< May 14 May 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was the page has already been speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Prolog 18:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave of American Metal (third nomination)[edit]

New Wave of American Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NWOAM is not a genre by itself, but more of a movement. There are no specfic ways the bands sound to label them NWOAM. A more correct term would be Metalcore, since infact, NWOAM bands like Shadows Fall, Lamb of God, and the such are labeled as Metalcore musically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BodomsChild616 (talk • contribs).

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gardiner (television presenter)[edit]

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

Non-notable and woefully undersourced.Soo 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, and only outside link provides no information about the subject. KJS77 00:09, 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 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Babulja[edit]

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

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. One Night In Hackney303 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:15, 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 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Torrone[edit]

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

Non-notable. (I previously speedied it but was asked to bring it to AFD by Akadruid, and he/she is probably right: it deserves a debate.) —METS501 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:20, 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 am not seeing that this has the reliable sources to meet WP:WEB W.marsh 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter's Space Page[edit]

Gunter's Space Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notibility - Davandron | Talk 00:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: Please show us the links that you find reputable. When I look at this google search, I only see one result that is an accolade, where Gunter was a "space site of the week for May 1997" and that site (Students for the Exploration and Development of Space) was promoting two sites every week for a decade (not exact exclusive). - Davandron | Talk 13:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
**Comment: :Please note that the first is actually here in Wikipedia where Gunter's Space Page is actually listed in the reference material. I would also point out the Aerospaceguide as a reliable source. Do I need to continue:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage) seds.org/spaceviews/award/9705.html www.firstmatter.com/newsletter/sidebar.asp www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm www.aerospaceguide.net/spacelinks.html Shoessss 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example following NASA and governmental Sites and documents use Gunter's Space Flight as References
i hope this helps. --Armchair Astronaut 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am confused; it seems you are saying since the site is used as a reference, then it should be an article entry? How does this satisfy the notibility criteria? - Davandron | Talk 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Davandron | Talk, No, you are right in that aspect. However, I thought I complied with your request for additional reliable sources as both I and --Armchair Astronaut provided in our response. Let me ask it in a different way. Would you like additional sources cited other than the ones mentioned above? Shoessss talk
1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself
I see no proof of this, nor is it mentioned in the article.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization
I haven't seen this on the site or in the article entry.
3. < doesn't appear relivent. >
Additionally, WP:WEB states: Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance.
At current, the article is minimal / missing in this regard.
I love the site and have used it as a reference, but don't think it warrents its own wiki entry, based on the above. - Davandron | Talk 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Davandron. LanceBarber 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, if i my entry does not follow the rules for pages on wikipedia. As i am doing research on the topic of the history of spaceflight, i think, that Gunter's Space Page, as well as the already included Encyclopedia Astronautica and Jonathan's Space Report are the most comprehensive and reliable sources for data on spaceflight. Although it is a privat website (as well as the other two mentioned) i think it is worth mentioning as a reference work on this admittedly very special topic. I have noticed, that this page is mentioned as reference also on a large number of spaceflight articles here in Wikipedia (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Gunter's_Space_Page) ---Armchair Astronaut 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very good that Gunter's external site is referenced by many internal articles, along with thousands of other external references, but that does not constitute the reasoning for Gunter's having it own Wiki article. Think of this... would you be able to write an article on Gunter's that could be of significance such one might find the information important enough to be in Britannica or World Book or Funk and Wagnalls? If so, charge ahead. Just because a external site is very popular does not warrant being an article on its own. Side note, I added a new article a few months ago and was challenged as you are; this forced me to rewrite the aritcle in such of way it as it added to an encyclopedia environment. Find other articles that parallel the scope of Gunter's and persue its development. Good Luck. LanceBarber 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BPP Professional Education[edit]

BPP Professional Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable educational institution. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since Sept 2006 and still has no reliable sources. Caknuck 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this page is of little importance and not notable. The editing seems careless (Capitalization errors) from this, I assume that this might be a piece of Vandalisim. GreaterWikiholic 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Speedy Delete under CSDA7 -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 00:24, 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. There is an overwhelming consensus to delete, and there are no arguments to keep, so closing early. --Coredesat 03:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular tourist regions[edit]

List of popular tourist regions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - an unmaintainable, unsourced collection of 191 kb of data that is more-or-less a list of anyone's and everyone's personal preferences of what tourist regions are "popular". There are no objective criteria, no sourcing to see whether each entry has met those criteria, and while a couple of editors have suggested depopulating and merging or questioning why countries without much tourism get an undue number of "popular" regions listed, this list in not useful; we have plenty of articles of the Tourism in Fooland, so this monster list is unneeded and the data (unsourced as it is) is "captured" or "capturable" elsewhere. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pine-Light[edit]

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

Created back in December and still no supporting references, or even so much as a bibliography. I have never heard of this creature, and neither has Google apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Probably unverifiable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 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. Sr13 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shit sandwich[edit]

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

The only source is Urban Dictionary, and the South Park, Spinal Tap, and MST3K references seem sketchy at best Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:15, 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 Withdrawn -- Y not? 12:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana Dyachenko[edit]

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

Notability by association. No secondary sources. Delete. -- Y not? 02:36, 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. Sr13 02:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chya[edit]

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

UD=only source Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was an uncompromisingly harsh delete. Krimpet (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh talent show judge[edit]

Harsh talent show judge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. Article was tagged within 3 minutes of its creation as original research, and a comment asking for sources was made in the edit summary. That was 4 months ago, since then the creator and only contributor to the article has continued to edit it, but of course no sources have been added. Even if sources were found, this isn't a notable enough phenomenon in itself to warrant a stand-alone article. Are we going to have Reassuring female talent show judge as well? Masaruemoto 01:56, 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 delete. Sr13 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoYay[edit]

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

UnsouYay Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:46, 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, no secondary "sauces" were found --Steve (Stephen) talk

Mambo sauce[edit]

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

unsourced, only exlink is UD Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:48, 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 rename to Beer can pyramid. Sr13 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beeramid[edit]

Beeramid was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-10. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beeramid (old).
Beeramid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no reliable sources, neologism, etc Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:52, 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 shoot on sight. Krimpet (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ch00n[edit]

Ch00n (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

neologism Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:52, 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 14:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Life Less Plagued[edit]

A Life Less Plagued (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article claims notability for the album but is unreferenced and, frankly, absurd ("one of the best/most influential records of the decade") Dchall1 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodrat (slang)[edit]

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

no RS Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:57, 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 disambiguate. WjBscribe 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Suavé[edit]

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

only source is UD Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:59, 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 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zonino[edit]

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

UD and vanity sources. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 03:00, 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. W.marsh 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Theis[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler who had 15 minutes in a big league, no reliable sources except wrestling fan sites, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Wrestlecrap entry is a blatant lie by MadMax. A search of the site in question shows this is the article in question, and apart from in the title there is no mention of him at all. What pray tell is the other reliable non trivial reference? One Night In Hackney303 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the lack of reply, I'll assume he means the book which can be viewed here. The relevant part reads A few, such as Mondo Kleen-who was briefly featured in a series of WWF matches as Damien Demento-I am told have come to wrestling from professional football, although later I learn this bit of biography is a fiction. So one source doesn't mention him at all except in the title, and the other perfectly fits the definition of trivial according to WP:BIO. So contrary to the claim, there are no non trivial reliable sources. One Night In Hackney303 08:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I've explained on Dean Peters, Wrestlecrap.com no longer has their articles only save for weekly "classic crap" updates (see: [4]). Again, if you refer to the search results Hackney refers to, his article "Damien Demento: He's Crazy...CRAZY, I Tells Ya!" was recently posted in last weeks "classic crap". For those unfamilar with the website, R.D. Reynolds has written a large number of wrestling articles over the past several years which can be seen here. I would hope this settles anyone's doubts regarding his inclusion into the website. MadMax 09:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The link provided on the list of search results goes directly to the article I've linked above, which has the same title but no content about Demian Demento. If as you've claimed above it was posted in a "classic crap" update, why isn't it on the site as you claimed it should be? Also if it's no longer on the site, it's not a source is it? Nobody can verify any of the information from it can they? One Night In Hackney303 09:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, unless I am mistaken, just cause it was removed from a site does not mean that the source never existed. That is why it is wise to take your sources with access dates. I've seen several articles on Wikipedia whose sources are web pages that are no longer active, but their last access date is listed in the references and the concensus is that is acceptable. Theophilus75 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It no longer goes to the article because, as I've explained, it was reposted last week will not be available until the next time it is reposted. However, in regards to your comments, I never claimed an article would be at the address for this weeks repost nor did I even cite the address in the article or this discussion. What I had said was that there had been a Wrestlecrap entry previously written on Damien Demento. If you'll notice, I included a list of prior inductions from the website prior to its brief shutdown in 2001. This does verify that an independent relable biography was written about him, as the list I provided shows. However, if believe it nessessary, you're certainly free to contact R.D. Reynolds himself to confirm he has written a biography on Damien Demento as his e-mail address is available through his website. MadMax 09:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What "list"? You provided an alleged source that nobody can see, and falsely claimed a book was a non-trivial source. We've only got your word that the alleged biography is non-trivial, and based on you claiming the book was non-trivial I'm unwilling to assume good faith. One Night In Hackney303 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT WHAT LIST!!!! WHAT LIST!!!! I'm trying to remain civil towards yo Hackney, but you question that things are there that are OBVIOUSLY there, you call MadMax a lier, and you don't seem open to being wrong...EVER! I'm beginning to wonder if you are a few cards short of a full deck or intentionally being a dick. MadMax provided a link to the page listing previous articles (and said as much), and the page lists the article he referred to. If you are a few cards short, then please re-read things a few time and scrutinize articles a little more before make Afd recommendations or commenting on Afd comment pages. If you are just plain being a dick...STOP! Theophilus75 17:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's because of people like you Hackney that WP:IAR is a policy (I believe the first policy) here at Wikipedia. Theophilus75 17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He was NOT only on TV once. He was on TV dozens of times, however his most NOTABLE appearance when was he was jobber squashed in the first episode of Raw. He was on Raw six times through 1993 and wrestled in the Royal Rumble, the main event of what was WWF's third biggest PPV at the time. As only 30 men were in the Rumble, that meant that at that point in time, he was in the WWF's top 30 wrestlers and by default since the WWF had most of the name wrestlers at the time, in the top 50 wrestlers in the world. -Drdisque 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps you'd like to provide some non-trivial sources, rather than ones with his name on a page then? One Night In Hackney303 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources were intended to show the extent of his performance on worldwide television, not to stand up as literary works devoted to the guy. -Drdisque 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm aware of that, just without reliable sources it's impossible for an encyclopedic article to be written. One Night In Hackney303 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just went from saying the source was trivial to then saying it was unreliable. Those are completely different things. I have no reason to believe that the source is not reliable. What incentive would one have to lie about who was in the 1993 Royal Rumble? Also, please note that three non-list article-space articles link to the one in question. Deleting this article would break those links. Isn't that the opposite of what we're trying to do here? -Drdisque 16:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No I didn't. I said the existing sources were trivial, and asked for other sources. Those were the reliable source being referred to, which have yet to be provided. One Night In Hackney303 08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided two reliable sources. Get off your high horse and open your eyes. -Drdisque 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JulesH wrestling is a sport! Govvy 18:14, 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 05:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamlico Ravine[edit]

