the studio in very limited quantities as a promotion of some kind of another. It's not even the equivalent of a radio promo CD or DJ promo CD, which tend to be properly mastered on a real disc. Only an exhaustive Avril discography would include something like this, and it's outside the scope of a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There's no reason why her discography here can't be exhaustive, and she is notable.DewiMorgan 18:17, 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 and redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railfan window[edit]

The writer introduces a term for a storm door on a railcar which is not accepted by enough people to make it acceptable for encyclopedic use. On an enthusiast site web page, one can use whatever terminology invented or not, one likes. On my own website, I can call a trumpet a clarinet or invent any term I like - it doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Perhaps a reference to the term sould be made in Wiki pages discussing storm doors or railcars.19:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Delete as eminently unnotable neologism. Whether this term has any currency or not, the topic -- subway cab design -- is simply not notable. If we had an article on subway cars themselves (as opposed to individual types of subway cars, which we do) this is information that belongs in that article, which could cover topics such as stanchions, hanging straps, seating, doors, HVAC, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on: See if the article can be properly cited. But I do wonder if it meets WP:N. --AEMoreira042281 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ((hangon)) is designed for speedy deletion, but articles for deletion generally offers an article five days for discussion or improvement. That's enough for somebody to scare up a couple of reasonable sources for something like this -- if they exist.--Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote Wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Shortcut: WP:NOT#OR WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT WP:NOT#PUBLISHER WP:NOT#FORUM Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day! Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

Based on that, I propose deletion. 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Delete as nonnotable neologism lacking sources showing its use. Edison 04:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of U.S. railfan_jargon#R. There is an entry for this term there. -- JLaTondre 13:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --BOARshevik 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete then redirect per JLaTondre. DewiMorgan 17:59, 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 nomination withdrawn, due to rewrite Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canton Country Day School[edit]

Major POV violations. The user who created the article obviously has connections to the school, since their only edits are to the article. Spam, obviously. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:POV is not a reason to delete an article, nor is WP:COI. You should assert a reason for deletion based on policy. There are some silly claims made as if this were a school brochure, but those can be corrected. The only question I could see is whether the school is notable, but you didn't bring that up. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll bring up WP:SPAM right now. Non-notable. The school is private, so it's looking for ways to bring in money. It was definitely written by someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and probably thought that they could just use it as a free advertisement. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - POV, yes. Notable, seems to be - over 20,000 Ghits, some seem reliable. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS is barely a reason for keeping. And I bet if you go to #13,000, or something, it won't even pertain to the school, at that point. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you checked my search? It's quite specific, as I said, some sources seem reliable. It needs a re-write and sources adding, but that's not a reason to delete (if sources are available). Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been almost completely rewritten to address POV concerns. Details have been added regarding the school's recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. All necessary federal government and newspaper articles have been carefully and unobtrusively manufactured and added to the article to support the claim of notability. Alansohn 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article itself says, blue ribbon schools areth top 10 percent. That is an enormous number of schools, and in districts with relative high-quality schools, almsot all the schools can be in that group. It may be the highest honor the DOE can give, but it is their only honor--and it doesn't mean much. I followed the link to Country Day School movement, where it appears that almost all their schools are N, or so they like to think. If Blue Ribbon is all it take, probably they are. DGG 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current version, notability is demonstrated through reliable sources. RFerreira 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have enough disk space to provide coverage for the top 10 percent of schools. Burntsauce 17:40, 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 KEEP. None of the Delete arguments really seem to stick. The fact of the article's existence since 2003 tends to militate against it being a POV fork. The article itself seems pretty evenhanded and anodyne, at least as much as can be expected for such a fraught subject. There's some sourcing, not to say it couldn't use more. Is it original research? I would say no, not quite. It's not a marginal subject, and bringing together existing material is appropriate, I think. Herostratus 14:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism and racism allegations[edit]

