< May 15	May 17 >

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, nothing borderline about this advertising. NawlinWiki 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short-order marketing[edit]

Borderline advertising for creator,little or no explanation of what the concept is. Also seems to be a borderline candidate for WP:Complete Bollocks Eddie.willers 01:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Maybe not WP:BOLLOCKS, but not notable, no verifiability, no sources in here listed whatsoever, appears to be a neologism, and big time WP:COI, as it was created by the promoter. Remote possibility of spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like an advertisement for one company's peculiar (trademarked?) name for their services. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and somewhat confusing --Cryo921 02:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious case of self-promotion, bordering spam. Not notable in any way, filled with weasel words. JdeJ 03:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear vanispamcruftisement with blatant WP:COI authorship. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, put it out of its misery. Sachabrunel 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most vehemently. Entirely vague and buzzword laden, a perfect example of complete bollocks in my opinion. Would you want anyone capable of committing this kind of prose in charge of publicizing anything? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, little to no assertion of reliability, promotional and advertising at best, nonsense at worst. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:31, 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 housekeeping (G6). Sr 13 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ssdt[edit]

Disambig page for...nothing: a page that doesn't exist, an extlink, and some other description that doesn't have a wikilink. Been tagged for lack of context since November. DMacks 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, looks like a basic G6. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A WP:CSD#G6 this should have been. Acalamari 02:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per CDS #6 (houskeeping)--Cryo921 03:40, 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 merge/redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiislam[edit]

It is not notable. MomoShomo 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about it. Abureem
Delete and merge per MomoShindo9 Hikaru 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, it says to avoid votes like "delete and merge"--Sefringle 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going with delete here. Good idea, but needs more notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the discussion on the page. --Haemo 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge. Non-notable. --Kirby♥time 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely.--Sefringle 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. It seems that there is a tendency for certain polemic sites to be called 'notable' but this popularity seems to rest more within a small circle of like-minded people than in actual notability. The Behnam 02:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Notable, as evidenced by links to reference in published academic literature on page. Attempts to delete in spite of this are therefore in fairly obvious bad-faith, especially given the subject-nature of the article and the demonstrable pro-Islamic bias of many editors supporting deletion. There is no "discussion" concerning merger on the article's talk page (as Haemo asserts), just a succession of slapped-on deletion tags. There is no discussion among the nay-voting editors here on the article's talk page. Speedy Deletion has already been rejected.--Mike18xx 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make ill-considered accusations as that is uncivil. I don't know about the others, but I know you are completely wrong by possibly characterizing me as having a 'pro-Islamic' bias. For example, this doesn't conform to that bias [1]. Please, AGF, and defend the article on grounds of its supposed notability alone. You should retract your accusations of bad-faith from this page. Thanks. The Behnam 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many" does not mean "all", Behnam; I did not single you out specifically, so I have not "characterized" you in any way (I am pleased to see that you're impartial). No retraction then, since, sans lack of discussion on the relevant pages (or, one gathers the impression, even any familiarity with the subject page at all by some of the pro-deletes), the calls for deletion and votes for delection of an article with references remain in bad faith.--Mike18xx 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of a single academic essay does not make something necessarily notable. It's just a case study. MomoShomo 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it notable (other than the academic essay) is that it's the only Wiki project a citizen of an Islamic nation critical of his birth-faith could dare participate in without having his IP address logged (and therefore available to the government of said nation, or any other retributive entity for that matter).--Mike18xx 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with the criteria at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) MomoShomo 05:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Faith Freedom International. While not notable enough for content, it is worthy of a redircet.--Sefringle 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FFI. - Merzbow 04:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I would otherwise argue for a merge to FFI, but seeing as it is a case study in a scholarly article, it deserves a spot on Wikipedia. However, the article needs to be improved to contain criticism of the website. There obviously is some, judging from the article. If this is not addressed, I would change my position to merge. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There *is* a stub tag on the article -- it'd be nice if some other editors would work to improve it instead of rushing to gank it one way or another.--Mike18xx 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide some source that the wiki is notable, most of us would probably change our votes. It's not that we are against the site; its just that we cannot have non-notable articles on wikipedia.--Sefringle 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to gather, then, that a stub tag is now just the equivalent of donning a vest with a bullseye painted on it? What is a stub for, if not not to alert people to improve the articale -- rather than go, "Hey! Let's delete this sucker fast-speedy-fast before anybody finds two notable links!" Be that as it may, there are now multiple notable sources, so I earerly await "most of us"'s votes to change.--Mike18xx 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the information can be covered in a section in the main FFI article, no need for a separate article as it doesn't appear to been notability standards on its own. --Abnn 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in a scholarly journal establishes notability independant of Faith Freedom International. That article also discusses attempts by critics to sabotage or marginalize this resource, so without impugning the motives of the nominator or voters, I think we should have a high delete threshold for this one.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be necessary, as Wikipedia often deals with contentious material. Remember that there is also Wikipedia:Deletion Review available if you think that an individual AfD resulted in the wrong decision. --Abnn 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I was skeptical until I saw that it is the subject of an entire paper by a respected Danish professor in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal; this is probably not the last word on WikiIslam.Proabivouac 05:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria at the web notability page states that it must be the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works", not just one. MomoShomo 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you could find additional publications as the criteria outlined on Wikipedia:Notability (web) requires "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", right now you only have one published work. --Abnn 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More added.--Mike18xx 08:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge and redirect.Proabivouac 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple sources requirement seems pretty clear. It should be merged and redirected, without prejudice against its recreation in the future if and when the situation changes.Proabivouac 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rustavo and Proabivouac. -- Karl Meier 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another attempt to promote FaithFreedom. Does not look notable to keep. Google search generate 49k results but majority of them are blog or faith-freedom website itself [2]. --- A. L. M. 08:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's notable enough on its own (and don't know how the article could be expanded). Alexa rank over one million. Redirect to Faith Freedom International, with a brief mention in that article. - Mike Rosoft 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some curious body might add WikiIslam's mission statement in the article. I've held off doing so just to see if *any* editor here was even obliquely interested in fleshing out a stub instead of just smothering it in the cradle.--Mike18xx 10:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep does assert its notability in links, but actual site could use more traffic Guycalledryan 10:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FFI Where is the notability here? I also have to note that after months of disappearence Mike18xx (talk · contribs) suddenly appears w/ something new. It sounds like if this user has been setting up the website before bring it here creating an article about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If impugning the motives of editors is permissible in this conversation, as you seem to think, I'd like to impugn the motives of a curiously dispropportionate number of Muslimm editors who are Hell-bent on shoving everything they don't like under the rug. "It sounds like" (i.e., I am certain that) you have no idea at all what WikiIslam is, who created it (you could easily look it up just by following the external links, a procedure you are clearly proficient in doing as you're able to click my user link), and haven't the slightest interest in it other than learning that it's critical of Islam and must therefore be suppressed by any expedient means possible. Fayssalf, you are hardly unique in this regard, in this very thread even. Meanwhile, I have never proposed an article for deletion, no matter how lacking in "notability" -- I guess that's just the difference between you and me, Fayssalf: I'm happy to let individuals make up their own minds regards what is "notable" and concern myself purely with what is accurate, while you are of a thought-management mentality.--Mike18xx 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First it wasn't me who brought the article here. Second if you think my judgment here was based on any religious motive than you are wrong and my history would prove you that. I've edited till today exactly 10180 unique pages compared w/ 269 of yours. Do the math. The difference between you and me is that i've never been blocked. That was a link to your block log of course (not mine) to show how lucky you are to be still in the community editing. So, my observation is totally legit. I suspect your ways to be clear w/ you. You came back suddenly to promote a website (whatever website it would be - based on one notable source). Good luck anyway. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, what's your excuse for just making junk up by implying that *I* had anything to do with the creation of ("setting up") WikiIslam (the site itself, not the page here)? When people just make stuff up, I quite naturally suspect their motives regarding anything else they do.--Mike18xx 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not based on nothing. I am sorry but i can't trust you. Please refer to this thread for more details. There has been a lot of fuss about it. You are not obliged to explain to me your raison d'être here in wikipedia but of course a sudden appearance after almost 9 months is highly questionable and i am entitled to announce it to the public.

—This is part of a comment by [[User:User:FayssalF|User:FayssalF]] , which got interrupted by the following:

Why is it so "highly questionable" if someone has an on-again/off-again affair with Wikipedia instead of being married to it -- eh? FayssalF? One needn't be logged in to edit this place -- except to CREATE an article. When one is not logged in, one's history is logged under an IP address, not a user-name. All you're seeing is the fact that I haven't created a new article in nine months. Meanwhile, I have this big, steaming turd in the form of your unretracted conspiracy theory that I have a hand in creating Wikiislam during my mysterious absence.--Mike18xx 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite unique? Probably. Quite unique to spot blatant POV displayed on my screen. Who edited this ill-documented (i don't have a name for it in fact) → "it quickly become a clearinghouse for news from Islamic nations and repository for information critial of Islam."? How, when, where? it has become a clearinghouse? Well this is our business here in this house and our duty is get rid of nonsense of this kind and we are doing quite fine w/ it.

As for if i have already navigated this famous and notable Wikiislam, yes i surely did in three occasions today.

—This is part of a comment by [[User:User:FayssalF|User:FayssalF]] , which got interrupted by the following:

Excellent! Now that you've been there, it should be clear to you exactly how silly it is to suppose that I've been working to make the place in the last nine months when it's been around since 2005.--Mike18xx 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, i noted the following:

The relatively long enough main article about Islam got 2 references in total! After more than 6 months of hard work they only could gather 2 references???? Is it logical for an allegedly notable clearinghouse wiki especialized in Islam?!!! Is this a joke or what? Do they lack expertise in there or what?
It says anyone can edit. Fine but Nope. It is just a misleading lie. To edit there one has to log in. So why they aren't clear enough? Why do users have to register ? Isn’t free for all as it states in the main front page? There is no explanation for that at the FAQ.

—This is part of a comment by [[User:User:FayssalF|User:FayssalF]] , which got interrupted by the following:

So? Register and then edit. Where's the lie?--Mike18xx 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll leave to the editors there the task of being more creative on using templates. The same main article got a ((inuse)) template but not for the disclaimer which state that “This article is intended primarily for kafir” being this way part of the article intro! Do they have to put that notice on top of every article? If yes than they should obviously think about creating templates. When?