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

Original research/neologism plus a class or group of people that does not asset notability. Despite the appearance of at least the first paragraph, there is no such place as Pamlico Ravine. A Google search reveals only Wikipedia, mirrors, blogs, and Urban Dictionary. Serpent's Choice 04:13, 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. Krimpet (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Surfer in popular media[edit]

Silver Surfer in popular media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A cluttered list of trivial information at best. A prod was removed, with this reason: Removing "useless trivia" notice as every other comic character has such a page. See Batman in popular media. If copyediting, referencing etc required then will do the same. Deletion not required. But in the case of Batman in popular media, it's an actual decent list of Batman movies and so on. This list is just mentions/references to Silver Surfer from what I can see. Silver_Surfer#In_other_media already does a fine job of listing the information. RobJ1981 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am confused as to why one would want to make it more convenient for future editors to add this garbage back to the main article. Otto4711 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, because it isn't garbage. Much of it, like the extended version Joe Satriani material, never should have been removed in the first instance.

    Second, because this is an established function for subpages. If it is thought that this information is entirely unorganized trivia or "garbage," and somehow unworthy of appearing in the article in chief, the right and respectful thing to do would be to keep it somewhere so that it could be made into something useful, rather than to first ghettoize it by moving it to an article like this, and then proposing its deletion outright. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 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 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kush Lash[edit]

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

Informal game or sport sourced to urban dictionary and other unreliable sources. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Serpent's Choice 04:33, 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 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jook music[edit]

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

Appears to be a protologism. No references from reliable sources evident. One of many articles primarily depending on Urban Dictionary. Serpent's Choice 04:43, 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 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John High[edit]

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

The guy hasn't done anything particularly notable. Clarityfiend 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. But most people wanting to keep want to merge, so I will redirect for now and the history is still there for people to merge content. W.marsh 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Terrace Elementary School[edit]

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

Primary (k-12) school, fails wp:n. Article does not establish notability, nor does it cite any independent sources. Work permit 04:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree it cites sources that are reliable for what they are. They are Ministry of Education school reports confirming class size, performance, etc. They confirm data, but don't help establish notability. --Work permit 01:04, 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. Jersey Devil 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECW The Doctor Is In[edit]

ECW The Doctor Is In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a one-time wrestling event. No assertion of notability is made in the article and also fails to provide any sources. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:51, 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 wasDeleted as redundant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese heavy metal bands[edit]

List of Japanese heavy metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by IP without comment. Bare list, fails WP:NOT, redundant to Category:Japanese heavy metal musical groups. Deiz talk 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF anyone? Articles that fail WP:CSD don't need to take up community time at AfD. To imply that I'm trying to achieve some kind of victory by "getting this AfD to pass" is insulting in the extreme. "...most days it frustrates the piss out of me"? Yeah. Deiz talk 09:03, 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 05:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Ireland[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable minor league wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. One Night In Hackney303 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oi! Enough with the wrestling-cruft already. You boys need another hobby... ---Cathal 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:VSCA. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per reduncdacnyc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Iraqi Dinar[edit]

Old Iraqi Dinar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not a distinct currency. Unlike the Turkish new lira and the Turkish old lira, where 1 new lira = 1 million old lira, 1 pre-Saddam dinar can be exchanged for 1 post-Saddam dinar. It is just a redesign of the physical currency, like the new color bills in the U.S., or the new 20 pound sterling note. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say, Iraqi dinar should contain info of the currency from ca. 1930 to present. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:08, 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, nomination withdrawn. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takeji Nara[edit]

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

This contextless and unsourced stub looked just about the same when created about a year ago. Since then, nobody has found any sources that confirm the existence of this person (or that indicate in which time he lived), and nobody has fixed the confused spelling. Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N. Sandstein 05:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Nomination retracted as the man and his status are now verified. Sandstein 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then you'll have to find sources, either in English or in Japanese, or the article must be deleted. Per WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Sandstein 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man crush[edit]

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

Contested prod, removed without comment. Little more than a dictionary definition cited to Urban Dictionary. Already transwikied. Serpent's Choice 05:57, 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 05:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Maris Hospice[edit]

Stella Maris Hospice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

doesn't meet notability, but doesn't quite make it to advert for speedy Chris 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. "delete and merge" is not a valid option, if you want to merge this content I will have to undelete the article. It does not seem like there is any support for keeping these as standalone articles. W.marsh 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bezerenbam[edit]

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

Delete and Merge information into other articles. This is the product of original research, meant to extend the history of Wallachia back before the country was founded. The fact is that historiography does not mention this supposed "ruler", and this relies on a mention in an Arab chronicle which is most likely unreliable (it presumably is viewed as unreliable, since most historians do not bother mentioning it). All the google hits it gets link back to wikipedia talk pages and various mirrors (as well as a minuscule number of ultra-nationalist chats). [10] Dahn 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone discuss these two rulers, under these names, without referring to the Persian work? My Romanian literacy level is ill-suited to read medeival histories, but I found Histoire des Mongols depuis Tchinguiz-Khan jusqu'à Timour Bey ou Tamerlan (1834) which I can handle without much trouble. It also refers to the same Persian work, but the author, Constantin Mouradgea d'Ohsson, seems to have some doubts about the accuracy of the names in the original. With that said, the Mongol that has been translated from the Romanian as "Ordul" is represented in the French as Orda. That makes sense, Orda Khan was leader of the White Horde in 1241. But his assault was into Poland, at the Battle of Legnica. And I don't see mention of Bezerenbam in the index of the Tartar Relation (no access to an actual copy tonight). I worry that both of these names are simply misidentifications due to multiple translations. Serpent's Choice 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's God! But you do have Bezerenbam and Mischelav at page 628. --Alex:Dan 09:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Serpent's Choice: As indicated, all comments made available do not refer to the "rulers" independently from the Persian chronicle, and there a minimum level of methodology in respect to primary sources is to be respected (Xenopol, Djuvara, and the Histoire des Mongols all refer to the chronicle using that methodology, and reject the notion that it should be taken for granted). Dahn 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. I can find plenty of people who quote the Persian source, but no one who seems very certain of its accuracy. I can't find reference to these figures in the other major primary source about the Mongol activity in the period, the Tartar Relation, which is generally considered accurate. Not to mention that all of these references are just later authors quoting (and translating) the single primary source, which is a discomforting basis for an article ... especially when no two of them seem to read the passage the same way! I don't have any problem with their mention in another article, though I'm not certain which is the correct merge destination. Is this text meant to refer to the Battle of Legnica or the initial Mongol victories of the Battle of Mohi? Do any of the sources even say? Serpent's Choice 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested possible inclusions in other articles below (sorry for my answers being all over the place). I myself don't see any clear mention of the previous battle. Dahn 09:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Xenopol clearly states, in the second quote provided above (p.552), that Bezerenbam is to be considered the same as Basarab I of Wallachia. Djuvara, as already stated, considered Mislau and Seneslau to be one and the same. Wikipedians who have pushed this "information" have relied on their own interpretation of texts, and have ignored the conclusion of the very scholarship they used (instead, they appealed to primary sources, publishing original research). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dahn (talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I must remind you that Litovoi is not Basarab I Intemeitorul. Read again! Also, Litovoi is spelled here Lirtyoi (1247) or Lythen (cca. 1275). Mislau is omitted (I don't know why) but he can be found at Djuvara. We can, indeed, add that some historians consider Bezeren-bam = Litovoi and Mislau = Seneslau. --Alex:Dan 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR. Dahn 08:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. I'm not inventing facts. Xenopol sais the same thing, word by word, but he goes further and sais poate că era Lyrtioy el însuşi (maybe he was Litovoi himself). This can be added to the article. I want you to come with arguments, Dahn, don't hide behind OR's, it's simply ridiculous. --Alex:Dan 08:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". What we have is a mention in a Persian chronicle, that all historians you mention consider not to be accurate in itself, but to represent the result of verious confusions between the names of documented princes. No secondary or tertiary source mentions either Bezerenbam or Mislau as actual rulers. This is what Xenopol says (loc. cit.): Bezerenbam is the corruption of the name Basarab and the title of Ban; he might be the same as Litovoi (in either case, he certainly does not say a ruler of that name existed). Djuvara says Mislau was the same as Seneslau. So, in short, the only time these people are mentioned by professional historians serves to indicate that their existence is questionable. Aside from a chronicle written on another continent, thousands of kilometers away, that relies on hearsay and, as both sources you use indicate, confuses data, the only places where these people are mentioned as rulers are internet chatrooms for fringe ideologies. Dahn 08:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistranslating again. Djuvara sais probably, not certainly. And also, you have almost a page in which Xenopol demonstrates that the persian chronicle is definitely accurate (Conclusion: Raschid era foarte bine informat, din documentele ce le avea la indemana, asupra locurilor si a imprejurarilor, si ca putem da o deplină crezare si celorlalte arătări ale sale, care nu pot fi verificate prin alte izvoare), yet the names are corrupted. [And since you wanted an OR, I must tell you that Arabs, as Hebrews, have a writing system that doesn't note every vowel, that's why Bezerenbam can also be read as Bazarambam.]. Brief: Xenpol and Djuvara confirm their existence in The Persian Chronicle. Give me a better translation for căpetenia popoarelor ulagh and I'll be happy to modify that. --Alex:Dan 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you will note, Xenopol says that the names "cannot be verified through other sources". If you look at his argument, he says: I trust the events depicted, but there is no reason to assume that Bezerenbam can be considered a ruler other than Litovoi, and his name should be understood as standing for "Basarab". I repeat the point, also made by Serpent's Choice, that there is no source making mention of these "rulers" without making mention of the chronicle - which means that these people are not "rulers", but words in a text that has the same level of accuracy as anything in Herodotus (i.e.: quite low). What Djuvara and Xenopol confirm is their mention in the Persian chronicle, not their factual existence. Wikipedians are not allowed to draw their own conclusions from sources. Dahn 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified those articles. Bezerenbam is now the leader of a valachian army, ban after Xenopol, and Mislau a căpetenie of ulagh people (how woud you translate that?). My impediment was the absence of a correct and complete quotation. --Alex:Dan 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bogdan, these two articles could probably constitute notes in the Origin of the Romanians or some other such place, clearly indicating both that they are to be found in a certain source, and that those historians who discuss the mention tend to agree that they are corrupt. In this case, a note could also be slipped in the article on Litovoi (and perhaps another one in the article on Basarab). Dahn 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er... I think you may want to rename your original vote to "merge" (not "keep as"), and probably erase it. Because you only get one vote. You erase previous comments either by deleting them or striking them out. Also: the Serpent's chronicle is not actually the chronicle, but a rendition of it (unlike the direct quote in Xenopol). Dahn 09:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xenopol quotes, at page 550, a fragment from D'Ohsson (according to note nr. 4), so the french original is closer to the source (first hand translation as I see it). --Alex:Dan 09:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right: it is a direct quote (I missed the quotation marks on the previous page). Dahn 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. "delete and merge" is not a valid option, if you want to merge this content I will have to undelete the article. It does not seem like there is any support for keeping these as standalone articles. W.marsh 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mislau[edit]