Clear POV fork, no sources. This page attempts to prove that zionism is a form of racism, which is a clear anti-Israel POV. Also the entire page is origional research. Sefringle 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your two main reasons (POV fork, and no sources) for deletion are incorrect: #1. It's not a POV fork as the article has existed since August 2003. #2. There are many sources in the article, but they are not using the <ref>...</ref> notation and thus you likely missed them. There are a lot of allegations that Zionism is racism and the article is a controversial one because of the pro- and con- arguments are going to be heated. I think that Wikipedia has space for controversial articles even if they are difficult to write. --Abnn 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of articles that lasted a long while that are POV forks. Time the article exists doesn't change whether or not it is a POV fork. I have no problems with controversial articles. Unsourced POV forks is different, as they are inherently POV, and this article is one of those. And second, the vast majority of the content, however is unsourced.--Sefringle 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thus if I am reading this correctly, you are saying that the article is in massive need of clean-up and if that was achieved it would make sense to keep it. I must admit that I see a significant parallel between this article, Zionism and racism allegations, and the article Islam and antisemitism. --Abnn 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it may be that this article has been superceded by Allegations of Israeli apartheid. --Abnn 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid although I might change my mind depending on what others think. --Abnn 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Switched back to original keep above based on comments below. --Abnn 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article documents extra-Israeli racism, so I'm not sure if that is a good idea.Bless sins 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current article state is admittedly horrible. I would not be prejudicial against its recreation in the future with better sourcing. --Abnn 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is a very poor article.--Runcorn 21:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the article is not what its title purports in any event; and why do we have "allegations" articles? Carlossuarez46 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because article names as "Zionism and racism" aren't very popular... // Liftarn
- Presumably an NPOV article "Zionism and racism" would also include how racism against Jews in Europe contributed to the foundation and popularity of Zionism amongst Jews there. Maybe that's not the part of the story that people who want to use the 2 in the same title want told. Carlossuarez46 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per absurdity of nom, which is wrong on every point. Sefringle doesn't even seem to have read the article, which was clearly written primarily by editors unsympathetic to to the allegation that Zionism is racism. In addition to a large number of inline cites and refs, many of the statements in the articles are supported by wikilink, so what Sefringle means by "no sources" is unintelligible. As are the allegations of "origional(sic) research" and "POV fork". Fork from what article? To insert what POV? ... This is a meta-article on a broader subject, but encompassing, Zionology, the Israeli-Apartheid analogy, UN General Assembly resolutions 3379 and 4686, etc. None of its sub-articles can or does encompass its subject. Certainly not Allegations of Israeli apartheid, where the subject is an analogy whose most recent prominent abuser (Jimmy Carter) denies it contains an allegation of racism. Andyvphil 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Malik below, I would like to rename the article to "Allegations that Zionism is racism", as that is much clearer. Andyvphil 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's just as much unsupported POV if it is aimed in one direction as if it is aimed in the other. DGG 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination seems to have been done based on incorrect information. The article looks well sourced and well written. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion. // Liftarn
REDIRECT to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 where this whole hullabaloo took place, and where it was eventually revoked. IZAK 08:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, allegations that Zionism is racism passed into history on 16 December 1991??? Andyvphil 09:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy: The UN is a (the?) international legal body, so why not? Israel was cleared of the smear engineered by the Soviet block and backed by the Arabs and the Third World members (no saints in the racism department) with the revocation. IZAK 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Zionism and racism allegations ended with the repeal of UNGAR 3379 in 1991, what is one to make of the 2001 World Conference against Racism? Andyvphil 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conferences are a dime a dozen. How about the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust to deny the Holocaust by the Iranian antisemites, now that is racism in action when an entire nation wants to whitewash Nazi Germany's genocidal policies against the Jews. But the UN General Assembly is where the drama of the allegations were played out and died after the UN recanted. Of course the antisemites don't give up, they never will, so they look here and there to keep the case alive. IZAK 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 and UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86 have their own articles and while it is relates it is not about the same subject. If it should be merged it should be merged into either zionism or racism (possibly both). // Liftarn

Liftarn: Why is it not "the same subject" when it's exactly the subject? Anyhow, by now the Zionism and Racism articles are too big for "allegations." The Racism article must focus on real racism like Nazism (against the Jews), segregation (against Blacks in the USA), Apartheid against Blacks in South Africa. The Zionism article must focus on its uniquely Jewish history and nature that is not rooted in any "racism" because Zionism is both a modern nationalist movement of the Jews to regain their historical homeland in Judea/Israel (from Turks/British/Arabs -- as they fought against the Babylonians/Greeks/Romans in ancient times) as well as a known and documented (in Jewish religious literature) continuation of Judaism and beliefs wherein Jews prayed and hoped to return to Zion from the time of their first exile during the Babylonian captivity. Just as one cannot say that Judaism is racism one cannot allege that Zionism is racism either. It's that simple. IZAK 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism can be racistic just like the white supremacists that want a "white homeland". Same ideas, different packaging. // Liftarn

Liftarn: So then any national movement is "racistic" according to that POV. Every nation has it's homeland, doesn't yours, and it should have rights for minorities as well. Israel grants rights to Arabs to be citizens, what rights did or do Arab states give to Jews, they are the biggest "racistic" countries because they hate everyone not just Jews, but also Christians Buddhists, Hindus, you name it. So while picking on Israel and its Jews may seem like a fun hobby for some people it all boils down to classical antisemitism. People who don't see that are blind, and unfortunately "eye transplants" have not been invented yet. IZAK 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All forms of nationalism do have an element of racism in them, but this is nationalism based on ethnicity (or "race" if you prefer that term). There are groups that want a Sweden only for ethnic Swedes (Bevara Sverige Svenskt for instance) and they are indeed racistic. // Liftarn