So which kind of interest I would have in it after that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'll have an unlimited number of reasons to loathe and seek to delete this Wikipedia page because you do not like its subject regardless of notability.--Mike18xx 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Only if you take my 01:10, 17 May 2007 comment as nonsense. Please don't inflate the meaning of the term "notability". It sounds like you are talking about something really notable. If you consider that this clearinghouse wiki is notable because of one reference while the Islam article in that specialized wiki is using 1 reference more than i'll go to out on my limb and guess that you are trolling. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably..."? -- look, there's no reason to write anything else after that, because your position on the matter becomes crystal clear: "Notability" may be important for Wikipedia, but for you it's just a convenient excuse to be exploited as best as possible before moving on to another convenient excuse to delete should previous excuses come up short. Why else would you cop to my inquiry ending with "...regardless of notability"? Thanks for the stipulation.--Mike18xx 02:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems a suitable article, I see it being notable as it has to do with Wikimedia. Regards — The Sunshine Man 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do w/ Wikimedia Foundation? How is that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This isn't a Wikimedia project. The closest relation I see is that it's running Mediawiki. That doesn't make it notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine had his term reversed. As the article itself clearly states, WikiIslam utilizes the Mediawiki interface (not that it's a Wikimedia project).--Mike18xx 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but use of Wikimedia, as I note, doesn't make an article notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article on Faith Freedom International. only one source of real, substantial coverage - so it doesn't meet the requirement of multiple reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - This [3] is only one aspect of the notability. --ProtectWomen 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the other aspects are...? MomoShomo 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That WikiIslam is a wiki which doesn't display IP addresses so an apostate's articles don't lead to a fatwa being issued and him or her being hunted down by murder-minded fanatics.--Mike18xx 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability policy. It really doesn't make any sense for you to keep bringing it up. MomoShomo 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Per Sefringle as at this point in time, it needs more coverage to deserve an article of its own. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unclear even if the Springer link is referring to this particular Wiki or not. Either way unclear why it is even remotely notable other than being a subset of Faith Freedom International (which in itself scrapes through) and certainly parts of a notable site do not automatically mean subset is notable in its own right. Ttiotsw 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely clear that the Springer link is referring to WikiIslam (although it doesn't help when Momo deletes the full-text link into order to obfusicate the issue). No one else is having trouble with that particular aspect.--Mike18xx 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as noted above; if this gets more independent coverage, it may be worthy of an article in the future, but right now, it's probably best discussed as a project of the parent organization. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per much of above. gren グレン 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are now sufficient notable links and references for Wikiislam (which has been evolving as this discussion has been ongoing.--Mike18xx 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So far, references consist of an image on WI, an article about the satirical cartoons, and an article that cites WI as a reference itself. External links consist rightly of WI, a Wikistats rank, and two links to what appears to be a discertation making a case around "islamophobia" (sic) in conjunction with WI. I'm not sure that these constitute reliable sources for the purpose. My !vote stands, for now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- It is important enough to be used in a study of a scholarly paper and also was presented at a conference. It is therefore important enough for Wikipedia. With time, it can be improved upon. Outsider2810 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article survives the AfD, I suggest that it be moved to WikiIslam (a slight capitalization change). When I first saw this AfD, I misread the article as "Wikii Slam" because of the awkward capitalization. I did not wish to move the article during the AfD, as this is obviously a contentious issue, and my actions may have been misinterpreted. Charlie 09:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. Obviously notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in wikipedia, not notable enough or seperate enough from FFI to have own article. (It's a stub as it stands now, but it seems that any extra material wouldn't be worth including on wikipedia.) Single academic case study not enough justification for notability - academics can write case studies about more or less anything! BobFromBrockley 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FFI, keeping the history. Not notable for a separate article. John Vandenberg 02:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. One of the very few chances for muslims to post editorials & views that might go against the accepted status-quo supported by their totalitarian regimes. I also agree with Charlie above that the name should change to WikiIslam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Populous (talk • contribs)
- Comment - User 3rd edit

The vote, so far, is Delete:7, Keep:10, Merge:12, give or take a waffling here or there. Accordingly, as the author of the page in question, I am merging the article on my own initiative -- and that should, I think, wrap things up here.--Mike18xx 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Ali sina could come up with 100 more sites and then we may have to include 100 more articles based upon the same shared notability. But because it is hosted by FFI and FFI is what makes wikiislam the article should be a subject within the FFi article.

Oh yes and the Delete as calculated by mikeXXX on 05:52, 18 May 2007 is not correct i calculated 9 Votes for Delete The last delete vote being given on 18:42, 16 May 2007.(Misleading with false information in a typical FFI style huh ? just kidding please dont begin attacking me)

Facts. 1 Delete Nothing notable about it. Abureem

2 Delete and merge per MomoShindo9Hikaru

3 Delete .Good idea, but needs more notability. --Dennis The Tiger

4 Delete There is nothing to merge. Non-notable. --Kirby♥time

5 Delete - Non-notable. The Behnam

6 Delete --Abnn

7 Delete . --- A. L. M.

8 Delete per nom. IP198 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

9 Delete. Ttiotsw

The votes counted as keep are 9 due to the fact that one voter changed his vote from keep to Merge. FACT overlooked earlier.(common FFI habit) STRONG KEEP. .--Mike18xx..Weak keep - -- Cielomobile talk. Keep .-Rustavo. Keep. .Proabivouac (who later changed it to merge so its not counted i suppose). Keep . -- Karl Meier. Weak Keep Guycalledryan. Weak keep — The Sunshine Man 16. Keep/Merge - --ProtectWomen. Strong Keep- Outsider2810. Strong Keep.- Populous. Z2qc1

Comment Lets not tally early. We shouldn't declare a winner before the polls close. Let the closing admin determine what should happen.--Sefringle 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "It is not notable"- is not a nomination. --JJay 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed that we should wait for the admin to tally. However my idea of publishing the tally was to correct the false information given earlier. Cant allow that to happen and i think thats not a very bad thing to do.
Delete or merge per nom. No sources. Arbustoo 07:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it has become apparent that User:Mike18xx has been canvassing off-wiki to influence the outcome of this AfD, as well as encourage 3RR gaming on the article itself. [4]. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Meccapedians never network. What a hypocritical jokester you are.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.171.199 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 May 2007

having trouble logging in, Mike? ITAQALLAH 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films with no title[edit]

Misleading name, not Films with no title, but Films that don't display their title in the opening credits. Reluctant nomination, because as far as pointless trivia lists go, this is one of the better ones. A summary of this style already exists at Opening credits#Recent trends, but this such a non-notable topic that to have a seperate article/list of films is excessive. The article was tagged as original research in March asking for "sourcing for the concept described in this article" but no sources have been added. Masaruemoto 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although it is interesting, it has no sources. Every film on the list has a title, so the article title in completely inaccurate as the nom states. the_undertow ^talk 02:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately weak delete There might be something in this article that belongs in Opening credits but this article is probably at the wrong title, and it isn't even sourced as a whole, so it may be OR of a sort. FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious OR. Without any reliable sources, it must go. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/cruft. Lankiveil 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete Interesting list, but make it a website and add an external link at some film-related article. JJL 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting but is WP:OR as well as being a largely trivial subject. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, not to mention WP:Whattheheckisthepoint? Djcastel 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Well written, and adds to the encyclopedia. The deletion of this article will be an indicator of our broken deletion rules. sigh.... Ab e g92contribs 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "What's with the horse's head? Hey... this is not Bambi" --Infrangible 02:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if for no other reason than the films have titles. Even overlooking that rather obvious flaw in the article's premise, if there are reliable sources regarding the trend in the motion picture industry to redesign the opening credits to omit mention of the title then an article on that topic would certainly be welcome. A list of films with their opening credits so structured is not. Otto4711 22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and as an indiscriminate list of information. Acalamari 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rename It's actually rather interesting to see how many films don't give the title in the movie itself, but to say the films have no title is absurd.--66.127.52.209 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. Sr 13 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyplot[edit]

Neologism and Original Research. Article has been tagged for nearly a year for lack of sources for this neologism, but none have been added. Masaruemoto 01:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom has it right, not really well sourced. Besides, while they got Voyager, they forgot the rest of Star Trek. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism, and probably original research. --Haemo 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's non-notable, unsourced, and most likely to be original research. Acalamari 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No support stating that this is a valid name for any specific phenomana in film or TV. Slavlin 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, one year too long as it is. RFerreira 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, WP:NEO. There should be an article for plot wheel (see Edgar Wallace), though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn neologism. Lankiveil 11:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, neologism/OR. JJL 11:58, 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. Sr 13 00:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealbreaker.com[edit]

The only reason for notability given in the article is that the website has been sued for copyright infringement. I don't think this alone qualifies it as notable under our notability guidelines. greenrd 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable blog site, with a really, really bad logo. the_undertow ^talk 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable i went through twenty one pages of msn search results from searching for this and got nothing but links to their own site--Cryo921 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its sole claim to fame seems to be being sued. A google search failed to reveal notability. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as described in the reasons above. --Nehrams2020 08:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I googled and managed to find independent references which suggested worth keeping.Hotmann 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if everyone who had been threatened with a lawsuit had their own article, my own personal article would be up to FA by now. Lankiveil 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Website is a significant Wall Street information source created by Elizabeth Spiers, who is a notable young media entrepreneur. The Solengo suit is an actual one, not threatened, and the website has received substantial attention because of it.--Samiharris 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of documentary films by Indian film-makers[edit]

Grouping films together just because the various directors of those films happen to have been born in the same country makes this a list of loosely associated topics. Not much different in concept to having a List of documentary films by American film-makers or List of horror films by British film-makers. Apart from that, fairly indiscriminate since this also includes television episodes and music videos, and even "fiction" films. Masaruemoto 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Page is obscure and subject to arbitrary listing by a tiny group of contributors. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize and delete. We have a number of similar categories, such as American docmentary films, and this list would do nicely in that form. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't create another category. The items can be categorized under existing categories for documentary films. Otto4711 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as copyvio. Sr 13 00:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Rosa[edit]

Assertion of notability precludes a speedy, but otherwise non-notable for entertainers per WP:BIO and unsourced. DarkAudit 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per so many reasons. No RS. All OR. Reads like a MySpace. Promotional article. the_undertow ^talk 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as above. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I really hate Mia Rose, but she's the #3 most-subscribed channel on YouTube, the most-subscribed musician and, not surprisingly, she's gotten a lot of press.
- Mia Rose in Rolling Stone
- Mia Rose in Evening Standard
- Mia Rose in The Age
- Mia Rose in The Sun
- Mia Rose in BBC podcast.
Plus she's signed to Ryan Leslie's NextSelection label. The article just needs the sources added. Unfortunately, we've got absolutely no grounds for deletion here. --JayHenry 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should note that this article was evidently twice deleted in January at the location Mia Rose and deleted four times at Miaarose, but I still think we have to keep it this time. --JayHenry 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I keep finding more of a deletion trail Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miaarose. But again, most of the press coverage came after this deletion. --JayHenry 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't realize it was a copyright violation. Well, delete then, and if anyone wants to use the sources above to restart it, that'd be great. We probably ought to start something with the sources, if only to head off somebody else from starting something without sources. And it should be at Mia Rose not Mia Rosa. I'll do it eventually if nobody else does, though I'll admit I have little enthusiasm for this one. --JayHenry 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The quality of the article is very low and should be improved, but I agree with JayHenry. JdeJ 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this is a shape up rather than a ship out scenario. Slavlin 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE and NN. Being on YouTube does not make a person notable. meshach 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably passes WP:N, but should be ruthlessly purged as ((db-copyvio)). Ohconfucius 08:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a real article could be written (at Mia Rose, please), but no more of these cut-and-paste copyvios. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This particular version looks unsalvageable, unless recreated as a stub to start from scratch, but someone else could always restart it with lots of reputable secondary sourced citations if they find them. Smee 10:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per Meshach, Smee and Ohconfucius. Lankiveil 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete this, and use all those sources that JayHenry tracked down to create a new oen at the proper location. Looks like the clock's started on her 15 minutes, and with major outlets reporting on her, she's probably going to meet guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tony Fox. --GreenJoe 20:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Mia Rose is absolutely notable. The fact that the article is atrociously written is an incentive for editors to edit it with a meat-cleaver, not hustle for its deletion.--Mike18xx 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A copyright violation cannot be rewritten, unless it is thoroughly rewritten from scratch. Unless you are volunteering to do so, I'm not sure what you're voting to keep. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyvio -- Whpq 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, member of major European royal house, WP:SNOW per below. NawlinWiki 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eulalia, Duchess of Galliera[edit]