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

Delete and Merge information into other articles. Like its friend Bezerenbam, this is the product of original research, meant to extend the history of Wallachia back before the country was founded. The fact is that historiography does not mention this supposed "ruler", and this relies on a mention in an Arab chronicle which is most likely unreliable (it presumably is viewed as unreliable, since most historians do not bother mentioning it). All the restricted google hits it gets link back to wikipedia talk pages and various mirrors (as well as a minuscule number of ultra-nationalist chats) [12], [13]. Additionally, what is indicated as a "source" for the article actually states that he was the same as Seneslau. Dahn 06:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the quotes provided from Xenopol are not actually about Mislau, but about "Bezerenbam". Xenopol clearly states, in the second quote provided above (p.552), that Bezerenbam is to be considered the same as Basarab I of Wallachia. Djuvara, as already stated, considered Mislau and Seneslau to be one and the same. Wikipedians who have pushed this "information" have relied on their own interpretation of texts, and have ignored the conclusion of the very scholarship they used (instead, they appealed to primary sources, publishing original research). Dahn 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must remind you that Litovoi is not Basarab I Intemeitorul. Read again! Also, Litovoi is spelled here Lirtyoi (1247) or Lythen (cca. 1275). Mislau is omitted (I don't know why) but he can be found at Djuvara. We can, indeed, add that some historians consider Bezeren-bam = Litovoi and Mislau = Seneslau. --Alex:Dan 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR. Dahn 08:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. I'm not inventing facts. Djuvara sais the same thing, word by word: probabil [că Seneslav era] acelasi cu "Miselav", "capetenia popoarelor Ulagh" (vlahe), de care cronica orientala a lui Rasid-ed-din zice ca a înfruntat coloana cea mai sudica a invaziei mongole din 1241 (probably [Seneslav was] the same person with Miselav "the head of Ulagh (vlach) people" whom the persian chronicle of Rasid-ed-din sais that he faced the southern column of Mongolian invasion of 1241). This can be added to the article. I want you to come with arguments, Dahn, don't hide behind OR's, it's simply ridiculous. --Alex:Dan 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". What we have is a mention in a Persian chronicle, that all historians you mention consider not to be accurate in itself, but to represent the result of verious confusions between the names of documented princes. No secondary or tertiary source mentions either Bezerenbam or Mislau as actual rulers. This is what Xenopol says (loc. cit.): Bezerenbam is the corruption of the name Basarab and the title of Ban; he might be the same as Litovoi (in either case, he certainly does not say a ruler of that name existed). Djuvara says Mislau was the same as Seneslau. So, in short, the only time these people are mentioned by professional historians serves to indicate that their existence is questionable. Aside from a chronicle written on another continent, thousands of kilometers away, that relies on hearsay and, as both sources you use indicate, confuses data, the only places where these people are mentioned as rulers are internet chatrooms for fringe ideologies. Dahn 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistranslating again. Djuvara sais probably, not certainly. And also, you have almost a page in which Xenopol demonstrates that the persian chronicle is definitely accurate (Conclusion: Raschid era foarte bine informat, din documentele ce le avea la indemana, asupra locurilor si a imprejurarilor, si ca putem da o deplină crezare si celorlalte arătări ale sale, care nu pot fi verificate prin alte izvoare), yet the names are corrupted. [And since you wanted an OR, I must tell you that Arabs, as Hebrews, have a writing system that doesn't note every vowel, that's why Bezerenbam can also be read as Bazarambam.]. Brief: Xenpol and Djuvara confirm their existence in The Persian Chronicle. Give me a better translation for căpetenia popoarelor ulagh and I'll be happy to modify that. --Alex:Dan 08:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answered in the Bezerenbam AfD entry. Dahn 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified those articles. Bezerenbam is now the leader of a valachian army, ban after Xenopol, and Mislau a căpetenie of ulagh people (how woud you translate that?). My impediment was the absence of a correct and complete quotation. --Alex:Dan 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bogdan, these two articles could probably constitute notes in the Origin of the Romanians or some other such place, clearly indicating both that they are to be found in a certain source, and that those historians who discuss the mention tend to agree that they are corrupt. In this case, a note could also be slipped in the article on Seneslau. Dahn 09:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above. Dahn 09:27, 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 40-man delete. Krimpet (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft - The Freezing Blockade[edit]

World of Warcraft - The Freezing Blockade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is 100% speculation, and so are all the sources. Can be recreated later, when decent sources become available. SuperDT 06:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Lobster[edit]

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

Article is little more than a series of dictionary definitions about a term that probably lacks independant notability. Of the three, the first is self-evident. The second is a one-off insult used in a relatively obscure 1908 book (which itself does not have an article). The third is a protolistic coining by Simon Travaglia, discussion of which rapidly devolves into original research and uncited self-reference. Serpent's Choice 07:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Thomas Judge[edit]

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

Text is copied, almost verbatim, from the Trinity Mission Center site, without acknowledging source; public domain or copyleft status of information cannot be verified, although copyright information exists elsewhere on site. Original article author appears to be inactive, and is unlikely to be contactable. --Liveste 07:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baillie Thomas Arbuthnot[edit]

Baillie Thomas Arbuthnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think there is anything notable here. Perhaps it can be expanded but being the factor of a Scottish estate and advocating a cause is not that spectacular. Giano 07:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure from where you have derived this information the subject was neither gentry not a mayor and Peterborough? Is nowhere near Scotland. Giano 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we can get sources, I'd write the article myself. But as it stands we have none.--Docg 07:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there I was assuming that Baillie was his first name! He was a minor municipal official (Baillie, equivalent to alderman or magistrate) of Peterhead (not Peterborough). As for being a factor - the notable person is the organ grinder, not the monkey. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwijet[edit]

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

No sources, airline's web site at www.kiwijet.net is not even active yet. Prod was removed along with other templates with no improvements to the article. gadfium 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Wrestling Alliance[edit]

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

Non notable wrestling promotion with cruft and COI problems, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. One Night In Hackney303 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

NWA Scottish Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment Any comments about the validity of the article or nomination reasons (WP:V, WP:CORP)? Bear in mind your opinion may be discounted without reference to policy or practice. Deiz talk 04:21, 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 05:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Seiuli[edit]

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

No idea if this is true, probable, or whatever, but there's no sources and I only get 1 non-useful Google hit. Not sure if its a speedy candidate and PROD was removed without explanation. Wickethewok 08:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete (or should we say, "nelete": neologism delete.) Krimpet (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neek[edit]

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

Neologism, dicdef and unnotable band member. Delete swiftly. JFW | T@lk 08:37, 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 DELETE. -Docg 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy[edit]

Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears non-notable. Sources do not seem to support article's claims. Zero ghits. Contested prod, without comment. Serpent's Choice 09:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the revisions being made to the current article in respect to referencing in particular. Also feel free to edit the page or send me information of any sort regarding how to make this page a meaningful contribution to wikipedia. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roughpikey (talk • contribs)