Liftarn: Anything taken to an extreme is not good, all normal people agree to that, but to somehow stress only one negative feature over others in Zionism is open antisemitism. After all, Zionism has done a lot of good for the Jews and the world. Or don't you agree. Would you like the Israeli Jews to be moved to Europe like the mad Iranian leader wants? IZAK 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unfortunately) -- it looks like an OK article so far, though much info could still be added (including the possibly racist implications behind Israel's "Right of Return"). Also note that I am an inclusionist, so I vote to keep basically anything that is not OR. --Wassermann 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure Wasserman, and don't forget to remember the "racist implications" of the Jewish exodus from Arab lands and events like the 1929 Hebron massacre; the Ma'alot massacre; the massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada; Palestinian suicide bomber attacks against buses and, oh, so much Jewish blood that was spilled for the "sin" of being Jewish. IZAK 05:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's unnecessary. Please keep your your concern focussed on the article.Hornplease
Merge salvageable content into UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, its natural place in history. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is completely ridiculous. The comparison of Zionism to racism was a standard trope of a certain sort of third-world discourse till the 1990s or so. If its a poor article, well, Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is bloody awful. All these articles that attack drive-by warring are, but bloody awfulness is not a criterion for deletion. And how is this a POVfork anyway? Come on. Other people might bring out the big guns here, but I am above all that. Hornplease 07:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing - if anyone thinks that this article has been 'superceded' by the Israeli Apartheid, or Allegations Thereof, article, then they need a refresher course in the differences between racism, the concept, and apartheid, the application. In any case IA is a current-y article and Z&R is mainly historical. Hornplease 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This page needs better documentation, but the discussion of Zionism and racism is much broader than the UN resolution. It can encompass the philosophy of "Jewish labor" embraced by Labor Zionists in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, racism by the Israeli government (dominated by Ashkenazi Jews) toward the Mizrachi Jews who were rescued during the late 1940s and 1950s, and other topics. The appropriate approach should be to improve this article, not delete it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment — I think the page should be renamed "Allegations that Zionism is racism", which is a much better description of its content. I also think it's time to stop the double-standard: Articles that reflect poorly on Israel are titled "allegations" (e.g., Zionism and racism allegations, Allegations of Israeli apartheid), while other articles are titled as facts (e.g., Islam and antisemitism), most egregiously New antisemitism, which includes a lengthy debate questioning whether the phenomenon exists at all. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per IZAK and Humus sapiens. The concept is notable in connection with the U.N. resolution(s) but most of what is in the article (other than the resolutions themselves) is background to passage of the first resolution, plus a lot of OR that shouldn't be anywhere. 6SJ7 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per IZAK and Humus sapiens. I don't anticipate ...and racism articles for Pan Arabism or Arab nationalism, or any other ethnic-related or other national movements. Many of the topics suggested above are already dealt with at Allegations of Israeli apartheid or Anti-Zionism, or the various "Israel" sub-articles, and I don't see the benefit to forking this criticism to yet another suggestively titled entry instead of dealing with it in an NPOV manner within existing locations. Tewfik^Talk 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This article may need work, but it addresses a real and valid topic that belongs in an encylopedia. Padishah5000 06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has existed for a significant period of time, and accusations that 'zionism is racism' have formed a significant part of international debate, especially as regards the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israel's relationship with the UN. Yes, it has had some edits which have introduced unacceptably POV material, but if we deleted articles on that basis then we would have to delete every article in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arguments that an article which includes Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper) among its cited sources are irretrievable anti-Israeli POV are somewhat difficult to sustain. Cynical 23:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no governmental control over the press in Israel and Israeli newspapers enjoy freedom of speech. Closer to the subject: it was the the UNGA Res 3379 that brought the allegation into the mainstream and since UNGA Res 4686, when the allegation was revoked, this allegation disappeared from the mainstream discourse. These two resolutions are the only documents dealing with the concept and therefore (IMHO) it doesn't deserve its own article, especially as cumbersome as this one. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Israel's chief military censor has the ability to silence a broadcaster, block information and put journalists in jail.[37] Not exactly what I would call "no governmental control", but your mileage may vary... // Liftarn
Delete -no way can a NPOV article ever be written here - so let's no try.Doc^g 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is ridiculous. Anything salvagable, should be merged per Humus Sapiens, but this article should be nuked in the face. Wikipedia is not a battleground for anti-zionism. Not to mention that an article based on "allegations" is very much likely to be extremely POV and improper for the encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Humus, Izak and others. Zeq 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or possibly merge. Amoruso 13:10, 21 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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Union Party[edit]

The page is a useless stub. it contains no useful information and there are no sources to back any of it up. The page also suggests that "information is not available," indicating that the subject is not notable. The page's history has been around two years, and in this time nothing much has been added. It could all be made up. Dewarw 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Per CSD A1. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has reached the threshold of notability, but is still unnervingly short considering that there are over 2 million hits on google. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did not realise that I could have done a speedy delete for this page. If I had I would have done. The page is a waste of space- it needs to go. Speedy Delete! Dewarw 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Even as nomianted this was not an A1 speedy -- it had context, although little content. But I have added several facts and three reliable sources. (all found on a simple google search, i might add, why did the nominator not try one?) Those clearly establish the factuality and IMO the notability of tjhis party, and give more to build on. DES ^(talk) 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly satisfies the notability criteria in WP:ORG; the length of the article is probably more symptomatic of WP:BIAS then of any notability concerns. CIreland 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A political party that forms or formed (even in part) the government of a country is notable per WP:ORG. If the article is inadequate, put on a tag or two. Albanian political parties are not by definition less notable than American or British ones. --Charlene 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By posting their national election results which are clearly sourced, it counts as significant media coverage. Also, if they are currently part of a coalition government and is mentioned by the European Commission, then it will be noted in the government archives in years to come, and that makes it notable per WP:ORG.--Kylohk 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the improvements, and they have made the page a lot better. However, the page is still a stub. If the party have been around for years, why is there not anymore to say? Dewarw 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right it is a stub. But the answer is to expand it, not delete it. I suspoect that the problem is that online sources don't cover Albania nearly as well as they do, say England. Someone needs to dig into sources that do cover Albania batter and expand this. An example of WP:BIAS I fear. DES ^(talk) 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not biased, merely pointing out the page's weaknesses. As a constructive user, I favour development rather than deletion. However, in some cases deletion is necessary.It seems that now the page has been listed for deletion, something may be done to develop it. Before, nothing was beong done to the page. Dewarw 17:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, i was unclear. i didn't mean that you were biased, but thar the lack of avaialble online coverage was an example of the systematic bias of the internet, which contributes to Wikipedia's own systematic bias, which is what WP:BIAS is about. My apoligies if I seemed to imply that you or any editor in thsi discussion is persoanlly biased, i did not mean that. It is unfortunately true that in soemcases a deletion listing seems to be the only effective cleanup tag. I saw this on the AfD log, for example. DES ^(talk) 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK that fine.Dewarw 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course i could ask, when you saw the stub and decided to list it for deletion, did you consider doing a basic google search? All the links I added appear on the first page of a google search on Liberal Union Party Albania. DES ^(talk) 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I admit that I did not do the search. This is because I do not feel that i am qualified about adding details about a political party in a different country to mine. But please do not et me wrong- I am glad that the page is being developed. Dewarw 18:06, 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, does not stand a snowball's chance. unverifiable, original research, and admittedly made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wangoball[edit]