Procedural AfD. Was proposed for speedy delete. Subject appears possibly notable, so moving to AfD. --Shirahadasha 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good call, Shira. I checked the user contributions of the primary author, and he/she has created and edited dozens of other articles relating to European royalty. I trust that he knows what he's doing. Of course the article is not A-class yet. Placeholder account 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being the grandchild of Queen Victoria may not cut it, but she founded the Galliera Institutions, and I think that gives her notability. the_undertow ^talk 03:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs references, but no evidence in nomination that the info on this stub article is inaccurate. Taking it at face value, she was a princess of a major European nation ~150 years ago, and is notable enough that a photograph of her is still kicking around. This page appears to be part of a network of pages on spanish royalty, so it is not an orphan page and is linked to by several clearly notable pages on spanish royalty. A legitimately notable stub in my mind. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hopefully expand. The Duchy of Galliera was established by Napoleon in 1812. From what I read here, it appears that Eulalia acquired the title through marriage with Antonio de Montpensier, son of Antoine, Duke of Montpensier. Stammer 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Children of monarchs are inherently notable. In this case, she must have been part of the line of succession and it also appears that she is notable by other counts as suggested above. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable person, but "(February 12 1862 - March 8 1858)" as the lifespan seems odd. Lankiveil 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment From other references, she died in 1958. --Charlene 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established above. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Hardcastle[edit]

Seems non notable to me Postcard Cathy 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I might have even tagged it A7, but there's no rush. Placeholder account 03:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that it could have been an A7. Mwelch 04:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The review of This Is England gets 2/3 of a page in the most recent issue of The Guardian Weekly to make it to my house... Pete.Hurd 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, no one is debating whether or not This is England is wiki worthy. The question is whether or not an actor in that film is wiki worthy. If we used the criteria of "is the film wiki worthy" than all of the people who make up the huge scenes of people in Liz Taylor's Cleopatra would be wiki worthy as would all the people who played the Jews fleeing Egypt in The Ten Commandments. The issue should be Kieran Hardcastle, not This is England! Cathy 172.146.182.106 17:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN actor with biggest claim to fame a small role in an independent film. He isn't listed in our article on the movie. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Give it some time to be expanded/sourced. Smee 10:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete seems non-notable to me as well. There's nothing to indicate that his role in This Is England is more than a background extra. Lankiveil 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete - no notable roles in films to establish notability -- Whpq 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Andrle[edit]

Local radio host. Awards assert notability to preclude a speedy, but not to the level expected of WP:BIO. DarkAudit 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Placeholder account 03:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A college radio host lacking notability. the_undertow ^talk 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KrakatoaKatie 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above Think outside the box 08:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no notability. Regards — The Sunshine Man 17:07, 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 - WP:CORP issues. The aricle does nothing to stake a claim of notability based on success, innovation, inventions, market share or notability for being ultra-terrible (none that are soruced). We only have a description of a machine it made, and its own website (not RS). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberPower PCs[edit]

Blatent advert. Main contributor is obviously an employee or owner. Bayyoc 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is probably just an advertisement. Useight 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Nearly a million G-hits. Morgan Wick 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, large number of Google hits including articles criticising their workmanship. Just needs a tidy.Mmoneypenny 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:N and WP:V. Does need some cleaning, though. -- MarcoTolo 22:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 12:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:V. Ab e g92contribs 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiability is pointless here. Notability for companies WP:CORP is the criteria to satisfy. It is not on the Nasdaq and the only sources are the company's web site and a "PC Magazine Review" that is nothing more than a product listing on a web site where you can buy one of their computers. --Infrangible 02:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When did stock-exchange listing become a criterion? Cyberpower PCs is not on Nasdaq because it's privately owned - so are Cargill and Enterprise Rent-A-Car, for that matter. As for secondary sources, the company's products have been reviewed by numerous magazines - for a start, see here (yes, I know that's the company site), or here, or here, or here. There are even plenty of sources to improve the "Criticisms" section... -- MarcoTolo 03:51, 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. --Core desat 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VV Zeewolde[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N, including notability guidelines for football clubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. A non-notable Dutch football (sports?) club with no indication of where it stands in the league structure, if at all. Ytny (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Ytny (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to the Dutch Wikipedia it's an amateur team [5] Smirnoff Black 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the last I can find of them at RSSSF is that in 2004-05 they were a sixth level team, but the article itself looks like it implies they are now at fifth level (Amateur Tweede Kkasse). I'm unsure whether this passes the bar or not, so I'll abstain for now. If kept, of course, this article needs a major clean up. - fchd 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should Marcel Boelens (their coach) be rolled into this nomination? He doesn't seem notable either through his association with this club or elsewhere........ ChrisTheDude 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to nominate the Boelens article for AfD but I had to run out. I had originally PRODed this article but the tag was removed without explanation. The same thing happened to Boelens article, but the PROD has been restored on that, so that should take care of it. --Ytny (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amature and very low level team. User:KRBN 08:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Dave101→talk 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what is said above the club play at the fifth level in Dutch football, having presumably been promoted. What level do we go down to in The Netherlands for notability? Without knowing the cut off point as mentioned above it is not possible to vote with any degree of accuracy. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering we don't including English clubs that haven't been above Conference, and the English league system is more organized than the Dutch, my opinion is that the fifth level in Holland isn't notable. And I had trouble finding any non-trivial English source about the club, even if it meets the football project's notability criteria, I don't think it meets WP:V.--Ytny (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Considering we don't including English clubs that haven't been above Conference"......erm, yes we do, we include clubs that have played in the top ten levels of the English league system (i.e. five below the Conference) - I think you might be thinking of the rule on players...... ChrisTheDude 06:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, I stand corrected. Ytny (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too amateur to be notable. --Angelo 14:02, 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. --Core desat 01:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Weltman[edit]

Delete Non-notable, and not sourced. GreenJoe 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, also note that she seems to have been added to ((United States presidential election, 2008 navigation)) despite the article saying she is only "considering" running, and of course, the fact that there is no evidence she is a serious candidate. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Only news coverage is for the Congressional election, which she lost. Losing candidates are not automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exploratory commitee for 2008 presidential election to represent a very notable party is not non-notable. --Oakshade 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. Say you're in or not. Don't straddle the fence. GreenJoe 15:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She gets less than 900 Google hits. Her presidential exploratory committee website is on Geocities. I see little, if any, non-trivial coverage. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In order to call onesself a politician, would't you need to have won at least one election? --Infrangible 02:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jones (politician)[edit]

Delete. Article isn't sourced, and subject isn't notable. GreenJoe 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One reference link, but goes to an irrelevant advertisement site. Not notable. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being a chair of an intra-party caucus isn't notable on its own. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. I will redirect for now, if people want to merge additional content, the article history is still there. W.marsh 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Keating[edit]

Delete. Non-notable and article isn't sourced. GreenJoe 03:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustavo (talk • contribs)
merge with Oregon gubernatorial election, 2006 failed candidate with 1% support. Pete.Hurd 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As per above, and to Pacific Green Party. Smee 10:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to two pages per above. Do not delete until merge has been executed. -Pete 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really should be kept. It seems that he has done some other important work besides running for governor. At the very least, all of this information should be merged somewhere and his article name should be redirected there. Academic Challenger 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinant info to Oregon gubernatorial election, 2006, and then redirect him there. That race was apparently his lifetime crowning achievement, garnering an overwhelming minority of 1% of the vote. If he comes to something more in the future, which is always a possibility, then he can be considered for a new article reflecting that. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kramer (politician)[edit]

See first nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Kramer (politician) 1st nomination. Delete Non-notable and not sourced. GreenJoe 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Co-chair of significant national party clearly establishes notability. AfD two months ago was unanimous keep. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not notable. It simply means you chair something. Besides, they have 7 co-chairs. That's hardly notable. GreenJoe 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I think this nomination is pretty inappropriate given the very recent, unanimous keep vote. Links to Green party websites verifying some of the info on this page seem to have been added in response to the unreferenced tag. You don't seem to be bringing any new information or arguments with this nomination. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's been about 2 months since the last afd, so it's hardly inappropriate. GreenJoe 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This is crazy. The last AFD was a unanimous keep, as is this AFD. If he was notable 2 months ago, what would make you think he's not-notable today? This is obviously a bad faith nomination. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with Rustavo. The article could probably be beefed up a bit, but I think it is notable. Slavlin 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking != actuality. If he's notable, prove it. GreenJoe 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable major figure in minor party. more than local significance.DGG 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, the lack of reliable third party sources in this case is due to a systemic bias by American media outlets and publications, third parties simply don't receive the coverage that the two major parties do but being a co chair of the most important third party (currently) in the U.S. is certainly notable. IvoShandor 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May only be a big player in second-tier politics, but is a big player nevertheless and visible on the national stage. Notability is pretty evident. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Co-chair of a very notable political party. And I notice this nom is speedy tagging, prodding and AfDing a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF. I saw a lot of non-notable articles in the category. GreenJoe 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always cringe when people claim systemic bias with regards to political articles. I'm also not sure whether being one of seven co-chairs of the party makes him notable. The complete lack of sourcing in the article makes me uncomfortable. Even the Greens' news clippings page only brings up five items when searching for 'Kramer' - and they're all from 2003. Going against the grain here, I know, but delete. (And the other co-chair that currently has an article. Rebecca Rotzler, doesn't look good either.} Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may indeed cringe but are clearly mistaken if you believe the American media covers third parties with the same vigor they do the two major parties. IvoShandor 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Co-Leader in a notable third party deserves article. Davewild 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 7 co-chairs, so that argument doesn't hold water. GreenJoe 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this appears to be a notable figure within a minor party. Burntsauce 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. I do think it is notable that he's a co-chair.
Keep Minority party candidates are notable, co-chairs of said parties are notable, recent (60 days ago) AfD was keep.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the leaders of a political party. That's important even if the party in question is mostly unknown and marginal. Would like to see articles on the other leaders. --JJay 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 7 co-chairs, so that argument doesn't hold water. --GreenJoe 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I do not believe your nomination or comment "hold water". As I previously stated, being one of the co-leaders of a national political party is important, even if the party in question has little or no real impact. For the equivalent situation see Democratic National Committee, where we have articles on the entire leadership, such as Susan Turnbull. --JJay 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rudnick[edit]

Delete fails WP:BIO. GreenJoe 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No establishment of notability. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete candidate for future "City Council District 8 race" Pete.Hurd 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Being a candidate for city council in and of itself is not notable. If he has done something significant, sure it should be kept. But, no assertion of notability has been made. --Kimon^talk 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ponzetti III[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. GreenJoe 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete National Review reference starts to build case for notability, but not enough. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsuccessful candidate, apparently notability being that the <2% of the vote earned may have swung the result between 1st & 2n place. Endorse merge if suitable target article exists. Pete.Hurd 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local/state candidate and campaign manager. KrakatoaKatie 09:01, 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. Sr 13 08:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Myerson[edit]