Regarding the references at the current time. I don't have a clue what the Akaroa News is; it gets no valid ghits, and it's certainly not the newspaper for Akaroa, which is the Akaroa Mail. The Journal of Regressive Therapy is not a scholarly journal; the only ghit is the ZoomInfo profile of its "editor", suggesting it is some sort of unreviewed religious publication. Spirituality and Healing is too noisy to Google easily, although this focused search comes up blank. Rose Hargrove is real, but her paper doesn't appear to have been published anywhere except aliensandchildren.org (don't miss the bit at the bottom about building thought screens!!). Serpent's Choice 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. meshach 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Science deals with reality. This article only deals with a different 'paradigm' because its subject doesn't exist in reality. If there really were alien craft buzzing this small Australian town I think 'science' would be all over it. The only way it could be included would be if it was discussed by third parties e.g. major newspapers and books. It isn't. There aren't any credible references for this article, it's not a concept discussed elsewhere, therefore it shouldn't be on wikipedia because it's not 'notable'. Nick mallory 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I fully agree with you that such 'individuals' are in dire need of urgent treatment by properly qualified mental health practitioners. On another point, if the aliens want to keep their visits to Coober Pedy a secret, you know, by flying in on 'stealth mode', then what are they going to make of an article on Wikipedia revealing their covert activities to the world? Is it safe to keep this article? Nick mallory 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the web links you have provided mention Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy. Addhoc 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As ad hoc has just pointed out the new sources in the article don't have anything to do with 'extraterrestrial encounter therapy' so don't affect the case for the retention of this article. That there is definitely a positive correlation between educational achievement and belief in pseudo-science doesn't prove that pseudo-science is true. Science is a method of thinking, not an attribute of a person. Use of 'alternative therapies' is overwhelmingly middle class for instance but it doesn't mean that distilled water cures cancer. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing a UFO, even on 'stealth mode' land in Australia but there's just no hard evidence to suggest that this has happened. There isn't a different 'paradigm' regarding notability on wikipedia I'm afraid. Where are the non trivial, reputable sources for "Extraterrestrial Encounter Therapy" regarding these supposed alien visitations in this small Australian town? Nick mallory 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Science is the method we use to determine what the truth is. This involves testing a disprovable hypothesis against evidence and making predictions which can themselves be tested. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it true. The Earth was a sphere even when people believed it to be flat. There should be an article about 'UFO's on Wikipedia because it's a subject which is widely discussed, even if there's no good evidence that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. There's no real coverage of this particular 'encounter therapy', so it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Why would ET visitations be exempt from the tenets of science anyway? Why would their existence be so mysterious if it was real? You ask if there's hard evidence to prove the truth of religions, well, no there isn't. Religions aren't science, they're notable for reasons which have nothing to do with the doubtful objective reality of their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can't argue, 'I believe in Coober Pety UFOs and you don't so it's equally likely either way'. The burden of evidence is on you, and you haven't got any. This discussion isn't about the existence or otherwise of UFOs, it's about the notability of this article and it's just not notable. Nick mallory 15:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


First of all thank you for your comments Nick Mallroy, I appreciate you enlightening me on the topics of truth and science before getting to the meat of the problem as you see it - notability. I would really like to question the comments "The fact that you believe something to be true does not make it true" and "You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts". The truth as we know it for the most part is presented to us by science. When I say the 'truth' I mean things that can be tested via the scientific method. However the problem is that like any field, the weakest link in science is the human factor. Any scientist could carry out research with the utmost rigour and yet still not have his or her findings published. Why? The answer is quite simple - people. If a scientist presents a study that shows results of no statistical significance the likelihood of these findings being published decreases - the file-drawer problem [16]. Also if the major journals present research within a certain paradigm and the scientist who wants publication thinks in another, the article is not likely to be published. Therefore the findings are not published and we don't know about new evidence. Does this mean that the 'facts' this scientist presents are not facts? No, but it does mean that we do not know of them until a paradigm shift occurs or we don't find out about them at all. Therefore because science is so skeptical of the existence of aliens any literature suggesting it to be the truth will not likely be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Therefore what we know as the 'truth' is limited to what people deem to be worthy of being a truth. This means that in many ways groups of scientists are entitled to their own opinions and 'their own facts'. These in turn become the facts of the general population who do not care to question, have a genuine faith in science or wouldn't have the knowledge to test them even if they wanted to. Also in many fields of science a principle of normalising data is employed in which outliers are removed as they do not fit data gained from what is deemed to be the normal population. Therefore anything that appears to be an anomaly is judged to be unworthy of being a 'truth'. Since alien abductions or sightings in fact fall outside of what is deemed to be the norm, these events are judged to be unworthy of being a truth. Finally one of the important factors in the scientific method is control[17]. To be able to stick the scientific process of research you need to be able to control the subject of your testing in some way. In this way you can get a broad sample of the data rather than an opportunistic collection of data. This is the problem alien abductees and those who have seen aliens face. They were not prepared with scientific equipment to record their encounters with aliens. Rather they have had to present to society with nothing more than a memory and then subsequently get ridiculed by society for their efforts. Scienctists are unlikely to ever be able to scientifically test the existence of aliens until they can control the appearance of aliens. Therefore we can see that in many ways science, with all its benefits, has become much like the Church once was, in it's control of the facts/truths people are allowed to believe. Thank you.

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton Need some help? 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Augusta Ayer Gardner[edit]

Adele Augusta Ayer Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seriously, are all relations of famous men notable? Gareth E Kegg 09:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I can see where you're coming from. I think I only noticed that detail because it's something I already knew. -- Seed 2.0 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was also an odd reference to "the Leslie's parent's home" that I've amended. It looks a lot clearer now who was who. Tearlach 19:10, 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. Walton Need some help? 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark charm interaction[edit]

Watermark charm interaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A variant on mouse gestures. I tagged it as original research. Non-notable, not-yet-widely implemented idea might be better. -- RHaworth 10:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability surely isn't an issue with an entry based on knowledge? The whole purpose of a reference is to access information that isn't known to the reader. For example some knowledge in physics is known only to a few, but would still be mentioned in a encyclopedia. If new knowledge is not referenced until it is noteworthy then the whole notion of a Wikipedia is flawed since it will not introduce factual entries until they are in common usage, making it by design lacking in innovation and one step behind other resources. Maybe there should be a mechanism to retrospectively assess notability to avoid this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen451 (talk • contribs)
  • "By design, lacking in innovation and one step behind other resources". Yes that sums up Wikipedia policy pretty well. -- RHaworth 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont feel that it is appropriate to obliquely and facetiously poke fun at a valid comments. Though I do have a sense of humor and do see the funny side. - Why not just explain that my point here is wrong, otherwise WP would fill up with junk entries?

hey hold on this is getting a little libelous a word for word copy because I wrote that section!!! I'm an academic and that hurts:/ Note that I wrote that section even handedly enough that it was not thought to be my own work, suggesting the issue of conflict of interest has been handled appropriately. It shouldnt matter that I am the owner of cityzen451.co.uk, which I am and I make no bones about it, I'm obviously going to write an article that is of interest to me perhaps even relevant to me. A link is not a spam link if it is linking to a product that is comparable to other gesture tools, that are listed in that section. The other points of precisely one reference is irrelevant, precisely one should be enough, since it is related to a gesture tool that is in wide use. However, I cant put a link to mojo sidekick there because I'd straight off be accused of spamming, which would lead to an automatic delete. Type in mojo sidekick and check the download figures 10,000. Also I was very even handed in my assessment of Mojo Sidekick. It doesnt pay to think the worst in everyone's actions So please let's not call in the lynch mob just yet.

Hudson, J. and Parkes, A., Visual Overloading: Adjunct Proceedings HCI International2003 June 2003, 67-68.

Hudson, J. and Parkes, A., Novel Interaction Style for Handheld Devices: Adjunct Proceedings UBICOMP04, Oct 2003, 52-55. J. Hudson, A. Dix and A. Parkes.

User Interface Overloading, a Novel Approach for Handheld Device Text Input. Proceedings of HCI2004, 2004 Sept, Springer-Verlag.

User Interface Overloading, International Patent Application, no. PCT/GB2004/002538

Just because something is not on the internet doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And, may I politely ask that the accusation of plagiarism be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen451 (talk • contribs)

HI Andy, I agree with your comments and I'm encouraged that Wikipedia has a heavy grain of integrity running through it. I was in two minds what to do here, I couldn't merge it with mouse gesture because it would distort the mouse gesture entry, so I decided to write a new entry. please do note that the entries in Mouse gestures and Watermark... are similar because they are discussing similar issues. Watermark does have particular merit because it addresses and solves the issues that are central to producing a satisfactory mouse gesture interaction model. I understand fully that Wikipedians are wary of COIs, however if a contributer is acting responsibly then there is no reason to be alarmed, and this I guess is where this very process comes in and the irresponsible are weeded out. Yes there is a link to my site from mouse gesture, but please note that only because it is very relevant, however in the other article watermarking article, you could note that I did refrain from adding a link due to potential accusations of spamming and conflicts of interest, however since the article is based on a notable issue, since a uk patent has been granted and there are a significant number of people using Mojo Sidekick, shouldn't the article be suitable for inclusion with a link to Mojo sidekick and mojo gesture to confirm its notability. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this issue with me. I'll check the references you mention and discuss my findings with you.

Thank you I agree, I have had the references validated by debating them in this forum, I have exercised caution and have avoided a conflict of interest, the section on COI doesn't preclude contributors only that they should exercise caution, I have and we are discussing this in this forum. The fact that I am the author and I'm available on Whois only goes to show that I have integrety and that I'm not in any way trying to conceal who I am(?) There is sufficient notability since, there are multiple sources, such as download sites, download figure that signify over 10,000 people have used Mojo, and a patent application (which in a sense has the same status as a geographic location) , three journal articles and I dare say everyone who looks at this page has heard of Mojo after listening to this racket I'm making about this.

Okay thank you for providing the links to notability, (though I dont really see the significance of notability of porn stars as a category or are we taking wikipedia too serious and havent noticed) the issue of independent and multiple sources seems to me to have been misinterpreted or that the understanding of a journal article is being mixed up. Submitting an article to a journal is not self publication, it is the reporting of knowledge to an accepted authoritative body who through a process of peer review, accept or decline an article. It is that body that publish the article not the author, and therefore such articles qualify as independent, this is the whole point of journal submission, the editors are compiling a resource and publishing it not the individual authors. Whereas submitting on citeseer is self publication since an article can be submitted by the individual.