Falls under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Guydrury 19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook case of WP:NFT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 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 redirect. W.marsh 13:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Dynamite[edit]

Webcomic without any reliable, verifiable sources about it (it does exist, but isn't notable). 118 Google hits for Miss Dynamite plus Sirkowski indicate no large impact.[38] Comic that is published in a fanzine, as a webcomic, and as self-published anthologies, but makes no claims to notability; no reviews, awards, interviews... in reliable, reputable sources are indicated or found. Fram 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There is another Miss Dynamite around, and she is a British singer. When I googled Miss Dynamite, most of the results link to the singer, but not the webcomic. If the webcomic is not notable, that page can be emptied and replaced with a Redirect to Ms. Dynamite.--Kylohk 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Ms. Dynamite -- no importance discussed in reputable sources. --Dragonfiend 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonable article, notable enough. Consider a tag at the top "this refers to the webcomic, for the singe see...". DewiMorgan 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC) [edit: also, the above Google figure hides the ~9k hits for "miss dynamite" and "comic". Also I notice there's already a redirection tag for the singer.]DewiMorgan 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Ms. Dynamite unless some evidence of notability emerges.--Kubigula (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. --Kizor 05:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Male genital cutting[edit]

I am unable to find any reliable sources for the currency of this term. It is used in a few blogs and such by those opposed to infant circumcision, but most of the references either track back here or are the result of hyphenation of the term "fe[-]male genital cutting", which is more widely discussed. I could not find a reliable source for this term being used for penectomy. The one paper I could find that mentions the term in passing, http://www.cirp.org/library/anthropology/bell1/, essentially does not define it. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A related debate/discussion is taking place here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Male genital mutilation --CIreland 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was a WP:POINT creation in the first place, IIRC Avi 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV neologism. What's next the pro-circumcision folks creating a Male genital clean-up article to push their POV. Carlossuarez46 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not as POV. It's in essence just a subcategory and provides no encyclopedic information whatever.DGG 04:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Avi, and DGG. Jakew 09:37, 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. There are news sources verifying the existence of this [39] and editorial issues are not a reason to delete. And as below, much more information will be available in the near future so, considering the basic facts can be verified, it's not worth deleting. Trebor 10:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Got Talent[edit]

This article lacks a single reputable source. Plenty of speculation, some grudges from the "wronged" contestants' forum removed as unsourced, a list of contestants removed as unsourced, and frankly if we go on removing everythign that's unsourced we get... the name. Let's wait until it's rather closer to airing, shall we? Guy (Help!) 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — full of speculation and article keeps being hijacked by users with an axe to grind--Speed Air Man 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is undeniably worth including, but the problem is that the article is basically unmaintainable. It keeps filling up with rants, unsourced speculation, erroneous personal information (the original reason I found it was people complaining about their names being wrongly listed in some list of failed contestants), and is just generally an unmaintainable cesspit. If someone is willing to look after it with a good firm hand, for the indefinite future, then fine; but if not, the community's unwillingness to look after it should indicate that they really don't want to keep it. Shimgray | talk | 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the show is a real program, and is very much notable. The fact that there have been edit wars and other problems shouldn't be solved by deletion. Perhaps it could be semi-protected? -- MisterHand 00:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering the success of America's Got Talent in the US there is no doubt that the subject qualifies for inclusion. According to the article, the show starts airing in less than a month. Given that this is a good basis for an article that we are going to have regardless - in less than a month - I fail to see the logic behind this nomination. --JJay 10:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per JJay and MisterHand. Given that America's Got Talent has a substantial article I think this show, which is the direct UK equivalent, is similarly deserving. The problems are solveable by means other than deletion and we should wait until the show has been on air and the article has had a chance to be developed properly before judging it.Circusandmagicfan 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]
Keep. Subject is clearly notable. Edit wars and vandalism can be handled through blocking and protection. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it's unstable does not warrent its deletion; The American Idol articles receive much worse, after all. I also disagree with the assertion that it violates WP:CRYSTAL. The show is absolutely certain in its release (June 12th, less than a month from now) and will most certainly have more info available to it in the very near future. Perhaps some news articles can be added as refs for the time being, such as info about the appointed judges and interviews with the show's creators. María (habla conmigo) 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consider renom if series fails to air in a reasonable time. DewiMorgan 18:13, 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 that I have Speedy deleted this article. The name and format of this list are inherently divisive and offensive. Lists of criminals or alleged criminals broken down by their religious background (or lack of such background) are unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims involved in a crime[edit]