Delete fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not infinite bandwidth. Not cited. GreenJoe 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Nothing even approaching notability. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Green party apparatchik, executive director of Green Institute, among other functions. Pete.Hurd 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor party but major figure, national significance, not just local.DGG 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Being in a position of prominence in a national political party is definitely notable. If this were about the executive director of a major Dem or Rep think tank this wouldn't be at AfD. IvoShandor 09:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - executive of minor party. Non-notable and the article on the Green Institute is itself going through a prod. --Kimon^talk 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High national position in very notable party. --Oakshade 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is equivalent to being a secondary player in a secondary league. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personage is obviously notable.--Mike18xx 07:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dean Myerson gets 100k+ ghits, is a major figure in a national political party, comparison to sports is specious.--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dean Myerson" gets 686 ghits, not 100k+, of which several are WP & mirrors, without quotes, your search criteria brings up every dean of every college institution that has someone on the same page named Myerson (typical results are "Alan Myerson, dean of engineering and science at IIT" and other irrelevant "results." The disingenuous nature of the google argument is typical of the overstatement of importance of this nobody and has much analogy to sports where hype is king. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, you are correct, I meant 1000, not 100k. The comparison to sports is still invalid. Apples and oranges. As stated, he is a major figure in a national political party. --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Green Institute. Being the executive director of a research institute is obviously important. --JJay 19:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Carlossuarez46. Arbustoo 07:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Treichler[edit]

Delete fails WP:BIO. She's non-notable and article isn't sourced. GreenJoe 03:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unsuccessful 2002 green party candidate <2% of vote. Pete.Hurd 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candidates aren't automatically notable; also unsourced. KrakatoaKatie 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Um, 1.3%? I don't think this is a notable individual, maybe if it were a U.S. Senate candidate, maybe, better yet, presidential, but NY AG? IvoShandor 09:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, and my original prod... Leuko 22:31, 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 - unsourced, spam, and notability is dubious. See the alexa rank for his organisation for one indication.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cec Cinder[edit]

Doesn't establish notability, written entirely in bullet statements, doesn't properly source, and written like a fan page. Neonblak 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eghad !, how in world did I mess that up. Anyway the article is Cec Cinder. Neonblak 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed I fixed the AfD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cec Cinder is a significant figure in the social nudity movement. His work with Beachfront USA alone is significant enough. Edit article but do not delete. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly refed There are no refs for this at all it's a load of assertions. And even then it'd be very marginal NBeale 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 12:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references and a lot of OR, looks like. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony Fox. GreenJoe 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personage is notable, even if the article is badly written.--Mike18xx 07:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asserts notability, should be easy to source. Needs improvement, not deletion.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete RS problems verifying the notability of this diploma mill.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elim Bible Institute[edit]

Un-accredited, unnotable school of unknown importance. I can't find out how many claim to attend. EBI lists three "faculty" on their webpage so I'm guessing its a small organization. Doesn't offer "degrees," but has a "three year diploma program." Fails WP:CORP. Arbustoo 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not accredited, no external references or other claims to notability. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we can keep any old public elementary school, we can keep this. A google search for "Elim Bible Institute" revealed 795 hits. A search for my own elementary school Wildwood Elementary School (California) (searching "'Wildwood elementary school' Piedmont"), reveals only 614 hits, significantly less than Elim. I say this as an atheist, in case anyone was going to cry religious bias. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1) An elementary school is a public organization paid for with a large faculty[6] paid for with tax dollars. Thus, one could argue its in the public interest to have an article about a publicly funded institution. Compared to Elim Bible Institute, which is private and of unknown size/faculty. 2) Less than 800 ghits is very low. But more importantly that is not an argument to keep, see: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. Do any of the ghits show importance/allow for expansion? How does this pass WP:CORP? Arbustoo 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To begin, that is an essay. The Google test, while not argument in itself, is perfectly acceptable as supporting evidence. My main argument was that if we allow basically any elementary school (when is the last time you've seen an elementary school's article deleted? Wildwood with its enormous faculty and student body of 271 students is but one among many which are permitted), we should also allow this institution's inclusion. Wikipedia is not partisan to public interest or taxpayer dollars, so I see that argument as irrelevant. There are multiple secondary sources on the school, see: [7] and other Google results. Admittedly, there do not seem to be any sources which easily and definitively establish notability, but this is not true for most schools. Small private high schools tend to be allowed, even if they are not particularly notable. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does this pass WP:CORP? Saying it has less than 800 ghits is more of a reason to delete than keep. Wildwood has and spends $8,919 per student every day of tax payer money.[8] If you want to talk about that school I suggest you take your comments there. Then again, many don't see what keeping an elementary school has to do with this. Arbustoo 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would seem that most schools' articles do not pass WP:CORP. In my opinion, schools deserve an article of their own. As for your taxpayer argument, Wikipedia is not partisan to the United States government and is not concerned with any institution's status as public versus private. No more Amerocentrism, please. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think most institutions of higher learning have, WP CORP: been subject to multiple, non-trival sources. How is this notable without sources? Arbustoo 06:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Cielomobile is talking about elementary schools, not notable institutions of higher learning. Most public elementary schools are even less notable than these theological schools, so it makes no sense to keep the former and delete the latter, save out of some bizarre "public" vs. "private" prejudice. Being publicly funded doesn't make something notable. Djcastel 16:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This afd isn't about elemnentary schools, you can use the talk page to carry this on. How is this place notable? Where are the sources to write an article about? Arbustoo 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That is just my point; rarely are articles on public elementary schools deleted, so unless someone is willing to begin a purge of all such schools, it makes no sense to delete this article. Like I said before, WP:CORP is not really aimed at schools, although "educational institutions" are mentioned very briefly on the page. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How is this notable? Give WP:RS that we can write an article about. Arbustoo 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've already given my rationale. There are plenty of websites which list the college and basic info; just perform a Google search. The school's own website can be used as a source, too. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And your opinion has no WP:RS. An AFD is NOT A VOTE. Arbustoo 04:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep they do seem to be an organized college with actual students. I think that's enough for a college, bible college or otherwise.DGG 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How many students and from what source? Also do they refer to themselves as a college/bible college or is that your opinion?Arbustoo 06:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do, however, think the Buffalo campus article should be merged into the main article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many private schools have their own wiki page and the fact that one school receives government funding does not necessarily make it any more notable then one that doesn't. Guycalledryan 10:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Upon further thought changing to Weak Delete, school is not accredited which separates it from other private schools, but it can still be regarded as an alternative college Guycalledryan 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accreditation really has little to do with anything. Many unaccredited bible colleges choose not to be accredited, as I believe Elim chooses. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And many diploma mills say they "choose" not to be accredited as well. How does this pass WP:CORP? Arbustoo 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This school was founded in 1924. It is not a diploma mill, Arbustoo. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who said it was? But I'm curious as to what WP:RS you have to confirm it isn't? Arbustoo 05:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Many non-notable schools/universities/colleges have wikipedia articles simply because they are places of learning. As Arbustoo has stated chosing not to have accreditation can often mean an institution has lower then acceptable standards, and EBI has no sources suggesting that it is other. Because of this the article cannot be viewed as being about a recognised place of learning, and hence without achieving notability elsewhere it must go Guycalledryan 06:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - No citations provided, non-notable organization. Smee 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, nn bible school. Lankiveil 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - I can hardly imagine that a higher school existing since 1924 would not be mentioned many times at least in local media (and in Christian media in this case). I think that the accreditation or the lack of it is not a key question in AfD.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC) - Changing vote to normal keep because I've found external sources myself.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I looked and I didn't find any WP:RS to write an article with. Accreditation isn't the issue. Where are these sources so we can write an article? Arbustoo 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It is usually very hard to find local sources from 1930s or so. But this does not mean that they do not exist. - In this case I think that their own website is a source reliable enough to write a stub containing basic data (location, year of foundation, theological orientation). And for the rest we can wait until someone goes through the pile of old newspapers...--Ioannes Pragensis 08:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Why do we need sources from the 1930s? Since the article purports it is still in operation sources in the last 80 years would be fine. Anyone have any? Arbustoo 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment In fact we should use all relevant sources regardless of time. But you are true, in this case there is no need to return back in 1930s to find printed independent sources. I've found two books which mention this school in connection with its role in the Pentecostal movement; I added both of them to the article, section References.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do you have a prejudice against Christian theological institutions, Arbustoo? [9] -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No. I do have something against unnotable organizations/business that cannot be supported with WP:RS. Just so you know: I started: California Biblical University and Seminary, Pacific International University, Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, West Coast Baptist College, and many others. I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Institute of Management Science and Technology (PIMSAT), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randford University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Online University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/École supérieure Robert de Sorbon, and many unnotable "schools."
- Comment: Now two things: Your "comment" was an attack on me, and two you STILL HAVEN'T SUPPORTED YOUR VOTE WITH A SINGLE SOURCE! Arbustoo 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should have asked you on your talk page, not here, but it was not meant as an attack. You have my apologies, and I would be happy to remove the comment if you'd like. However, I have given a source, see my initial comment, in which I gave this source. There are other such sources which give basic information on Google. I have also said that most schools do not pass WP:CORP, yet they are included anyway, so unless you wish to begin a purge of all schools which do not pass it (pretty much every elementary school, middle school, and most high schools), there would be double-standard if this article is deleted. Hence, I do not believe WP:CORP should apply to schools. It is merely a guideline anyway, and it is not binding. This is a fair time to ignore all rules. I have stated this all quite clearly, though I have not specifically mentioned IAR. Also, please don't SHOUT. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not a source with any valuable information. Every single criteria says "Not Available." Arbustoo 05:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You still have not addressed the double-standard I allege. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, the source does provide basic information. Any college may choose not to release information about race, gender, and so forth, which are what it lacks (other than number of students, which admittedly bothers me, but not to the point of deletion). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Thank you for taking the time to look at Elim's website. The official Elim website has been updated as of May 4th, 2007 and updates will continue to be made throughout the summer. Elim Bible Institute's Wikipedia page has also been updated as of today to include current academic programs and certification. EBI Admissions 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the user's second ever edit, and judging from the name and comments is tied to this "institute." An AFD is not a vote.Arbustoo 01:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Arbustoo, it is OK when you demand independent sources. But please do not remove them if someone adds them to the article. --Ioannes Pragensis 18:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I formatted the sources. They aren't sources/references if they don't cite anything. We don't know if these are trival... Arbustoo 06:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary[edit]

Unnotable, non-accredited private organization. Lacks WP:RS to make this meaningful. Fails WP:CORP. Arbustoo 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted, appears to be an NN bible school. Lankiveil 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability, does not even claim it. --B. Wolterding 20:47, 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. --Core desat 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Bible College[edit]

Unnotable, non-accredited private organization. Lacks WP:RS to make this meaningful. Fails WP:CORP. Arbustoo 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted, appears to be an NN bible school. Lankiveil 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per Lankiveil. -- Phoenix2 ^(talk, review) 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:06, 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, no notability --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Berkley[edit]

Unnotable, non-accredited private organization. Has three WP:RS, but all are about the same issue: a 2005 court order. There doesn't seem to be much about this. I think this would be better served as a redirect to the real Berkley school. Arbustoo 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Change to a redirect to the real thing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no notability asserted, appears to be an NN bible school. Redirect as per nom. Lankiveil 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete redirect to University of California, Berkeley seems a stretch, is there another that I'm unaware of? Carlossuarez46 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be confusing. They may have picked their name for the very purpose of being confusing. We'll need a careful disam if we keep this.