I'm sorry Daniel I didn't follow your last comment "few thousand words on Wikipedia", was it in reference to my joke, that was intended to maintain a light tone, apologies. This is not about a program but an about an entry for an interaction model. Please note that I have asked a question about the interpretation of a journal article as independent. I feel that this is not a debate if comments are summited disingenuously, I feel this is inappropriate. Also drawing from Wikipedia's own notes, Notoriety is not about fame but significance, I quote downloads as a way of stating that users are using the software because the model works, if there were 0 or < 100 then I would not have a case, this adds an independently verifiable reference. The mention of a UK patent is not for expressing notoriety but to verify the model, you can't have a patent based on a model that does not work, hence this serves as an independent and secondary source.

Comment if you want to make this AfD disapear, just add some independent verifiable sources it is as simple as that. No independent sources, no article and yes a source written by the creator of the subject in question no matter how it is published should not count towards. You are right notability and fame are not directly connected but notability in the Wikipedia sense means that someone apart from the owner/creator/subject has taken note and written something from which we can source the information in an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why the tone of every comment I have received has been, off handed, overly critical, libelous and on the whole brash? Is it that Wikipedia is a perpetual fest for internet trolls? I mean come on give a guy a break I am trying to have a 'debate' here, I'm not trying to bark on just get a straight answer from ppl. I am questioning the interpretation of notability and I have received a response with " should not count" not " does not count" but should. It is absurd that the opinion of a number of experts in a field who elect that an article is worthy of publication, hence notability, should be discounted, when all I have to do to get the article in Wiki is find some other article were any lobotomized zombie could have referred to these publications. Patent nonsense. The fact that 'should' instead of 'does' indicates lack of certainty and therefore you must refer the query to someone who can provide an authoritative ruling, instead of childishly trying to test an honest persons patience by antagonizing them. This begs the question why should people attempt to contribute to such a community that is so prickly and downright unapproachable. There should be a mechanism to reprimand such childish behavior and reduce should negativity. So I am left with the opinion that Wikipedia encourages trollisness, which detracts from what it aspires to be, but then again what does it actually aspire to be? But then I note with a bit of a humor to say no hard feelings I Suppose it keeps ticket inspectors off the streets. Thank you for considering my submission to Wikipedia

You're missing the point. WP has some very clear guidelines about what makes an acceptable article. This debate will be closed in a few days by an experienced administrator who will weigh up the various points raised against those guidelines. This debate is not an appropriate forum for questioning the guidelines - there are such fora and you may wish to contribute your point of view to them.
During the debate some important points have been made about this article. If you don't like the way in which those points have been expressed that's unfortunate but it doesn't invalidate them.
You might want to review AfD etiquette which requests that contributors should be civil and avoid the use of sarcastic language. How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette explains important aspects of the process of which you may not be aware, including the relative weight given to the opinions of editors and this point in particular: "If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin."
So please don't feel antagonised. Simply fix the article by adding the references that will establish notability. Otherwise, on present showing, the article is almost certain to be deleted. andy 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you cannot expect anyone to accept that the comments I have received in this debate have been anything but 'off' There has not been any use of sarcastic language only constant attempts to lighten a tone that has been thoroughly discourteous. I agree strongly that there well may be many aspects that I am unaware of, but the whole theme of this debate has been one of impatience with an inexperienced contributor. Simply put there is an unnecessary lack of patience with newbies which is well not necessary and discourteous. I am sorry but seeming to accuse someone of plagiarism and then taking the moral high ground is exactly the issue I'm trying to raise here. As you say the comments made during this debate may still be valid but do they conform to Wikipedia etiquette policy? Thank you andy for clarifying these points but please note that I am inexperienced and I genuinely felt that the guidlines were misinterpreted. Instead of letting someone drone on why not clarify that these issuea should be debated elsewhere from the onset. My point is that the way this debate has been conducted, which includes yourself has been inappropriate and unhelpful. There is no reason why admin cant wear many hats, by being helpful, supportive, encouraging as well as ensuring policy is adhered to.

I am sorry that you found some of the responses to be discouteous. Please keep in mind that tone is very difficult to judge in writing. I don't think many of the comments from other editors were intended to be unfriendly, personally I have found Wikipedia a very friendly place. On a serious note you accused editors of libel, I am assuming in reference to the fact that it was pointed out that portions of this article were copied from the mouse gesture page, no one accused you of plagerism or said anything other than the truth so I don't see any evidence whatsoever of libel. Please try not to take anything from an AfD personally, it is a common problem for new editors to create pages on themselves or their own creations and then be insulted when the community decides that the article fail to meet policy. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel first off please note that I apologize if I come over ruffled or insulted by you, this is not the case. I do respect your comments. Perhaps you are taking what I write the wrong way and are assuming I am barking when I was simply and light heartedly putting a point of view across.

The issue is not of having the article rejected, but simply the tone of this debate. Am I not insulted, I have only pointed out the way comments have been worded and presented, including your own postings, which perhaps were unnecessary. Perhaps you could have simply pointed me in the right direction.

I believe you cannot simply put "Large parts of the article are almost word-for-word copies of" without qualifying the comment. And, then obliquely qualify it is the work of the same editor after an eyebrow has been raised, especially given that it was glossed over that it was necessary that the parts should be the similar, and therefore not lacking in quality or effort. The wording of comments such as this are inappropriate on a public forum were it cannot be expected for the general reader to be well versed in WP procedure and operation.

I agree with you it is not clear if the statement is intended to be libelous and it wasn't actually taken as such, but that clearly shows a need for care to be taken when posting comments, and that care has not been taken. I have edited my comments accordingly. It should not be stated that "has added a spam link to the site from mouse gestures" without checking that the link is legitimate". Or to state, "It ought to be stated explictly that Cityzen451 is the J Hudson" which could be construed as an attempt at deception when it has already been clearly disclosed in many ways. My point is this has not been a debate at all just a process posting loaded opinionated comments. For example "common problem for new editors to create pages on themselves or their own creations and then be insulted when the community decides that the article fail to meet policy" is opinion, and dismisses my responses as bleating when all I am trying to do is clarify ambiguous and inaccurate comments.

Comments should be summited in such a way that they are perceived as they should be intended, so that there is no room for misconstruing them. Perhaps comments should not be patched over afterwards with "tone is very difficult to judge in writing". Comments should also be presented fairly and very even handedly. If an article were written in such a way it would be rejected because it were biased. I accept if by Wikipedia policy the content of the entry I propose is to be rejected. But there is no harm to try and clarify policy, however clumsily I may do it.

Suggestion

The contributors entry appears to be from research that he has contributed to. There is a conflict of interest - contributors should take particular care where there are clear COIs [Link]

It should be noted there are links to software products in the mouse gestures entry that are related to the author of this article.

The research does not appear to meet the criteria for notability [Link] to prove notability you should...

If you feel policy has been misinterpreted please note that this debate will be reviewed by someone who is more experienced and is well versed in WP policy. Issues of interpretation of policy are not handled in DfS, if you wish to read about and debate policy you could go to [link]

The entry is related to mouse gestures, the entries appear to overlap and cover similar issues. They are similarly worded.

though do note section in mouse gesture also contributed by author


Please consider the related independent references in the form of another product along with reviews, wholly unrelated to myself

http://www.iliumsoft.com/site/fp/inscribe.htm - floating translucent gesture keyboard

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inscribe+ilium&btnG=Search&hl=en - Google search for keyboard

Again thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

The links show evidence of other products using the technique described, a technique that requires defining, and which has a recognized definition. The fact that it doesn't use the any of the terminology, only demonstrates it independence from the proposed WP contribution. It is still in use and it still remains that Watermark Charm interaction is the accepted terminology, since if anyone wanted to refer to it they would have to reference previous material. Surely, it is not necessary to have independent confirmation from specifically from and directly academic papers, if there is evidence from elsewhere. The existence of Inscribe demonstrates that this is not an idea but a technique in practical use. The fact that developers elsewhere have seen fit to implement the technique indicates notability and independent verifiability. The notability of the other articles I referenced are perhaps no longer relevant, since this could be interpreted that the notability of the technique/model is the issue not the term 'Watermark charm interaction'. At the least this is grounds to merge with the mouse gesture article, however I feel that would detract from its meaning. What is wrong with someone offering to take over the article and removing some of these issues of COI and notability anyway?

Perhaps it would be best to leave this to an administrator to decide, if you are only confident enough to comment that "this does not seem to be related to the notability issue"; then this is presenting a view as fact, in which case I respectfully dont see the purpose of it. Especially, given this debate is to be reviewed anyway. Note that I confirm that I am uncertain of my view and I have presented my argument in this debate as such.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Anthony Freeman[edit]

Ralph Anthony Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable; only claim to fame is notable father & grandfather MightyWarrior 11:14, 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 keep --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 11:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bentley[edit]

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

Non-notable: a cricketer who only played one first class match. Soobrickay 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute KEEP The fact that he played one first class match makes him notable. This article is correctly referenced and perfectly legitimate according to wikipedia policy and precedent, as the nominator would have known had he checked up on this before nominating the article for deletion. Nick mallory 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies. I was unaware of the well defined guidlines at WP:CRICKET, which are satisfied for the cricketer in question. As such, I am more than happy for this discussion to be closed immediately ("speedy keep"?). Sorry again. Soobrickay 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nick mallory 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Harper[edit]

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

Written completely in-universe (going against WP:WAF), and the subject lacks sufficient outside commentary to improve it. CrazyLegsKC 11:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion are the following Mama's Family-related articles. They are all written predominantly or completely in an in-universe style and lack sufficient outside commentary to improve them to Wikipedia standards.