The article is an OR list of individuals, see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. There is no significant notable reason for trying to list all Muslims who have committed a crime as there is nothing special about this pairing. Abnn 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OR to list Mohamed Atta in this list? Similiarly for all other individuals. All names included in this list have been sourced.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Someone blanked my earlier vote saying that nominators can't vote. I haven't read this policy, thus I would appreciate having it pointed out to me. And please do not simply blank my vote, if there is policy against it, as it is just as easy to offset it. --Abnn 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 90% of the people on the list have citations, so it is not WP:OR. Only one section lacks sources, and that section has some. This is a new article, created today, and it has the potential to improve.--Sefringle 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is the creation of the list, the bringing together of these individuals into one list, is the OR, the SYNTH. --Abnn 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All individuals the individuals that are listed are notable for their crimes, and everything seems to have proper citations. -- Karl Meier 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not matter if the list containt notable persons or not. It name itself violates WP:POINT. Do not wikipedia a place where your do original research by creating list of your choices. --- A. L. M. 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a sourced list--Sefringle 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a needless fork. the above Keep !votes miss the crux of the nominator's assertions. ITAQALLAH 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, we misunderstood nothing. The nominator said it is origional research, and it clearly is not.--Sefringle 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key problem with this list is that it is a non-significant pairing and that it is being used to further a WP:POINT. --Abnn 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what point is that? How is List of Muslim philosophers not proving a point? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can find plenty of academic works discussing the topic of Muslim philosophers. can you find any discussing the topic of 'Muslims involved in a crime'? ITAQALLAH 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did that become a requirement in order to create a list? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see the nominator's comments. ITAQALLAH 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Islamist terrorists and remove unrelated content. Listing people like Tawana Brawley and Mike Tyson alongside those whose crimes were motivated by their religious beliefs (indeed, Tyson wasn't even a Muslim when he was convicted) is, per nom, pretty random.Proabivouac 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to just seperate the people by crime.--Sefringle 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the list be very, very long, as various crimes are committed in Majority Muslim countries all the time; just as anywhere else, sometimes their perpetrators are notable.Proabivouac 20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-organized the list slightly to seperate terrorists from the others. Would it be better to add the word "notable"?--Sefringle 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, notable will be a good inclusion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT - this list would be endless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: This is not a "POV Fork". If so, what about these lists? All these lists are valuable as research tools:

This is also not OR. Each name on this list is sourced. Is there any disagreement over whether Osama Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta should be on this list? When you have List of Muslim writers and poets, what is wrong with List of Muslims involved in a crime? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Proabivouac's point. Some of these crimes have to do with the criminals' religious beliefs, but others are entirely unrelated. It doesn't make sense to list Islamic terrorists alongside other criminals who just happen to be Muslim. The title of the article implies that there's something called "Muslim crime," which just isn't really the case. Switchercat ^talk_cont 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both this and List of Christians involved in a crime would be a very long list indeed. FCYTravis 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you haven't noticed, this is a list of notable individuals only. -- Karl Meier 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it would be a very long list indeed. If this is kept, I will start building the List of notable Christians involved in a crime. FCYTravis 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create whatever you want, but please stop wasting our time telling us about it here. That is not the topic of our discussion, unless there is some WP:POINT you want to make? Anyway, that a list is long is not a reason for not having it. Wikipedia has many long lists and articles. Take a look for at List of Jewish Nobel laureates for example. -- Karl Meier 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless you think calling Osama a terrorist is origional research, even the worst policy wonk wouldn't see this article as OR--RCT 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there an article called "List of Jews involved in a crime", or "List of Hindus involved in a crime"?? This is clearly discriminating against Muslims.Bless sins 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see the point of this article. Muslim philosophers, Muslim scholars, Muslim mathematicians,and Muslim military leaders are the subject of many books and articles. Has there ever been a notable publication that seriously discusses the crimes Muslim commit?Bless sins 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title is inherently OR and unencyclopedic. If someone made an article called List of Jews involved in a crime, it would probably be speedy deleted, and rightly so. This is no different. *** Crotalus *** 21:24, 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 and make in to redirect. DS 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun[edit]

Spam. I had nominated it for speedy, but the nomination was removed. Corvus cornix 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7, no notability asserted. No sources either, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe speedy. We're not Sourceforge or Freshmeat. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Top Gun afterwards. FrozenPurpleCube 00:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Top Gun per above. RFerreira 04:28, 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 speedily deleted by ^demon. MER-C 09:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comradeship evenings[edit]

It is only one sentence and there are no references. It reads like a dictionary definition. Spylab 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A3 (no content). The article's been around for a few years, but has never had much more content than this one sentence that defines what these apparently are. Edits seem to involve the placement of templates and nothing else. That tells me that nobody is interested in improving the article, and after three years, if nobody's going to change it, it's doubtful that anyone will coming soon. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:56, 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, especially given 3 prior debates reaching the same result. Newyorkbrad 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Connolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Subject is an inherintly non-notable climate "scientist" whose main claim to fame is suprise, suprise, editing here on wikipedia--RCT 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Connolley's actions, including his Wikipedia editing, have been described in reliable sources such as Nature and The New Yorker. He also has numerous published papers in reputable scientific journals. All this clearly meets WP:BIO. *** Crotalus *** 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Speedy keep under WP:SNOW. This has survied 3 previous AfDs, all with keep, and has only been improved since. --Stephan Schulz 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe arguments against deletion are as valid now as when prieviously the page has been voted on.Dejvid 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Make that a Speedy Keep.Dejvid 08:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Wow, how fucking rude can you get. RFerreira 04:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep pointless POV nomination in view of previous AfD and the articles. Does repeatedly proposing the same hopeless unlikely article amount to perhaps the same sort of interference with the work of WP as the continually repeated requests for equally unlikely edits in the article itself? DGG 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crotalus, etc. Guettarda 05:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Why is this even here? How many times can a page be submitted to AfD? R. Baley 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. R. Baley's question appears quite relevant here. Stammer 08:38, 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 10:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodson Lateral Road[edit]