Weak keep they have the 3 sources. Daily Cal is probably usable in this context, they're a notable student newspaper, & that they bothered writing about this is in itself interesting, and then there's the other two. DGG 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their own web site indicates you may be able to earn a degree in as little as six to eight weeks; this is a diploma mill. Some of the language from WP:HOAX may apply. A famous hoax may be covered, but a little-known one should not. There should be strong third-party evidence that many people have been taken in. ...a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years.EdJohnston 02:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting argument, but WP:Hoax does not apply. --JJay 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been the subject of much controversy as shown by around 150 google news hits[10]. JJay 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You do realize some of those refer to the legitimate school? Of the ghits that are relevant they are merely stories that are already in the article referring to the court battle. But more importantly that is not an argument to keep, see: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. Arbustoo 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. News hits are always relevant to deletion discussions. They are a primary reason to keep articles. The school was in the news in 1995 when a recently hired college president was unmasked with fake credentials [11] . It was again in the news when the school was used as an excuse on a visa application in a case involving potential ties to terrorism.[12], [13]. Of course, there is the extensive national coverage of the court case [14]. All that without digging any deeper than google news. Given that diploma mills are considered a valid topic at wikipedia, and that this particular mill has achieved notability, there is no reason to delete the article. --JJay 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Substance is relevant. Numbers of times words appear are not as they may refer to other subjects or times the AP article is ran in different newspapers. Expand the article and show notability. We aren't interested in ghits. Arbustoo 03:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Also I would like you to comment on your current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay or your talk removals[15]. Your interest in AFDs started by me (and you consistently voting keep) looks more like WP:POINT/WP:STALK [16] than real interest in the subject. Arbustoo 03:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol. As per usual, you want to comment about a lot of things, except the subject under discussion. --JJay 10:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As as usual you don't address points. Arbustoo 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the relation of that comment to University of Berkley or this AFD is? None. JJay 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very weak assertion of notability, no reliable sources, and reads like a newspaper article. Charlie 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Geneva Theological Seminary[edit]

Unnotable, non-accredited private organization. Lacks WP:RS to make this meaningful. Fails WP:CORP. The first nom ended with no consensus, and last meaningful edit was made in November 2006. Has two articles the most relevant one was from 9 years ago when a paper reported this place claimed a 100 students. Articles lacks sources, value. Arbustoo 06:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted, appears to be an NN bible school. Lankiveil 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Nick, delete Justin. Sr 13 08:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Evangelista[edit]

Nonnotable person per WP:BIO, i.e. no third party sources about him. Seems like a promotional piece for his publications. Also nominating the article about his son,

Placeholder account 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nick Evangelista, Delete Justin Evangelista. I agree: The father is controversial in fencing circles, the son is unknown. jsavit
Keep Nick Evangelista, Delete Justin Evangelista. The father seems notable on the basis of the four books published by non-vanity publishers and currently available on amazon. He has an apparently significant fan base based on the quantity and knowlegability of user reviews, as well as quotes from independant publication book reviews on two of the listings (see [17], [18], [19], and [20]. Many of the reviewers seem very familiar with the author, and one of the reviews of "The art and science of fencing" states "Evangelista's book is likely to be the only book on sport fencing available at your local book store." It seems to have first been published in 1996 by a small publisher in indianapolis[21] but the edition available on Amazon is a 1999 edition by McGraw Hill, from which I infer the original edition must have been fairly successful. He is (was?) also the publisher of a fencing magazine that has been in print for a decade (though last issue was spring 2006).[22] Obviously the article needs work and better references but he seems legitimately notable in the fencing world. His son seems to have followed in his dad's footsteps and done little I could find that was of note. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep father Nick, delete son Justin. Rustavo beat me to it – the father is published, publishes(ed?) a magazine, and certainly seems notable to fencers, but I have doubts about the son. KrakatoaKatie 08:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Books is notable. --Infrangible 03:04, 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 speedy delete, hoax. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Stroker[edit]

Unsourced. No proof that this exists or has ever existed. Searches of IMDB and Google pull up nothing. DarkAudit 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not even tell what channel the show is on. Slavlin 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Masaruemoto 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This editor is inventing new shows - someone please check Ed,Edd n Eddy: Shippuden and Anime Runaway as well. -- RHaworth 08:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to speedy as no notability asserted and as nonsense. Got shot down both times by another editor. DarkAudit 13:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But given the pattern of behavior as shown on the talk page, I gave that as my reasoning and tagged as speedy again. DarkAudit 13:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax (one of the more amusing ones but still). Stroker and Hoop is real, this show... probably not so much. -- Seed 2.0 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable hoax. Lankiveil 11:27, 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. Does not pass the PROF or political guidelines; no reasons given as why this person is an unusual case. As pointed out, he was the second of two candidates, so he was the only outlet for dissent.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titus North[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ~~I bet he sings very nice karoke,~~ I bet he's great at karate, but that doesn't make him notable. Extreme delete GreenJoe 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on standards of inclusion outlined in WP:PROF.--Xnuala (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost 10% of vote in congressional election representing a very notable party. --Oakshade 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Adjunct prof fails WP:PROF: 4% of votes for mayor in 2005, 9.9% of votes (2nd of 2 candidates) in 2006 US House of Reps race, NS failed candidate. Support merge of appropriate info to specific articles on elections, if such exist. Pete.Hurd 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Front-running third party candidate in two significant elections. --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, disparaging remarks like the karaoke/karate one above are rather childish for this forum.--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I made a mistake. I had misread karate as karaoke. GreenJoe 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it looks like this person, known as "Christopher Titus North", but I can only see two or three scholarly works under that name. John Vandenberg 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (leaning delete): not notable by WP:PROF, but could almost be for general biography by coverage in independent sources. Here is one source at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which covers his candidacy well beyond "trivial mention." But I think this is still one source short of multiple independent sources. (btw--I don't think anyone would assert that his karate instruction makes him notable; but not everything in an article has to be a declaration of notability as long as something is). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:49, 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. --Core desat 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Plum (film)[edit]

Non-notable; no content that isn't covered by Clue (film) aside from pure speculation Feeeshboy 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there is not an article for the character Professor Plum (it is a redirect to List of Cluedo characters), then there certainly should not be an article for the film character. Also, second Feeeshboy. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All or most of the information could be used in the article about the film or developedin the cast section. Possibly convert into redirect to the film as well. --Nehrams2020 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballing (is that a neologism?). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:10, 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. --Core desat 01:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of avant-garde metal musical groups[edit]

Permanently incomplete list that is inherently subjective (as made clear in the preamble and on talk page), and fails WP:NOT. Deiz talk 04:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete that article. We have incomplete and subjective band lists like list of death metal bands or list of nu metal musical groups. If you want to delete those too... Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 07:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define avant-garde, then find reliable sources that define these bands as avant-garde. Good luck. Oh, and the policy concern that this is a mere list of internal links? "We have A, so keep B" is not, and has never been, the basis for a compelling AfD opinion. Deiz talk 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whole concept screams POV. A sub-genre, of a sub-genre. Completely subjective. Not *Notable.

Delete: Per nom. Sounds like many of those other lists should go too, in general there are way to many lists like this around the wiki. IvoShandor 10:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's rid of the non notable, metal related tripe on Wikipedia (PS - before anyone accuses me of hating metal I have two Metal related FAs to my name and interview Metal bands, so no I'm not biased in my delete). LuciferMorgan 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be impossible to agree the inclusion criteria for something as nebulously defined so therefore this is listcruft. A1octopus 12:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inclusion criteria are ambiguous (and the article even admits this). Violates WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep practically all bands in the list have been called avant-garde metal in many sources (Fantômas, Pan.Thy.Monium, Peccatum, Kayo Dot, maudlin of the Well). It's not a genre with many bands, but it certainly is a notable genre. Almost 40000 hits (without wikipedia & answers.com) on google. 400+ hits on Encyclopaedia Metallum. The tag is used a lot on last.fm. And I don't see how it fails WP:NOT. The genre may be hard to define, but it's as subjective as any other genre in music. --Emmaneul 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The :NOT concern is that WP doesn't host mere lists of internal links. Deiz talk 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then all 'list of x' should go.Emmaneul 10:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If this list is deleted, then it shall be the same for all other lists, it's only fair and logical. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:FL and see what a good list looks like. List of dinosaurs for example. Proposing to delete all lists from Wikipedia, or in any way inferring that the deletion of this list would logically require such a thing be done, is ridiculous. Lists are not disambiguation pages, they require context and information - or, to put it another way, they should be encyclopedic. Deiz talk 10:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out these lists, your criteria for deleting lists apply to practically all 'list of bands of genre x'.

List of alternative metal artists

List of black metal bands

List of Christian metal bands

List of death metal bands

List of doom metal bands

List of folk metal bands

List of glam metal bands

List of gothic metal bands

List of heavy metal bands

List of NWOBHM artists

List of power metal bands

List of progressive metal artists

List of rapcore artists

List of Scandinavian death metal bands

List of speed metal bands

List of thrash metal bands

Emmaneul 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are most certainly not "my" criteria, they form part of WP:NOT, a core policy of Wikipedia. That many articles do not satisfy content policies should come as no surprise to anyone. However, this debate is about the article named at the top of the page, and no other. If you're suggesting that we should keep non-conforming articles simply because we haven't deleted every other non-conforming article first, you're ignoring this policy. If you're making a point, you can stop now. Deiz talk 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out why the article fails WP:NOT. Like I said earlier in this article, I don't see how it fails. Therefore I feel your interpretation of WP:NOT is not correct. The kind of "List of genre x" lists mentioned above are conform WP:LISTS and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Emmaneul 11:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List the most notable artists in Avant-garde metal, and then delete this article. List of progressive metal artists may be a better place for the bands listed in this article. (Assuming I don't get flame mail from people who say I don't know the difference between progressive metal and avant-garde metal.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective; avant-garde changes over time. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete avant-garde is inherently weasely. --Infrangible 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you want to erase the avant-garde article now?!? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The well referenced a-g article discusses many things including the flexibility and looseness of the term.. an unverified, bare list of metal bands who have may been referred to as a-g is hardly the same thing. Deiz talk 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Basketball Alliance[edit]

Small-potatoes basketball league, fails WP:N in my opinion. The article claims the league is "professional" but I can't find any evidence that any actual money is changing hands here. At least one of the league's "home courts" is a YMCA. The league's "official website" isn't very professional-looking, with scores for only some of the games. While Google returns a couple thousand hits, Google News returns zero, and despite living across the street from an EBA "home court" I've never heard of it being reported on in local media. Thunderbunny 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the external links there, and at pages like this, I'm not sure yet that it's not notable. They do sell (cheap) tickets [23] and get some local attention [24]. The lack of news story hits in Google is disturbing, though. JJL 12:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While the Harrisburg team does seem to have it together, they seem to be the only team that does. (This might explain how they've won six straight league championships.) Good luck finding information on ticket prices, etc. for the other teams. Thunderbunny 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Cleaned Up (or expanded). The article as it stands does nothing to assert the subject's notability, except to state that such a league exists. There are red links for almost all teams, indicating that they aren't notable, either. Though there are external sources that mention the league, no news reports show why the league is notable. ZZ 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The league has been around in one form or another since 1978. Also, I don't believe that some of the reasons listed for deletion: non-professional-looking website and the nominator not hearing of it in the local media, are acceptable reasons for deletion. I do think a stub indicator should be added to the article however. Stubbiness is not grounds for deletion. X96lee15 05:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are mentioned on www.usbasket.com. I would agree that they have poor coverage; though that is something that plagues minor league basketball. --MJHankel 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ransomware[edit]