Raytown (Mama's Family) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alvin Tutweiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alberta Meechum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lloyd Meechum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iola Lucille Boylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frances Marie Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bubba Higgins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ed Higgins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eunice Harper Higgins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ellen Harper Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sonja Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vinton "Buzz" Harper the II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Naomi Oakes Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vinton Ray Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, ((db-afd)). This was conominated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumkin. --Coredesat 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Jackson[edit]

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

It seems that this article is pretty accurate about this person.

Given the proliferation of "Reality TV", and the fleeting "stardom" of its "contestants", my feeling is that Wikipedia is a good repository of information regarding these types of people.

Since, Ms. Jackson may still prove herself to be a successful comedianne given her opportunity to tour with Mo'Nique, my recommendation would be NOT to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpgveg14 (talk • contribs) 2007/05/14 16:58:39

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

The result was delete. Sr13 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood undead[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This article has been created and speedy-deleted several times, but the band seems to have gained notability over the course of time, as noted by several citations from reliable sources. The article was salted after I tagged it for speedy-deletion, but the latest author asked for a review process, so I asked an admin to unsalt the page so that a formal AfD could take place (though it was speedied again before I could start the process). I have no position on this article; it is a procedural nomination only. Realkyhick 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mvomeka'a[edit]

Mvomeka'a (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no cited sources, and the text is very basic Monkeymox 18:12, 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 to Queen Anne, Maryland. Article is an exact duplicate and there is no need to go through the paces of letting this linger on AfD. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anne, Queen Anne's County, Maryland[edit]

Queen_Anne,_Queen_Anne's_County,_Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is redundant, it has the same information as Queen Anne, Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dough4872 (talk • contribs) 2007/05/15 02:04:43

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second single from Nightwish's sixth studio album[edit]

Second single from Nightwish's sixth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 12:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it's just a song - not even a single! - off this sixth-album-that-hasn't-got-a-name-yet. EliminatorJR Talk 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE WP:BLP. -Docg 10:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Prévot[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP which doesn't seem to meet WP:PORNBIO. MER-C 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frosty Jack Cider[edit]

Frosty Jack Cider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverified / unreferenced article about a brand of "white cider". Previous cleanup attempts ignored and tags removed Deiz talk 12:55, 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 wasDelete does not meet the professional criteria as pointed out, as Kosovo is a province of a country, and also no unusual things or achievements that make him pass on other grounds. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haxhi Zeka[edit]

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

Someone named for speedy (CSD A7), but i think it should better use afd Matthew_hk tc 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this AfD pass, all Kosovar footballer without playing outside should be deleted. Matthew_hk tc 04:02, 8 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, default to Keep. Walton Need some help? 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LilsBoys[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Unsourced BLP. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO for journalists. Contested prod. MER-C 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to get consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Stebbings[edit]

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

Non-notable person, no reference found within google or IMDB Thurls 13:28, 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. Renata 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touchpaper Software plc[edit]

Notability alone. Was listed for speedy, which I think was not quite right. Am taking this to AFD. Should note that I work for an IT Service Management company, though I've never heard of this firm. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 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 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connections between 24 and La Femme Nikita[edit]

Connections between 24 and La Femme Nikita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be any sources attesting to the notability of the alleged connections or similarities between the two series. Actors with any degree of success work on a number of projects and it's not unusual or notable for various television series to share elements of style or theme. In the absence of independent reliable sources attesting to the similarity of the two series or that, as asserted in the opening paragraph, any similarities are "even more pronounced than normal" (whatever the "normal" degree of similarity between series may be) the article is a solid mass of original research based in the opinion of whatever editor happens to decide that an element of one show constitutes a "similarity" to another. Finally, this information is trivia which would likely not stand as part of the main articles on either 24 or La Femme Nikita. A trivia section spun into its own article is still trivia. Otto4711 13:39, 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 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moyse[edit]

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

Article reads as a dictionary definition of a slang term, perhaps better suited in Urban Dictionary. Prod removed by author as well. Wildthing61476 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from author
NPB2007 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) The article no longer resembles a dictionary definition and is a work in progress. The article now has both content and context.[reply]


External sources added. Additionally, the Claire Swire entry was allowed to remain.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchs pub[edit]

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

article of probably a cosy pub, but totally unreferenced; looks like original research; phrases and words such as "he's rumoured to have" "unconfirmed" "unclear whereabouts" "unclear origins"; totally unencyclopedic JoJan 14:12, 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 06:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gordus[edit]

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

There is little claim of notability for this subject or reasonable expectation that the article will grow beyond a stub. Perhaps this is a vanity page? Also see Gordus' Official Research Page. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 14:33, 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, nonsense. Moreschi Talk 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikestar[edit]

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

Original text of "Tik Tok of OZ" is here [19]. There is no mention of a Mikestar or Mike when you do a search. Hoax. Richfife 14:51, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The School Scoop[edit]

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

This is an article about a school newspaper which gives no indication of importance or notability outside of that particular school. I am sure its a very nice newspaper, but I see no reason it is deserving of an article on Wikipedia. It was speedy deleted four times in the month of March ([[20]]) for lack of notability, as an advert, and as the very definition of "something made up in school one day". I propose this AfD for those very same reasons. Cathal 14:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the nonnotable podcast that goes along with the nonnotable school newspaper.:

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Chaos[edit]

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

Contested prod; prod reason was No independent references have been given. primarysources tag has been here since Februrary. Suggest deletion on basis of WP:ATT and WP:SOFTWARE (That's WP:V and WP:N now). Prod contest reason was that a search aggregate was enough to satisfy WP:N (in this case, Google - results are all download sites, forums and user-submitted reviews). When challenged to provide specific sources, there was no response. I'll also note that the MMOSite.com and MMORPG.com links are also both based on user-submitted scores. Marasmusine 15:49, 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, per this discussion and author request --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Cricket[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NFT Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As a hall cricket player, I would like to make some points: firstly, the game is very different from those in the deleted articles. the use of a table tennis ball allows the bowler to impart swing to an extent which would not be possible with a tennis ball, and radically alters the techniques required for both batting and bowling. Secondly, Hall Cricket is more than just a sport - Chestnut Avenue Cricket club was, and to some extent is, a cultural club. However, I do feel that few people are going to be looking for articles on Hall Cricket; there are probably less than two hundred registered players. If the C.A.C.C. committe had published some of the match reports, disciplinary decisions or even the constitution there would be more citations to support the article. Trying to get those load of stuffed shirts to change their ways seems, however, to be a hopeless task. Thehalfone 09:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would ask before I go, try a game with your sons, daughters, grandchildren, nephews or nieces. --Emptyart 15:07, 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. Walton Need some help? 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese miniaturization culture[edit]

Japanese miniaturization culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page makes no claim that this is in anyway an actual culture. Trying to find details on it just brought up tons of google hits on technology, but nothing that would be relevant to this article. Slavlin 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can you supply any re-writing of the article which would support miniaturization being a specific Japanese cultural phenomena based on those sources? Slavlin 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I understand that all sources (Encyclopedia Britannica, the book by Japanese Professor, and UCLA Japanese culture courses) claim this to be a specific Japanes phenomenon. Anyway, what is the problem with keeping this innocent article? This is not something inflammatory or politically charged, I hope.Biophys 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reading of the sources you are giving. They indicated that Japanese style tends toward miniaturization. They do not say that this is a discrete Japanese phenomena. And keeping an article that does not belong on Wikipedia hurts Wikipedia. Slavlin 02:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Then just rename the article as Tendency of Japanese culture toward miniaturization if you like it better (I do not). There is no reason for deletion.Biophys 05:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But there is, nevertheless, a specific american dress culture: you must take your shoes off if you are to board a plane but put them on if you are to be served in an Arkansas store ("no shoes, no shirt, no service"). W. Frank 14:25, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow cab[edit]

Yellow cab (stereotype) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article purports to be about a racial slur supposedly in common use in the United States. Unfortunately, it is devoid of references, the tone is POV, it looks like OR, and I've never heard of this term nor heard it used. I would hardly represent myself as being an expert on racial slurs, but if this is so common, why are there no sources? It reads like something that was just made up, and it seems downright silly. A representative quote: "term was coined by white American males who feel euphoria over their claimed popularity over Asian females." What? Cathal 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related term, again without sources, and also sounds like OR. This one was speedied last night, and recreated today, with hangon tag attached.:

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sage School[edit]

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

While WP:SCHOOL was rejected, there are an extreme lack of ghits for the school, absolutely zero press coverage, and no hope of attribution to any reliable sources. As per our notability policy, "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", I have to argue that this article should be deleted. -Wooty Woot? contribs 21:02, 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, Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:19, 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, default to Keep. Walton Need some help? 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XCW Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:N. One Night In Hackney303 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The company is also a TV production company then, perhaps you'd like to provide non-trivial sources about the company that allow an encyclopedic article to be written, rather than re-hashed press releases? One Night In Hackney303 21:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected? Are the edits I made enought to remove this weak delete?Dannyfranks 03:07, 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, Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From WP:CORP : "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". " Describes this instance perfectly. Just because, to you, it is not "famous" or "important" does not mean it is not "worthy of being noted". If you feel that something does not comply with WP:V , then address that. However I feel you are being over ambitious to try and use the lack of available internet sources as means to delete the enire article. Dannyfranks 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the contrary, it's not up to me to prove the company isn't notable, it's up to those wishing to retain the article. Here's the link to the relevant part of the guideline for you. One Night In Hackney303 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you got an over inflated ego there buddy...I'm the one on the prowrestling project, not you...this is a pro wrestling article. I actually was going to voice my opinion, but decided against it based on a certain noms actions. Theophilus75 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Re:Delete' There are physically not online sources out there that can be referenced on here. It can all be validated by turning on MavTV, America One, or looking at your cable/sattelite provider's PPV section. All available third party sources (wrestling news sites) are not allowed by WP, which therefore eliminates all possibility as using them as references. Dannyfranks 16:14, 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 - WP:COI and non notable. Aquarius &#149; talk 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vital Might[edit]

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

Article was previously speedied as A7; after a discussion on my talkpage, the article's creator showed me that they were in the top 8 in a contest sponsored by Ralph Lauren. However, I'm not sure if this is notable enough for WP:MUSIC. Veinor (talk to me) 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contest was sponsored by Ralph Lauren AND Atlantic Records.