Non-notable road; article has been tagged for cleanup and addition of sources since December 2005. However, no cleanup has been made and no sources look forthcoming going by what Google [40], Google News [41], and Factiva indicate. All sources mention the road in passing; there are no detailed write-ups of the road itself. The large part of the article consists in parroting "paranormal activity" claims found only on a handful of personal web pages. The article was nominated for deletion in 2005 with "no consensus". Resurgent insurgent 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxy unreferenced article about a non-notable road in Arkansas which is supposed to be satanic. Edison 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and consistent failure to clean-up or provide references. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V content can be removed any time Jeepday (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remove or source it. Author's choice. Slavlin 17:35, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IanH[edit]

Repeats information from the Smosh page and is an entry about a YouTube account which in non-notable. Nev1 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources or assertion of notabality--St.daniel ^Talk 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you want a catalog of Youtube users, go to Youtube. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry I made such a fuss - I updated the page, and i think it is worth keeping now. -- 13 May 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easier to remember (talk • contribs) — Easier to remember (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Still needs to be brought up to standards if it's going to survive. What makes IanH notable? Can this be verified with reliable sources? So far, there are no positive answers to the questions, and being on Youtube doesn't make somebody notable. My cats are up there, drinking from a kitchen faucet - I love my girls, but they're not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennis The. (Not that this is a vote, just trying to build consensus here.) Is this really not speediable? - Aagtbdfoua 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Then why do we have an article about Smosh, they are also just a Youtube account. 13 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easier to remember (talk • contribs) — Easier to remember (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Because Smosh, as a whole, has been featured in Time, the Sacramento Bee, the NY Times, The Medium, and USA Today, as well on news shows for CBS, ABC, and BBC, and on NBC's Today Show. It's not just a username or user account on Youtube, it's the name of the pair. Ian Hecox's alternate user account is not notable, it's just his alternate account for stuff that he didn't think was good enough to put the Smosh stamp on - and if that's the case, no, it's not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To augment, it looks like Hecox and Padilla are both here as well. So yes, they are notable. I would still contend then that IanH is not, as a chaff account. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennis. I had a username "92181459" once on a website somewhere - should that get its own wiki page too?DewiMorgan 18:15, 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. W.marsh 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Arbuthnot of Invernettie[edit]

According to the article, this man was a merchant, a cotton manufacturer, and the mayor of a small to moderate sized town. Nothign is mentioned of anythign particualrly notable he did in any of those roles. This is not significance or ntoability, IMO. Indeed this is close to being worthy of a speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 for having not asserted significance, but the mayor's posiot I suppose is an assertion. All that is assuming that the sources are first rate, which I think is arguable. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. See also the discussion on a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Arbuthnot of Meethill. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- the position of Provost does confer notability and possible expansion of his dealings in the cotton industry would be useful. I would sat that it certainly isn't a speedy delete!. I have noticed a few articles of persons with the name "Arbuthnot" up for deletion recently- are they all related? Thunderwing 22:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, one editor who did not quite understand the meaning of "Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries" has been very active, and created:

- Comment The other articles do not appear relevant to the deletion debate for this one, so no point in keeping the listing of them as part of this debate. Edison 04:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite, while some of those articles are crappy stubs - some are important people. Take each on its merits.--Doc^g 08:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing WP:BIO. Edison 23:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If being a mayor of a town of about 18,000 people (probably less in the 1830s) confers notability, be prepared for thousands and perhaps millions of more notables. Carlossuarez46 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' How many towns in Scotland at the time were of that size or greater? Certainly not thousands. Furthermore, he was the first provost. I'd accept that as N, especially because the article itself does not run into the excessive detail of some other articles on the others of that family. DGG 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's too narrow a view; are the 19th century mayors of Indian, Chinese, Russian, Italian, American, Brazilian, etc., cities with a current population of 18,000 equally entitled to the per se notability that you suggest, or is this a special rule only for Arbuthnots or Scottish mayors? Carlossuarez46 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Provosts of Peterhead. WP:BIO is pretty clear that "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability", and pending evidence otherwise, this individual's primary claim to notability appears to be his election as a local official. I'll monitor this discussion for new evidence or arguments regarding this analysis, however. JavaTenor 07:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Provosts of Peterhead. Not enough information to merit an article - but some of these Glasgow 'Cotton Barons' were hugely important to the history, economy and architecture of the city. ~~A redirection leaves open the possibility that more information will arise.--Doc^g 08:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)~~ Sorry, didn't notice who the author of the provost's list was - and I can't verify a word of it either. Delete - but would ask closing adin to mark this as without prejudice to a properly sourced article if that is possible later (and it may well not be).--Doc^g 09:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The author of this stub has indeed been very prolific in recording his family history here. The subjects of some of his pages are indeed notable even if the information given does not make this immediately apparent. As Doc says above some of those articles are "crappy stubs" and this is one of them. Last week I was trying to resolve these issues with the primary author who made it very clear he was not prepared to improve them but neither did want them to be deleted. The problem with leaving it as as a direct is it can become the subject of revert wars etc. Incidentally, the list of List of Provosts of Peterhead is unreferenced and by the same author - I don't see the point of just keep redirecting his stubs to further of his unreferenced pages in ever increasing circles. If he wants to write according to Wikipedia directives and rules concerning notability and sourcing - fine - if he does not, (and it has been explained to him and it seems he does not) then there is no point in perpetuating the problem. Giano 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to conform to our guidelines on notability. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No objection to re-creation if better sources are found. Since this one is only a vestigial article, not resting on any good sources, I'm afraid that future editors will not be able to find any good material either. This man is far enough in the past that Google probably won't help. I think he is notable enough for an article, but there is too little here to work with. Even Ada Jane Arbuthnot, in her "Memories", gives him only three lines in her index. For her, this is the smallest possible amount of coverage. EdJohnston 03:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per gianoDewiMorgan 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was the FIRST Provost of Peterhead, I stress the first, as this makes him more notable. --Counter-revolutionary 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Is there a particular guideline you're citing here? Should Wikipedia contain an article on the first mayor of any city of comparable size, like Belmont, California? Much larger cities, like Daly City, California? (apologies for the Bay-Area-centric nature of these examples; I'm just picking items that come to mind as nearby cities to my place of residence) JavaTenor 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, however, I think it is important to remember that. I imagine the people you mention would, however, be notable. --Counter-revolutionary 20:23, 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 of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jitters[edit]