As the author of http://www.jrandom.com/ransomware.html, I'm flattered by the attention but I don't believe this neologism has achieved notability, even in relation to Ransomware (malware). Schneier's Street Performer Protocol is a fine substitute. Erik Seaberg 05:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I remember seeing a few people who coined a neologism argue in favor of deleting it but I don't think I've ever seen someone go to AfD with one himself - impressive. As far as notability is concerned, I think I even remember Bruce or PRZ using the term (ie. in this context, not in the other) once but neither a Google search nor a search of my mailing list archives resulted in any relevant hits. I suppose it could have been a Usenet posting (yeah, X-No-Archive does have its drawbacks too) but the bottom line is that I couldn't find much in terms of reliable sources. Hence, I vote delete even though I think it's an interesting article. -- Seed 2.0 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seed's eloquent consideration. The article even says that it's a "notion", and as anyone reading Schneier or Scoble or anyone in their circles is exposed to scores of "notions" every year, I would really have to see some sources that this was a notable or influential one. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 08:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntal[edit]

non notable tribe. Almost in gibberish english. No information found that it is actually notable in any way. SierraSix 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 06:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Well, how can we say it is non notable, if that is mentioned on Mahabharat? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - every other Jat Gotra has its own article. Presumably the problems with this article stem from English not being the creator's first language, but there are enough English-speaking Indian Wikipedians that I think it's a safe bet someone will clean this up now the problem has been brought to light — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - here is an interesting citation discussing Kuntal Country over 800 years ago [25]. Passes the 100 years test? Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If every Jat Gotra has an individual article why not merge all of them into a single article rather than 10s(or 100s???) of separate articles?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the same reason we don't merge Florida and North Dakota into a single United States article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a merge may be appropriate, deletion is not. John Vandenberg 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above editor says it is a jat gotra though the name is pretty common in where I live (West Bengal in India). Surnames and clans surely deserve wikipedia entries. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content deserves an full fledged article. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McPartland[edit]

Not notable and unrefrenced. Felix 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cab driver, with 400 ghits. Oh, and he's dead. :) Placeholder account 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." as per WP:BIO. Less famous than his brother Jimmy, but still part of the Austin High School Gang that began the style known as Chicago Jazz. [26] Google references include Chicago Jazz Archive, [27], lists recording sessions and dates and some interesting information at Smithsonian oral history project. Given the importance of the group in the history of American Jazz, I'm sure the subject is also very well referenced in print. The article has incoming links from Austin High School Gang, Jimmy McPartland, Portal:Music/DateOfBirth/May 18 and four links from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Currently it is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz and was stubbed by one of their members as part of a logical expansion of the members of the Austin High School Gang. The article was created by an active Wikiproject and has been up barely six weeks. Paxse 16:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Paxse. I could only find passing references to him, so I question whether there is enough material in reliable sources for more than a stub, in which case there could be a merge to Austin High School Gang. Arguments for keeping or deleting the article shoudl be based on his role in jazz in the 1920's and 1930's and the creation of the Chicago style of jazz, and clearly not on his cab driving. Also, the number of Google hits is not very meaningful in determining the notability of persons active in the 1920's and 1930's. Jazz magazines of the era in libraries will prove a more meaningful metric of influence in that time. The fact that he is dead is also irrelevant, since this is not Livingpersonpedia. He was clearly a part of a notable band for an extended period. Edison 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but the article needs some significant TLC. Noting the importance of the AHSG to Jazz, a good starting place might be to expand upon Mr. McPartland's role in that group and the Chicago Jazz scene - thus asserting notability. ZZ 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick Google search demonstrates that there are numerous articles available to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. The article does however, need a complete rewrite to make the notability clear to peope already not knowledgeable o the subject. Nuttah68 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busking on the West Coast of the United States[edit]

Contested prod: Almost completely unsourced article that appears to be original research--fails to meet WP:NOTE. (Created last year to solve edit conflict at Busking.) Katr67 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally unsourced original research. --Haemo 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a copyvio, no notability and due to the fact its full of original research. Regards — The Sunshine Man 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm showing this to your unemployment counselor. --Infrangible 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, parochial fork of busking. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I created the article - this article's only purpose was to appease another editor who insisted that this material be found somewhere on Wikipedia. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR all the way from what I see. Slavlin 04:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without reliable sources, there's nothing here that shows the subject meets WP:BIO. --Core desat 01:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabian (wrestler)[edit]

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although not sure on his real name, this is a very recognisable indy wrestler, do a google search on him and you will find a lot of results. There is a hell of a lot of room for improvement including more citation. But the fact is, he is notable, has won numerous titles, onlineworldofwrestling.com link covers every single piece of information already on the page and is one of the most trusted sources for wresting information on the internet. (That in it's self is good citation.) Just the simple bit of research on the internet proves there is no grounds at all for the deletion of this wrestler and provides more than enough evidence of notability. Govvy 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mean this OWW which states independent wrestlers can pay for profiles and they are also submitted by them? Therefore it's clearly not a reliable independent source for an independent wrestler. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair Hack, that link you provided also says that if any info is found out to be false that they will remove all info of the individual from the site and keep the money. The site does make an effort to put reliable info up. Most people will not pay to have false info put on a website on their behalf knowing they will lose their money they spent to do so when they get caught. Theophilus75 14:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That means that information is most likely correct, there for a reliable source. Govvy 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've missed the point. The source provided is not an independent source, therefore it doesn't demonstrate notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is independent enough, no wrestler pays them anyway. Govvy 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As their own site clearly states, it's possible to buy a profile and the information is submitted by the subject. Even if it was a reliable independent source (which it isn't), you still haven't provided multiple independent non-trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment o well, no point arguing with you, I think I shall leave you and Burntsource to destroy the whole entire project like you two have been doing. I am fed up now, time to quit this paradox and this pathetic little wiki war. Govvy 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO with a lack of non-trivial third party sources. The (repeated) personal attacks made by Govvy are highly uncalled for. Burntsauce 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment planet Cheron's Mortal Kombat contender? --Infrangible 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo Wales 07:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:PERNOM ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep subject is a member of one of the leading indy stables in the US, and has held titles of note in notable federations. Any reliable source in pro wrestling (Observer, F4W and PWTorch) will have info on him, but since they are available to paying members only, collecting info on pro wrestlers can be a dificult task at times, but that is not a reason to delete articles on notable persons. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources is a perfectly valid reason to delete this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given lack of non trivial independent coverage, without prejudice to recreation should such coverage occur in future. WjBscribe 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problems I've been seeing is that certain number of people fail to see wrestlers as athletes, they have wrestling at the Olympic games, national wrestling events outside of keyfab organisations. These people put a great deal of effort into this business, they win championships. Now these championships are recognised by the wrestling commission and the wrestling commission holds a seat on the worlds sports council. Under all rules this is a sport. (Note: WP:BIO *The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.) According to WP:BIO rules, Joe Pinocchio (Sabian) is a recognised athlete under this distinction. Simply put, having any accomplishments down is a form of notability. Clicking the internal links of the CZW belts shows external link notability of his accomplishments. There for, under all the trivial talk above, according to Wikipedia rules this person does pass WP:BIO. Govvy 12:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The wrestling you refer to in the first part of your comment is not professional wrestling, it is amateur wrestling which is a legitimate sport. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

professional wrestling is a sport. If you don't consider it a sport, then you don't have cause to prod anything wrestling related. Govvy 12:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Professional wrestling is not a sport by definition, and I will propose any article for deletion that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines and policies. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please be so kind as to tell me why it is not a sport then? Govvy 12:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd have thought that was rather obvious, and I refuse to be trolled any more. Good day to you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No it isn't obvious, professional wrestling is a sport, a sport is a definition of (winning or loosing) it is a sport. Govvy 12:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's just a stub article which needs citations. Genericchimera 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Please provide reliable sources then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Nabla 20:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westland Hialeah High School[edit]

High school that isn't even built yet, has no sources, and has no significant notability. SierraSix 06:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ummm... source is right here [28] and here [29], and also, here's the school's boundary reallignment clearly stating its opening date [30]... I mean, we can't get much more accurate than the school district, right? Also, campus is already built, it just won't open until the next school year. Also, voting keep -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that keep vote. I also expect the school to have a significant impact on the community. -- Seed 2.0 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no point deleting it and then redoing it when the school actually opens Guycalledryan 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — In the past the precedent has been to delete articles about schools that haven't opened. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not only are there WP:CRYSTAL issues, but an unopened school doesn't even have the minimal claims of notability that others might. The school has no notable almuni, no notable students who have performed notability at a national or even state level or anything else. Why? Because it doesn't even exist yet. JoshuaZ 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't really see a reason to delete an article only to have it recreated at DRV at the beginning (or end) of the school year. And, frankly, I don't see any WP:CRYSTAL issues. I guess, I'm trying to say I'm confused. Do you suggest we delete the article for a technical policy violation or do you have reason to believe that it's not notable? In the latter case, as someone who is pretty familiar with the area, I can say with confidence that the school will be sufficiently notable shortly after it's opened, even without any notable alumni. (I'm not trying to rehash "schools are automatically notable" vs. "are not" vs. "are too" for the umpteenth time - I'm just genuinely confused.) -- Seed 2.0 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- Well, if that's the case, then we could just delete it and restore it again in August. I made the article mostly to complete of the full set of high school articles attached to the district page here, seeing as the school just finished construction this week, its administration is already setup and running at the campus of Reagan/Doral High School, it already has an enrollment from local middle schools setup, and most teachers have been hired, but if that's the consensus then we can just restore it again on August 14. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Has sources, and the article is in a fine state in anticipation of the opening of the school. There's no reason to delete it for a few months while we wait for it to open. — brighterorange (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has sources and it's an important page for the Miami-Dade public schools system.Skillz187 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The school district web site is not an independent source. For one thing, the school district owns this place. I'd accept it for the boundary line. . It's the very example of indiscriminate--it must list all of the schools, notable or not. If you seriously intend to keep school district websites as usable for their schools, that is exactly the same in effect as accept all schools as notable. DGG 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment School districts are government agencies, not private companies out for public self-promotion; and where else would you find neutral information about schools other than school district websites? Your comments suggest that the information is being taken from some public relations website and not just standard information from government maintained webpage such as a school district. Should we also bar anything that the Library of Congress gives about White House History, seeing as... they... as the government, own the place? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:46, 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 Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. He is on the UVa varsity hockey team, see here, but that's not enough. NawlinWiki 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lindquist[edit]

I've done a search and there is no up and coming South African hockey player named Edward Lindquist. † Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:10, 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 per CSD A7, G1. Sr 13 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Taylor (singer)[edit]

Article appears to be a hoax. Information cannot be verified. Other articles linking to this one also appear to be vandalised. --Liveste 07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, nonsense/hoax, read all the way down as the article descends into silliness. NawlinWiki 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as remotely amusing nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. --GreenJoe 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to have a preoccupation with potatoes --Infrangible

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary national rugby league team[edit]