Furthermore, we discussed that being selected to perform and compete in the WBCN Rock & Roll Rumble was tantamount to receiving an award, therefore establishing notability. Hundreds of bands each year hope to be selected and only 24 are selected per year.

Also, after reviewing The notability criteria for bands article, here are more assertions of notability. Although these weren't initially used to assert notability, they can and will be added if the article is published.
- Guest musician on album: Dana Colley of Morphine
- The Vital Might completed national tour, spanned 6 weeks and 15 states of the US. Tour schedule: http://www.sonicbids.com/thevitalmight
- Non-trivial Press:
Worcester Telegram & Gazette - March 2007, Scott McLennan - Review of Obsidian (prior to interview): http://wtedit.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070225/COLUMN14/70302006
The Hippo - December 2006 Eric W. Saeger - Review of Obsidian: http://www.hippopress.com/music/Vital%20Might.html
The Noise - December 2006 - Review of Obsidian: http://www.thevitalmight.com/press.html
Aquarian Magazine - March 2007 - Review of Obsidian before show announcement

Thanks, Thevitalmight 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The album is for sale at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Obsidian-Vital-Might/dp/B000JFZ7C2/ref=sr_1_2/104-8079984-1813525?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1179335160&sr=8-2

It is also available at: iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster, SnoCap, and several other digital distributors

The Hippo, The Noise, Aquarian, and Worcester Telegram & Gazette are more than one bit of publicity/reviews.

Further press: - Northeaster Performer Magazine - February 2007 - http://www.performermag.com/nep.recordedreviews.0702.php

- Boston Herald - December 2006 - http://theedge.bostonherald.com/musicNews/view.bg?articleid=172085

- Boston Globe Sidekick section - December 2006 - Photo and blurb about CD release

- Boston Phoenix - September 2006 - Blurb

- Bostonist.com - December 2006 - CD release coverage

Another detail that might help towards proving notability: The Vital Might is endorsed by Gallien-Krueger amplifiers and Silverfox Percussion Thevitalmight 17:42, 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 an attack page/redirect (CSD G10). MastCell Talk 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fag Santa[edit]

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

This is a redirect without a purpose. No pages are redirected by it and I can see intuitive reason for why it is redirected to Westboro Baptist Church Clerks. 18:02, 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 as an attack page/redirect (CSD G10). MastCell Talk 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fag Priests[edit]

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

See Fag Santa. This is a redirect that goes to Westboro Baptist Church for no intuitive reason. Nothing is currently being redirected. I'm guessing this had a purpose at one time, but I don't believe it does now. Clerks. 18:08, 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 06:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AntHillMob[edit]

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

Not a note worthly band, page has no encyclopedic value. Stuarthinde@gmail.com 18:10, 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. -Docg 01:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Orient (second nomination)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Although she is affiliated with several notable organizations (AAPS, OISM), notability is not inherited and she herself does not meet criteria for her own article. Prior VfD in 2005 here. MastCell Talk 18:21, 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 06:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew_Lawton[edit]

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

This person doesn't actually exist as a notable political author. It was just started as a joke about a politically minded college student by his friends. Seriously, do a google search. This is just a big joke on Wikipedia to leave this article here. There is no political columnist named Matt Lawton, at least not the one mentioned here. Find sources if you doubt it. Mmmmyyyy 18:41, 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, too many unsourced statements fail to bring it back from an advertisement --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gstaad Palace[edit]

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

Speedy tag as spam removed twice. This is an advertisement for the hotel. DarkAudit 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks somewhat better as rewritten, but much of the latter part of the 'history' section still reads as ad copy, talking about the great new features added to the place. And, I still see few sources. Nice work so far, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes again in the history section. Frankly, I didn't know about this subject, only to rewrite the spam look article into supposedly an encyclopaedic one. — Indon (reply) — 10:10, 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 06:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Matt Jones (Musician, Singer/Songwriter)[edit]

The Real Matt Jones (Musician, Singer/Songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Asserts notability, but the awards nominated for do not rise to the level of WP:MUSIC. Otherwise non-notable. DarkAudit 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines destinations[edit]

This is a renomination, the previous nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive.

Briefly, this utterly fails WP:N. The vast majority of keep arguments in the last nomination were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL, not ones based on policy. A list of major stops can be included at the main article, but an article like this is so crufty as to be almost amusing. WP:NOT covers not an indiscriminate collection of information, and frankly, our policy on common sense seems pretty relevent here as well. -Mask? 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Airways destinations
Aer Lingus destinations
AerOasis destinations
Aeroflot-Nord destinations
Aeroflot destinations
Aeroflot Don destinations
Aerolínea de Antioquia destinations
Aerolíneas Argentinas destinations
Aerolitoral destinations
Aeroméxico destinations
Aeropostal destinations
AeroRepública destinations
Afriqiyah Airways destinations
Aigle Azur destinations
Air Algérie destinations
Air Berlin destinations
Air Canada destinations
Air China destinations
Air Deccan destinations
Air Europa destinations
Air France destinations
Air India destinations
Air Mauritius destinations
Air New Zealand destinations
Air Niugini destinations
Air Pacific destinations
Air Transat destinations
AirAsia destinations
AIRES destinations
Airlines of Papua New Guinea destinations
AirTran Airways destinations
Alaska Airlines destinations
Alitalia destinations
All Nippon Airways destinations
Allegiant Air destinations
America West Airlines destinations
America West Express destinations

American Airlines destinations
American Eagle Airlines destinations
Armavia destinations
Aserca Airlines destinations
Asiana Airlines destinations
ATA Airlines destinations
Atlantic Southeast Airlines destinations
Austrian Airlines destinations
Avianca destinations
Avior Airlines destinations
Bmi destinations
Brit Air destinations
British Airways destinations
British Airways franchise destinations
Canadian Airlines destinations
Carpatair destinations
Cathay Pacific destinations
Cebu Pacific destinations
Centralwings destinations
China Airlines destinations
China Southern Airlines destinations
City Star Airlines destinations
Continental Airlines destinations
Continental Express destinations
Conviasa destinations
Copa Airlines destinations
Cubana de Aviación destinations
Czech Airlines destinations
Delta Air Lines destinations
EasyJet destinations
EgyptAir destinations
El Al destinations

Emirates destinations
Etihad destinations
EVA Air destinations
Finnair destinations
Flyglobespan destinations
Garuda Indonesia destinations
Germanwings destinations
Gulf Air destinations
Hawaiian Airlines
Iberia destinations
Indian Airlines destinations
Iran Air destinations
Japan Airlines destinations
Jat Airways destinations
Jet2.com destinations
Jetairfly destinations
JetBlue Airways destinations
Jetstar Asia Airways destinations
KLM Cityhopper destinations
KLM destinations
Korean Air destinations
KrasAir destinations
Kuwait Airways destinations
LAN Airlines destinations
LAN Peru destinations
Libyan Airways destinations
Linhas Aéreas de Moçambique destinations
Livingston Airline Destinations
Lloyd Aereo Boliviano destinations
LOT Polish Airlines destinations
Lufthansa destinations
Luxair destinations
Madina Airlines destinations
Malaysia Airlines destinations
Malév Hungarian Airlines destinations
Mexicana destinations
Midwest Connect destinations

North African Airways destinations
North American Airlines destinations
Northwest Airlines destinations
Northwest Airlink destinations
Norwegian Air Shuttle destinations
OceanAir destinations
Olympic Airlines destinations
Oneworld destinations
Pakistan International Airlines destinations
Philippine Airlines destinations
Pulkovo destinations
Qantas destinations
Qatar Airways destinations
Royal Air Maroc destinations
Royal Brunei Airlines destinations
Royal Jordanian destinations
Ryanair destinations
S7 destinations
SAM destinations
Santa Barbara Airlines destinations
SAS Braathens destinations
SAS Group destinations
SATA International destinations
SATENA destinations
Saudi Arabian Airlines destinations
Scandinavian Airlines System destinations
SilkAir destinations
Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations
Singapore Airlines destinations
SkyEurope destinations
Skyservice destinations
SkyTeam destinations
SN Brussels destinations
South African Airways destinations

Southwest Airlines destinations
Spanair destinations
Spirit Airlines destinations
SriLankan Airlines Destinations
Star Alliance destinations
Sterling Airlines destinations
Sun Country Airlines destinations
Swiss International Air Lines destinations
Syrian Arab Airlines destinations
TACA destinations
TAM Linhas Aéreas destinations
TAP Portugal destinations
Tarom Cargo destinations
TAROM destinations
Tassili Airlines destinations
Thai Airways International destinations
Tiger Airways destinations
Transavia.com destinations
Tunisair destinations
Turkish Airlines destinations
United Airlines destinations
US Airways destinations
Uzbekistan Airways destinations
Varig destinations
Wayraperú destinations
WestJet destinations
Widerøe destinations
VIP Ecuador destinations
Virgin Atlantic destinations
Virgin Blue destinations
Wizz Air destinations
Xiamen Airlines destinations
Yemenia destinations