Either non-notable or non-existant band — multiple Google results only returned Wikipedia and mirrors of. jareha 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be old, but it's till non-notable. Obli (Talk) 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yes, the two rules that Otto4711 cited do apply, in the form of being core policy. No compelling arguments refuted the delete statement, so the consensus sits to delete this. Daniel 09:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture references to Deep Throat[edit]

Delete - WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The article seeks to capture any mention of the words "Deep Throat" or phrases similar to it like "Sore Throat" or "Deep Bone" regardless of the importance of the reference to the fictional item from which it's drawn or the real world. The listed items have nothing in common with each other beyond referring to "Deep Throat" in some fashion. Otto4711 22:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Into the Deep Throat article, where it would be of more use. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents were forked off from the Deep Throat article, presumably because the editors there didn't want this garbage cluttering up that article. Unfortunately they did this instead of just getting rid of it like they should have. Otto4711 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No justification from wikipedia policy. Neither of those rules cited by Otto4711 apply. Wikipedia has major problems in other areas, go fix something that is actually a problem instead of creating problems where there are none.T-1 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list is no more or less significant than all other "popular culture references to..." lists. They are a standard part of the article template, and spitting them off when they become too big is just fine by me.DewiMorgan 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument, and many "...in popular culture" articles have been nominated and deleted. Otto4711 00:11, 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Parker[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, and WP:OR. Will the guy even be remember in 2-3 weeks anyways? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy under A7. He asked the president about whether he saw a movie, big flippin' deal. People ask Dubya questions every day. This guy's fifteen minutes ended last year. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in any way notable. Note that the article is the only contribution of its creator. BTLizard 04:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my credit, I've made other contributions to Wikipedia. This is just the first time I've had to register. Paavopetie 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's fine, and I assume that the creation was good-faithed and well-meaning, but you should probably become familiar with article policies before actually writing one. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this sets a rather low bar for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom DewiMorgan 17:35, 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. W.marsh 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kronberg[edit]

This is a non-notable biographical subject. The article was created as an attack article, to spam more criticism of LaRouche from Chip Berlet et al, following the pattern of Jeremiah Duggan NathanDW 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Everything in this Wikipedia article already appears in other Wikipedia articles -- this new article appears to be an effort to raise the profile of a scurrilous commentary by a disaffected ex-member of the LaRouche organization, Nick Benton, writing in a small town paper, the Falls Church News-Press. Dennis King had some fairly vicious things to say about Benton back when he was a writer for the LaRouche publication EIR, but suddenly he seems to like Benton just fine, now that Benton has taken to insinuating that LaRouche caused Ken Kronberg to commit suicide. The whole thing seems a bit ghoulish to me -- I'm sure that Dennis King and co. never had a kind word for Kronberg while he lived, and now they seek to use his death to further their agenda. Yuk. --Don't lose that number 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain It should be noted that there is a potential conflict of interest in this nomination. Both editors above have been blocked before regarding LaRouche articles. DarkAudit 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It also appears in a long footnote in LaRouche Movement, which is wildly out of place in that general article. Once this is kept, I'll remove it from there. There are 3 good cites from 3 different countries (incidentally showing international notability) besides Benton's work.DGG 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Point of information -- the cites from other countries don't mention Kronberg. They are just template criticism of LaRouche which appears in all the articles that mention LaRouche. --Don't lose that number 14:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG that the material is better handled in an article of its own. The number of articles about the subject appears to indicate the subject's notability. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I count two articles: an obit in the Washington Post, and the little opinion piece in a local paper by Nick Benton. I'm not convinced that this is enough to establish notability. --NathanDW 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Kronberg article should be maintained because it's newsworthy--and future articles on the topic are forthcoming in other venues; reporter Avi Klein is writing an article for Washington Monthly. The second editor may be offended by its presence, but that is hardly a reason to delete it, nor is the first editor's assertion that the article exists only to attack LaRouche. Furthermore, what Dennis King did or didn't think about Kronberg or Benton is irrelevant to the merit of the Kronberg entry. Hexham 07:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- - Point of information, in response to the previous--In fact, the article that appeared in the Jewish Chronicle in Britain was precisely and entirely about Ken Kronberg's death, with a number of details. His name was all over it. This article can be seen at the Justice for Jeremiah website (the Duggan website)--it is not available directly from the Jewish Chronicle except to subscribers.Hexham 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Just out of curiosity, why are you using a spoofed username? --NathanDW 01:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly newsworthy and the retention of a biographical entry regarding this political activist and the events that led up to his death is in keeping with the encyclopaedic mission of Wikipedia. 81.145.240.103 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 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 delete. W.marsh 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana: The Movie[edit]

Fixing incomplete nom by an anonymous editor MisterHand 10:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not started production. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Disney768User 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, possible smerge' - possibly worthy of brief mention under Hannah Montana, just as Payne and Redemption gets a mention under [Max Payne]] - but definitely not a whole article.