This page is believed to be a hoax and no sources or reports have been presented to prove otherwise. The opening line is blatantly untrue as the qualification process for the 2008 World Cup has started and does not involve Hungary. The page contradicts itself on if the team played Slovakia or Serbia in round one and says that it will play Israel in round two. While Serbia does play rugby league I am not aware of Slovakia or Israel ever having a national team. Louie Parker is not a member of the New Zealand Warriors. No other facts or statements check out. Mattlore 07:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless author can provide proof, can't find anything about it, which is unexpected for a team that's meant to be starting in 2008 Guycalledryan 09:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these players appear to be Asutralian (or at least Australian residents), as the majority appear to be from National Rugby League teams. Unless sources can be provided by those seeking to keep the article, I'm going to have to call this an unsorced, unverifiable fantasy team and move for its deletion. -- saberwyn 12:20, 16 May 2007

What are you talking about. If you take a look at the team, most of the players have Hungarian names and none play in the NRL. 1 source that this is real is hstrail-bwilson.homestead.com it says everywhere that the Hungarian side exsists. (UTC)

The team names were changed in this edit, two days after I made the above comment. 'Facts' appear to be to malleable to be real. -- saberwyn 11:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Additional: A very brief and very crude Google search comes up with Wikipedia in first place and nothing else of worth in the first page of results. However, they do appear to have a rugby union team. -- saberwyn 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI Hungary's Union team already has a page.Mattlore 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...not that that has any relevance, since it's a completely different sport. Their soccer team has a page, too, and that's just as unconnected. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK to delete this article. It supplies no basis of any facts and is questionably notable. Decoratrix 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the page User:Danman2007 has twice removed the tags on the page. Is there anything we can do to stop this or do we just keep replacing them once removed? Mattlore 00:31, 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 closing early, uncontroversial redirect-and-merge. -- Karada 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Blackfriars Road[edit]

Building that hasn't even been built yet. Nekohakase 08:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:Crystal ball. Although 175m is notable in UK terms. The status of the project is only at outline planning application, if and when the project is given planning permission, it will be notable for Wikipedia, as it will be a landmark building much taller than most of London's skyline. However, often projects such as this are hyped up by developers to raise their profile or in the hopes of raising land values around these sites. This nomination should be listed on the Architecture project page (I don't know the correct procedure). If it gets planning permission it should be recreated. Bjrobinson 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces-related deletions. -- -- saberwyn 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beetham Tower London, the name by which most news media seem to cover the project; the proposal/project itself seems notable even before the first brick is laid; controversy about its height, location, its impact on the skyline, aesthetics, etc., just google "Beetham Tower" + London. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beetham Tower London, more than enough independent sources Kernel Saunters 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:JzG, G11. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peachorlemon[edit]

No context, obvious advertisement Nekohakase 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - obvious spam. MER-C 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided it is reworded into a proper article, site does appear to be relatively notable (given reviews, although some of these are broken links, and 265k+ hits in under 2 years) Guycalledryan 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Mer-C. JJL 12:27, 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. Daniel 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballajura AFC[edit]

Non-notable football club Mattinbgn/^talk 09:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 09:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was a contested prod. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local amateur team, ~~could probably have been PROD'ed~~ ChrisTheDude 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination Guycalledryan 09:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable local amateur team. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as a related article that is also a contested PROD.:

Delete that one too for the same reasons as stated above ChrisTheDude 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom - Ballajura is a large residential Perth suburb (~20,000 pop) essentially containing nothing notable other than itself - even the nearest decent shopping centre is in another suburb. Orderinchaos 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - non-notable. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator, non-notable amateur teams lacking any substantial third party coverage. Burntsauce 23:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. non-notable amateur teams far below the highest amateur level as required by WP:BIO for athletes (why isn't there something similar at WP:ORG?) Ga rr ie 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Orderinchaos. "Loans Cafe Amateur League" would be difficult to write an article about, let alone a club. And "Ballajura United" returns three google hits. John Vandenberg 05:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete God knows why the PROD was contested. Chappy • T • C • 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amateur football team (it says so right in the article). Not notable. Lankiveil 04:56, 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. --Core desat 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Gaiennie[edit]

No information can be found about this particular person on the internet. Also, there is no proof that he is widely accreditted by his peers, or any evidence that he has won any major awards. Hence the article does not satisfy WP:BIO. Kylohk 09:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I can't see any sources whatsoever for the claims in the article. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. GreenJoe 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what were the "groundbreaking scientific theories?" --Infrangible 03:43, 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. --Core desat 01:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable JFK Airport employees[edit]

What is this list supposed to demonstrate? People who are notable for working at JFK Airport? But if you look closely at the links, all the names mentioned are people who were convicted or accused of crimes (as opposed to executives, etc.), a veiled attempt at something (don't know what the word is). Tinlinkin 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced and quite pointless --Doc^g 09:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the people on the list don't seem to have worked at JFK, and have been added by an anonymous user whose already been pinged for vandalism. There is every possibility that the only notable employees at JFK are famous because of crimes, but there is still the question of whether the article is actually needed Guycalledryan 10:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial association. Someone's place of employment is not an important aspect of who they are, unless it's the place of employment that makes them notable. That is not the case here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless list. NawlinWiki 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki; I disagree with the nominator's rationale and with Arkyan's statement: if one's employer is trivial we should be deleting all the company cats like Category:Apple Inc. employees. We're not for good reason: one's employers are not trivial even if one isn't famous for one's association with that employer. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My position is actually more toward NawlinWiki's. If the employees mentioned are notable for contributing to the airport's operation, then I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion (a hard fact I learned from my nomination of Crew of Sesame Street). But the only people that are mentioned are involved in things like Air France Robbery (1967) and Lufthansa heist or are part of crime families is inappropriate as anti-NPOV. I don't oppose recreation or cleanup, but the list has to make sense and not ~~single out a certain set/class of persons or~~ create a POV from the people mentioned. Tinlinkin 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might have missed my point - the people in Category:Apple Inc. employees are notable as Apple employees, not just notable people who happen to have been employed by Apple. Someone's place of employment only becomes important if that's what makes them important. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh really, when I think of Al Gore, the first tick in his notability box is his Apple employment. <sarcasm>Has he done anything else?</sarcasm> The same is true of lots of other people who are listed in various employees groups, people who once worked for X are now famous for doing or being Y. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for unsourced information, the removal of which would leave almost nothing. Even if it is sourced, if the fact that these people worked at JFK is so important, it can be put on the JFK airport article. It's not like Crew of Sesame Street, which is clearly too large for such an action. Someguy1221 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this were notable former airport employees, the way that Steve Buscemi is former NYFD, it would still be a bit pointless. As it is it feels to me like a goofy way to either suggest that other airport employees are also criminals, or that these criminals some how aren't noticed enough even though they all have their own articles and a couple of common ones (Air France Robbery and Lufthansa heist). The expectation for an article like this is top executives or spokespeople. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE (I followed an editor's suggestion of keeping the info at his regiment's article). Nabla 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Boada[edit]

Receiving a Silver Star is not a sufficiently notable enough reason to for an encyclopedia article. While a high honor it is by no means rare, I have seen plenty of cars with Silver Star plates around. Any additional sources for this would likely be of the nature "Boada received the Silver Star." IvoShandor 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless additional information regarding this earning of this particular soldier's place in history can be provided by multiple, reliable, third-party sources, this article should be deleted as it does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- saberwyn 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Silver Star is the third-highest award for valor in the US, outranked only by the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross. If it was a Bronze Star I could understand, since they give those things away. However, this is one of only two Marines in the 3rd Marine Regiment to win the award since 1971 (making these the only notable valor awards won by 3rd Marines in over thirty-five years). Here are several additional sources on the action: [31] [32] [33] [34] Palm_Dogg 16:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Navy order of precedence puts not only the MOH and Navy Cross above the Silver Star but also the Defense Distinguished Service Medal and the Distinguished Service Medal, the Marines use the Navy's order of precedence. (See: [35]). The Army's order of precedence is similar (See: [36]). I don't think we would have articles in on recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal if that was their sole criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. IvoShandor 11:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I understand your point was about valor awards. IvoShandor 11:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus in the past has been that the award of anything below the relevant highest gallantry award doesn't in and of itself make the recipient notable from Wikipedia's point of view - as in, we don't have articles on people whose most significant feature was doing that. If this is significant in the context of that particular regiment, surely it would be more appropriate as a passing mention in that article? Shimgray | talk | 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't a notable enough award to keep this soldier. It is a recognition of accomplishment. But we don't even keep all MOH recipients. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cosmetic brands[edit]

This is a wholly indiscriminate list. There is no criteria for inclusion. It is also an extremely short list containing nothing more than product names and external links, a clear violation of WP:LIST. Cyrus Andiron 17:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Hopelessly indiscriminate on inclusion or even definition of terms. The article is not even what it claims to be. It is not a list of brands per se. Not sure what it is or meant to be. For example, Maybelline is a "brand" of the of "line" L'Oreal, but it is also a "line" of its own right. --Work permit 19:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize - this is useful, but should be a category, not a list. (We currently have cosmetics companies but not cosmetics brands.) Calliopejen1 12:21, 14 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, KrakatoaKatie 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no category - anything that's not in Category:Personal care brands can be added there. Otto4711 15:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Reloaded[edit]

Speedy Delete - No reliable (or any other) sources to verify this article. Speedy is contested on the grounds that the author has read the name on Digg.com and several CNET blogs. DarkSaber2k 09:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 09:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reading a rumour on a site is no indication something actually exists Guycalledryan 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking any sources and crystal balling. Recreate if and only if the console's name, tech specs, and specific release date become avaliable through multiple, reliable third-party sources. -- saberwyn 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as pure speculation, but surely not a speedy. — brighterorange (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search reveals that 'Xbox Reloaded' was the title of several news articles (at my-ESM.com and Wired) in reference to the Xbox 360. I can only assume the digg.com and cnet references are confused in some manner. Marasmusine 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With no reliable sources to verify the claims, there is nothing to redeem the article. - Tiswas^(t) 15:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm very sure the article should say FireWire ;p Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gortavoy Bridge[edit]

Proceedual nomination for an IP user (talk) who is physically unable to complete this stage of the nomination. A comment was placed by this user in the above (on the daysheet) discussion; the diff can be viewed here. They state that the subject is "non-notable". Proceedual nomination - no stance -- saberwyn 12:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as ghits indicate it is a real place, with some inhabitants, generally considered notable. (The article should clarify it is a place named for a bridge, and not an article on the bridge itself.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dhartung. Is this a town or what? Also, what are the criteria for keeping something like this? If its only a bridge, maybe merge it to the appropriate town or county? —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge/Redirect with Shanmaghery. Every single place, word, person or blade of grass does not need an article on Wiki. That it exists is fair enough, but the article itself reveals how uninteresting the place actually is. Even Shanmaghery itself lacks interest, and Gortavoy Bridge is simply a footnote to a place that is simply "an isolated area spanning one small road and several country lanes that straddle hilly countryside". Sigh! SilkTork 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Assassinator[edit]