The information is easily maintainable if you have the will to do it, and say that no one would look it up is a complete generalization. NcSchu 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just told us why we dont send them to wikitravel, now why should we keep them here? You never got to that part. -Mask? 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup that's a third party source, However I said a secondary source, which is different. Addhoc 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense the current version WP:V can't be enacted to delete this article, I agree. Addhoc 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep As comment above. Bjrobinson 09:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an excellent point, and one which I totally agree with. I have seen some airline destination articles which state their past destinations but give as a list only. These destinations rewritten as text, and expanded, could be highly informative. This is something I will be doing as part of a rewrite of Aeroflot which I am working on, such great history there, the largest airline in the world with over 10,000 aircraft and thousands of destinations, to an airline today with a hundred aircraft and a hundred destinations. There is a lot of information which can be provided, and sourced of course, it could turn these destination articles into something which could also stand up on their own. --Russavia 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually be fine with these articles if thats what they did. Even for defunct airlines like Trans-am. This is a most interesting suggestion.... -Mask? 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this being done and working, the only problem would be to get accurate histories of destinations (if that is what would happen). NcSchu 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment commenting above by Enigma3542002..."Critical to an airline's definition is what destinations they serve"...is 100% correct. In regards to users looking at these lists, they are able to see what areas of the world the specific airlines focus on (Southwest Airlines focuses on primary USA destinations whereas Alitalia for instance focuses on Italian destinations), as well as if they utilize main airports (typical of legacy carriers like American Airlines) or secondary airports (like some low-cost carriers like Allegiant Air). Sox23 22:54, 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 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaj Marg Philosophy[edit]

Sahaj Marg Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

this page is repetitive see sahaj marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission, and apparently was created as a POV Fork. Sethie 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created so as to eliminate the volumes of controversies around the many groups claiming succession (3) over the years, and the many topics that no one could agree on. The person who created it simply left and it has been a 'repository" of all kinds of info that are really POV and not involved with Sahaj Marg at all, such as the sub topic called "Brahmaloka" to depict the "brighter worlds". This was an opinion and not a "researched" or authoritative thesis. It was simply made up out of the blue. Also it became the repository of the Teachings by another editor who does not come back often enough to make a comment on the article.

Page should be deleted

4d-don--don 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with 4d-don, this page add's no value as it is simply a redundent page, information on this page are part of section in sahaj marg page.

Page can be deleated.

--Shashwat pandey 12:38, 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 06:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insead singapore[edit]

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

Article reads as a travel guide. Subject could be notable as a campus of INSEAD, but there isn't any real content about the subject, only info one should know to visit the subject. - Fordan (talk) 20:18, 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 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise and shine software[edit]

Rise and shine software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software with no WP:RS. Review link points to a publisher's self-description. Leuko 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advertisement. Horologium talk - contrib 21:06, 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 nuke my article. Krimpet (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp My Ride in popular culture[edit]

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

Yet another cluttered trivial "pop culture" article. A list of mentions/spoofs of Pimp My Ride isn't encylopedic. This shouldn't be merged back into the regular Pimp My Ride article either. RobJ1981 20:57, 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 06:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashite[edit]

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

Speedy declined by admin. Unsourced neologism. DarkAudit 21:00, 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 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Comeau[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, as it does not qualify as WP:CSD#A7 as it was tagged. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 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 per WP:OR WP:V WP:RS and a few WP:BLP concerns thrown in -Docg 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Law & Order plot inspirations[edit]

List of Law & Order plot inspirations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is pure original research. Hnsampat 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit plot inspirations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent plot inspirations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Hnsampat 21:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death Hair[edit]

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

Unreleased independant film. Reads like an advert, but not quite blatant enough to speedy, IMHO. No independant references to establish notability. Overall, just feels like an advert/vanity to me. TexasAndroid 21:13, 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 DELETED already. -Docg 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kangas[edit]

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

Speedy removed numerous times. Not notable except in death. Wikipedia is not a memorial DarkAudit 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been speedied... --ST47Talk 21:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And salted. IMHO not really even notable even in death. Sad fact, but people die all the time. - TexasAndroid 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that when the link went red in mid-AfDing. Thought it best to finish the procedure just in case. DarkAudit 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I unsalt it for a proper AFD hearing? - TexasAndroid 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, clearly. Plenty of valid reasons to keep, but actually Patrick Nielsen Hayden's input alone is probably sufficient. Tempting though it may be to further taunt the editor who rather injudiciously chose to challenge that, I think this is a valid application of the good old snowball clause. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about some of the issues raised in this articles for deletion discussion has been started at: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Recent_issue_with_reliable_sources. Please contribute! --Kim Bruning 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Nicoll[edit]

James D. Nicoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (1st AfD)

It amazes me still that this article was able to skirt our WP:BLP policies so conveniently just 5 months ago, but try as I might, I cannot locate any non-trivial third party coverage of this person. Right now the article is pulling sources from Usenet, LiveJournal, and a couple different mailing lists depending on what time of the week you view the page. That is just unacceptable and fails WP:A policy as well. Burntsauce 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also accept Usenet as a reliable source, under certain circumstances (specifically in this case, in situations to do with usenet itself). This seems to be one such circumstance. (specifically in this case, in situations to do with usenet itself). --Kim Bruning 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added when usenet can be reliable to examples. (also, I missed the rfc editor, so added them too :-) ) --Kim Bruning 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close Now? Seeing the unique situation where this Articles for Deletion discussion probably counts as a reliable source all by itself now, shall we keep early? --Kim Bruning 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC) On the gripping hand... I wonder how many more famous/important sf people we can still attract? O:-) see also the talk page[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of facilities at Texas A&M University[edit]

List of facilities at Texas A&M University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. I also didn't think the article is of any use. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:31, 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 speedily deleted as G4 (recreation of deleted material). --Seed 2.0 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alii wright[edit]

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

Non notable artist. Speedied and recreated several times. Recommend salt. DarkAudit 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT 04:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald J. Harrington[edit]

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

Copyright issue - the two paragraphs of this article are direct copies from http://www.stjohns.edu/about/news/items/bi_mer_harringtond.sju and only known good revisions are extremely minimal stubs. Sigma 7 21:33, 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 15:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoara[edit]

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

Article is essentially unverifiable gibberish. I was actually in the process of cleaning it up and was looking for sources when I realized that I can't even reliably verify where this place is supposed to be.

This article is the only Ghit when searching for jai raj singh sonoara, the suggested spelling and gorakhpur sonoara. Sonora is a state in Mexico but that's obviously not the subject of this article and Gorakhpur appears to be a city in India, so I guess that sort of narrows it down. I haven't been able to find any article that mention both. 'sonoara India' gets 13 Ghits - most of them non-English and some of which apparently deal with the Mexican state (I tried Google India, as well, with the exact same results). "sonora India" gets ~110.

The gentleman who financed the infrastructure improvements is mentioned on several websites (about 900 with the suggested spelling and ~260 with the spelling that's in the article). Article has no incoming links and no sources. Aside from deadtree research, I can't really think of any way to even verify the town's existence. Usually, I would have contacted the only contributing editor. That appears to be a SPA with a single contribution (ie. this article) though. Hence, I'm listing it here. -- Seed 2.0 22:14, 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 deleted as blatant nonsense/hoax from a vandalism-only account. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darragh Noonan[edit]

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

Nominating for deleteion as a hoax article. Unreferenced as it is unreferencable. An article under the same title was previously CSDed. I had added a prod tag to this one, but that was removed today, without any additions to the article. Needless to say, the subject of the article gets no search engine hits in the context of being a gangster Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:14, 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. John254 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (Warriors)[edit]

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

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, section 7. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Nominating 14 articles total that are nothing but plot summeries.

Firestar's Quest (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sight (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunset (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Starlight (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dawn (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Midnight (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moonrise (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Darkest Hour (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Dangerous Path (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rising Storm (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Forest of Secrets (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fire and Ice (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Into the Wild (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 22:40, 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Victrola[edit]

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

There is no justification of notability and clear COI. Vanity page. Lesnail 22:18, 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 close per CSD G11. Removal of speedy tags by the author of an article can be vandalism and doesn't mean that an AfD is needed. Veinor (talk to me) 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uberorbs[edit]

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

Speedy as spam tag removed. it can't get any more blatant than this. DarkAudit 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per no assertion of notability. --Wafulz 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-rillo[edit]

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

Speedy tag removed by author. Non-notable self-published musician. DarkAudit 22:31, 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 Delete, no sources were produced --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped from the headlines[edit]

Ripped from the headlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is also a non-notable phrase whose only assertion of notability is that it is used in advertisements for Law & Order, which is not a valid criterion for notability. Hnsampat 22:43, 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 deleted. Log. PeaceNT 14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Nsue[edit]

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

Speedy removed by author. No sources. Looks like something Made Up in School One Day. DarkAudit 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby re-nominate the article, this player does not satisfy WP:BIO due to lack of any professional experience whatsoever ChrisTheDude 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of the Nation[edit]

Mother of the Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article should be deleted for the same reaons as Father of the Nation, currently being discussed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Father_of_the_Nation If possible, this article is even more silly and I do wonder if the author added it as a joke or not. How many Americans in the US think "Ah, mother of the nation!" when somebody mentions Eleanor Roosevelt? And I can guarantee Tarja Halonen is not described in that way. And just who is Inge Meisel. I hope this article is deleted before we have to see "Son of the nation", "Daughter of the Nation" and "Cousin's Step-oncle of the Nation"... :-) JdeJ 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is the "phenomenon" in the end? Actually the very term "mother of the nation" is ambiguous, all the more if translated into foreign languages; does it refer to "some woman who helped building the nation", or to "some woman who is widely known as a mother", or to "some woman who is widely for acting the role of a mother"? See the "Inge Meysel" example above. --B. Wolterding 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, everything is ambiguous in society. This is not mathematics.Biophys 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's not mathematics. It's original research, no sources and completely made up. Tarja Halonen is not called Mother of the Nation, Eleanor Roosevelt is not and Inge Meysel is an actor. The article is inaccurate and few of these women, possibly none, is called Mother of the Nation. Being from one of the countries mentioned in the article and having lived for quite some time in two others, I can safely say that the article is pure nonsence. JdeJ 01:13, 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 06:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Kimball[edit]

The only thing she has done of note is appear in a single season of Survivor, where she was not an overly notable person. Precedent has already been established that merely appearing on Survivor is not enough for a page. Also, the page has no sources. -- Scorpion0422 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daedal macabre[edit]

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

Non-notable online RPG (MUD). No Alexa rank. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:22, 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.
More