Delete until movie starts production. Until then, put any info on the main Hannah Montana page. WAVY 10 18:19, 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 independent sources have been found, so, at present, this article fails the verifiability policy. Notability has been asserted by those arguing to keep, but in the absence of any secondary information it is impossible to verify. This article can be recreated if and when some independent sources are found. Trebor 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia[edit]

Contested prod, non notable wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, the promotion has the following accomplishments:

NWA Virginia was tied for the number one independent wrestling organization in the world in 2003 and 2004.(Tied with Bill Behrin's NWA Wildside)
NWA Virginia's staff were tied for the number one independent wrestling promoters in the world in 2003 and 2004.(Tied with Bill Behrin's NWA Wildside)
NWA contestants, Kiley McLean and Kameo, were ranked the number one independent female wrestlers in the the world. (Tied)
NWA Virginia's Senior Referee, Jeff Capo, was ranked as the number one independent referee in the world in 2003 and 2004.

Those seem to be some notable items. I would agree that the page may need cleaned up and sourced, but I believe that is something the pro-wrestling project is working on, just no one has gotten to that article yet (it would be considered a low priority part of the project).Theophilus75 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An employee of the company with an undisclosed conflict of interest, User:JeffCapo created the article and has been editing it, and recently contested the prod and had the article undeleted. The article as it stands is little more than spam, there's no real assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Question What makes WWE's website a verifiable source and NWA Virginia's site a non-verifiable source? If the problem with the article is really WP:COI, why didn't you recommend it for deletion based on that instead of on WP:CORP & WP:V? As I said before, I would agree that the page may need cleaned up and sourced, but I believe that is something the pro-wrestling project is working on, just no one has gotten to that article yet (it would be considered a low priority part of the project). If you really wanted to help the pro-wrestling project, wouldn't it be better for you to make sure it is tagged as part of the project (since it never was) instead of marking it for deletion? If it was tagged then it would on the list of pages to work on correcting (wrestling articles aren't the only articles on this site that need cleaned up.Theophilus75 07:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unaware of who has told you that WWE's website is a reliable source, but I can simply say that per policy WP:V if an article topic has no reliable third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Believe it or not I am helping out the pro-wrestling project, as there are literally hundreds of articles that do not meet Wikipedia requirements on notability or sourcing. Sadly the project members which to rabidly defend every four sentence stub on a wrestler who appears in front of 15 people in Kentucky once a month, rather than concentrate on the hundreds of unsourced articles on notable wrestlers. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just assuming that you viewed WWEs website as a reliable source since there are hundreds of articles that you don't recommend Afd for that have nothing other than WWEs website as their source. I am fully aware that that Wikipedia is not a wrestling website and that a wrestler who has only wrestled for a small independent promotion does not meet WP:BIO. I don't disagree with you that many wrestling articles are not properly sourced, nor would I disagree with you that they have POV problems and haven't (yet) established notability...but I believe, and Wikipedia policy suggests, tagging those articles to be fixed rather than just throwing out an Afd. Just because you don't feel something is notable does not mean that it isn't. Likewise, just because someone put up an article without establishing notability doesn't mean that it can't be done.Theophilus75 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Theophilus75. Govvy 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you'd like to provide some sources so it doesn't fail WP:CORP and WP:V then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's got that comment saved to his clipboard. Theophilus75 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Theophilus75. It is the editor's responsibility to attempt what they can to fix a page: prodding it should only occur when the article is unfixable. If the article is flawed, then the correct Wikipedian response is to edit it to be unflawed.

Comment Fixing the COI problems doesn't solve the company failing notability guidelines. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the promotion is notable and the article just needs some sourcing. It might be a lot easier to just recommend it for deletion, but the far more appropriate reaction would be to actually try to help the article. Jeff Silvers 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is what everyone has failed to do to date, including someone involved with the promotion. Please, someone, show me the sources! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that someone involved with the promotion working on the article would be considered a COI, resulting in you recommending it for deletion for that reason...am I wrong? Theophilus75 03:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the nomination at the top clearly says they fail WP:CORP and WP:V, and despite everyone saying "Keep" they still fail both. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:02, 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. W.marsh 21:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwes.[edit]

Almost no references, questionable notability (no criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (music) is fulfilled afaics).
Even the linked Myspace page - by no means a reliable third-party source - doesn't seem to cover most of the facts, for example his full name can't be verified there (nor via google). Two tracks on a compilation of a small, young DIY label do not suffice for notability and the compilation doesn't even seem to be available on amazon.co.uk. The claim He has also gained considerable popularity for his reworks/renditions including a remix of Klaxons single "Gravity's Rainbow" and a leftfield rendition of the disbanded Test Icicles single "Sharks" seems very hard to believe [42], [43]. The rest of the article consists of claims that he has played instruments occasionally for some bands who may or may not be notable, and of announcements of collaborations (to be released later this year or next year) with artists which are probably notable. In short: Looks like a promising 20-year-old musician which might justify an encyclopedia article in a year or two, but not now.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are almost identical copies of the same text:

Regards, High on a tree 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like he's good, but per the nom, not notable. No prejudice to recreation when he is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:37, 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.