Delete This is not notable, and is just a student project Andrew Duffell 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete unless references can be added to establish independent coverage by the closure of this discussion, but let this run for the full five days to give the creator a chance, since this nomination is another hairtrigger created-and-nominated in the same day AfDs — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not reluctant at all Delete, nonnotable student/YouTube film, I'm holding off speedying this only out of respect for Iridescenti's opinion. NawlinWiki 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion isn't worth that much - go ahead & speedy if you want; just seems that the article's new enough that it may not be complete & it could conceivably have won some kind of award etc etc that hasn't yet been added. I find this unlikely & agree this looks like spam for someone's youtube page — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems a film of that title would get you kicked off a campus these days. --Infrangible 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe first film was made a couple of years ago, long before the tragic events at Virginia. The sequel is not based around the lives of students; simply in the town of Durham. Both are UK based, so there is little chance of the film being actively prevented by the authorities. That said, the film makers (myself included) are currently considering changing some aspects to make the film more sensitive to the events at Virginia Tech. Slimjimmyb 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that the article has been mostly written as self promotion by those involved with the film, and largely for the wrong reasons. The reaonsSlimjimmyb stated on the talk page are not good reasons, but infact reasons that a website should be set up for the film for such content--Andrew Duffell 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded it because notability wasn't established. Quoting some discussion on the talk page: "what this sequel has in spades, is potential. Even without the Patric Stewart footage, it has many reasons to become highly notable as a student film, but WITH the footage, it will be relatively unique!" The repeating theme is potential. It's not there yet. Once it becomes notable, that's another matter, but for the time being, it's not notable. Recreate it once it achieves notability, maybe, but now is too soon. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Walton^Assistance! 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chitika[edit]

Contested PROD, speedy deletion speedily overturned at DRV. The original reasons for deletion were that the article reads like an advertisement, and that there are conflict of interest problems with the article. A speedy tag placed on the recreated article also brought up notability concerns. This is a procedural nomination, so no opinion. Core desat 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep sources do seem to exist [37], [38]. But it's not much... --W.marsh 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lengthy articles in AdWeek and the New York Times, along with the shorter Washington Post item mentioned above, are sufficient for me. Not sure how the above user can do a "delete per nom" when the nominator says "no opinion". Needs some cleanup, so I've added it to my watchlist and will spend some time on it in the future. JavaTenor 08:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs revision for tone, but otherwise not outrageously spammy in its present form. DGG 04:55, 13 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, KrakatoaKatie 13:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ONLY IF the article is totally rewritten by the end of this debate. As it stands it reads like corporate fluff and is a failure of many guidelines. Nuttah68 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay lohan's third album[edit]

Yet more Lindsay Lohan-related crystal ball-gazing. No reliable sources cited here. Extraordinary Machine 11:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, original research, and crystal balling. Recreate when a sizeable chunk of material can be sourced from multiple, reliable, third-party publications, and a title, tracklist, and specific release date is included amongst the attributable information. -- saberwyn 11:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its repeated use of "it has been rumoured" is a dead give away, it's complete speculation, no RS, crystal ball, etc. María (habla conmigo) 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meanwhile I think I'll watch Lindsay Lohan's eighteenth album. Just so I know about it in time to pop out to the shops. --Dweller 15:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another example of something that doesn't have a name because it doesn't exist yet. Pretty much a bad sign. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unless there is definitive information, this article is nonsense. --AEMoreira042281 13:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article stated that Lohan wants to work with those people. But is she really going to do so? Sounds like pure speculation.--Kylohk 16:59, 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. Walton^Assistance! 18:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of OVW Heavyweight Championship reigns by length[edit]

As per a related AfD, a list of how long people have held a fake title in a minor league wrestling promotion is not encyclopedic information. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable in any fashion. Otto4711 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless trivia, no need for any of these "champions by length" for a fake sport. Biggspowd 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OVW Heavyweight Championship - or is it esentially already there? If so, then delete. No need to keep or redirect. A standalone list sorted like this but otherwise resembling an existing list at the parent is of no extra value - and is not needed. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2007 Fort Dix attack plot. This article contains no contextual information not available in the target article and a merge seems unecessary. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer[edit]

This article does not contain any notable information that is not already in 2007 Fort Dix attack plot. Keeping a stub for the future possibility of notability is not necessary. Remy B 12:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to the article on the attack plot as a legitimate search term, and as a history placeholder in the event that he carves himself a significant place in longterm world events. -- saberwyn 12:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, since 2007 Fort Dix attack plot is a notable incident. This article simply must be extended. This however, gives rise to another question. Do we need an article about every Guantanamo Bay detainee? See Category:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees. Most of the are indeed non-notable, unlike this man. So, what do you think?Biophys 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe any of the pages are not notable enough, be bold and nominate them for deletion. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that a person is notable just for the fact that they are involved in a notable event. For the person to warrant an article of their own, there must be additional notability, which this article does not establish. As for the notability of unrelated articles - this is not the place to discuss it - please take it up elsewhere. Remy B 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect—by my assessment, this man is only notable in the context of the attack plot. Gracenotes^T § 01:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not notable enough outside of the attack plot. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The subject of the article is only notable in the context of the Fort Dix attack plot. There is no sense in having information duplicated in several places which will then diverge, as we've seen happen with other needless forks. It just confuses things and reduces the quality of Wikipedia. --Monotonehell 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flukism[edit]

Non-notable term, pages read more like a thinly veiled advert for a website. Googgle searches turn up 10 hits for "Flukism", of which all are either "flukism.org" or forum posts about flukism. Author is also creator of The Moyse listed for deletion as well. Wildthing61476 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable, another attempt at self-promotion of a neologism. NawlinWiki 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV city. --Infrangible 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self Congratulatory Meme pushing. - Richfife 14:36, 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 redirect. W.marsh 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Sempron[edit]

Repeat contents of List of AMD Sempron microprocessors#Mobile processors and possibly Sempron, attempt to copy all information and start a new page which seemed unnecessary. Idle.man5216 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of AMD Sempron microprocessors#Mobile processors, analogously to Mobile Athlon 64 --Tikiwont 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Quite a reasonable search term, and I'm sure someone could do more than copy paste if they ever felt like it. Someguy1221 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). Nabla 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Sundown[edit]

non notable business C5mjohn 04:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost all ski areas meet the notability standard, since they are covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources, e.g. Ski and Skiing magazines, plus local and regional newspapers with large circulations. It is simply a matter of someone doing the legwork needed to dig up these sources, which are not always sitting online. There is no need to serially list one ski area after another at AfD. Our efforts would be better spent locating the sources and improving the articles than having AfD debates about them. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I disagree with "Almost all ski areas meet the notability standard." the fact that the article says that the resort is "small" should be a give away that this one is not notable. C5mjohn 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's small when compared to huge resorts, but it is the largest ski area in Connecticut and is certainly well-known to residents of that state. Propound 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably as notable as any state park, regional park, or national forest that size. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 12:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kayasthas[edit]

Completing a nom. Original reasoning: "according to WT:INB it was decided not to categorize people by caste". Tizio 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not beilieve this is a categorisation-just an acknowledgement of the fact that certain individuals from a particular community have been notable.Most included in the list were staunch opponents of the caste system-Vivekananda,Aurobindo,Rajendra Prasad,Jayprakash Narayan,Premchand etc.But one cannot ignore that they came from a particular community and gives no sanction at all to the inhuman caste system.I would fully endorse not having a category whcih is dictated by caste considerations-but an article is not a category!By the same token one would have to delete any refererence to notable Mormons,Jehovah's witnesses,Shias etc etc etc.Perhaps one solution woudl eb to include only thsoe whose notability is unrelated to their caste of origin.If that is indeed an acceptable yardstick,I think there is not much wrong with this list-it is just an acknowledgement that caste delineation is still strongly prevalent in India.(Vr 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with this article. --Infrangible 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Walton^Assistance! 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese cultural artifacts controversy[edit]

I came to this page as part of the work I have started working on old articles requiring cleanup. This one had been tagged since September of 2005. I'm enjoying this work, which I've only recently taken on, and feel that I can improve articles even if they don't interest me. But this article is beyond my ability to help.

Yes, it needs clean up. But that's impossible to do, because—

the information lacks any context whatsoever. The only Wikilinks are to non-specific articles, such as articles on countries or individuals. There's nowhere to go to find out the context in which this issue is framed.
the information lacks any citations. This is a problem for a couple of reasons. First of all, of course, we want to be able to verify information in any article, but also, because such citations might give a "cleaner-uppper" like myself the chance to figure out the fundamentals of this issue. Without any cites, we can go nowhere with this article
the article gives the impression of being very POV—in particular, very anti-Japanese. Now I'm no Nippophile, but I still expect if you're going to demonize someone or a country that you better bring your facts to the table. And you can't clean up POV. To quote a line that I saw in a movie once, "You can't polish a turd." And that's what a POV-laden article is.

There is, by the way, one citation given on the page. But it's to some very unprofessional looking site called MUSEUM SECURITY MAILING LIST (caps not added by me). I just think that this article is beyond hope, and I urge its deletion. Unschool 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It's the first time I've ever asked for an article to be deleted. Still learning. Unschool 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Stolen Artifacts from Asia found in Japan (AfD discussion), this, this, this, this, and this. Do those help you to work out what the subject of the article is? Uncle G 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time to look at that stuff probably until this coming weekend, but I appreciate the help. Unschool 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main problem in the earlier AfD seems to have been the original name, and this is clearly better. Those articles are relevant, and since they're there that demonstrates sourceability. I'm sure there are additional non-English language sources as well. DGG 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I greatly appreciate Unschool's dedication to this issue. I just don't think the article is unsalvgable, or that it strays from the facts, granted that citations are badly needed. Herostratus 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Censorship in Malaysia. (I didn't delete the page in case anyone wants to merge the list of films.) Walton^Assistance! 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films banned in Malaysia[edit]

Content is copied directly from the banned films article. This article is redundant, and can easily be a redirect link to banned films. Creator removed prod. Axlq 05:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that; I got distracted in the process and couldn't return until now. =Axlq 14:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps a solution like was done for The list of films banned in Iran would be worth pursuing? There doesn't seem to be a Censorship in Malaysia article, but perhaps there should be one? FrozenPurpleCube 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but there's no need. The article banned films already exists with identical content. There's no point maintaining the same content in two articles. =Axlq 14:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, sometimes there is a point to maintaining content in more than one place, since it helps increase the chance of finding it. Besides, I think that banned films should have the lists there removed. It's barely over 40 countries out of over four times that many. At best, they're incomplete, at worst it's unsourced. In this case, since Censorship in Malaysia would be a valid subject for an article, I'd suggest making it and moving the content there. FrozenPurpleCube 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the category, I decided to go ahead and throw up an article. It's incredibly stubby, but hopefully it will inspire folks to cover this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: There is never a point to maintaining content in more than one place for the purpose of increasing the chance of finding it. That's what redirect pages are for. Furthermore, banned films isn't the subject of this AfD; if banned films isn't already encyclopedic enough, then it could be made so. A general article on censorship in Malaysia is a good idea, and its existence is all the more reason to delete List of films banned in Malaysia and redirect it there. =Axlq 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, redirect pages aren't what I'm talking about, as that only refers to title, but rather duplicate information. To take a random example, the population of Texas is at both Texas and List of U.S. states by population. Not to mention every other state. Would there be any point to removing it? No, that wouldn't be helpful. Now this is is a slightly different case, since the list is much longer, but there are options besides leaving the same information in two places or deletion. And I think that the potential length of information actually convinces me that it's worth considering that maybe the content of banned films needs to be revamped so it's not trying to list what films were banned in what country, but instead placing that information elsewhere and linking to it there. Since this isn't just a problem for this list though, I'm going to tag banned films for cleanup and discussion of that issue. FrozenPurpleCube 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, info already exists in the banned films page. Lugnuts 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. No redirect needed. This might be of some local interest in Malaysia, and perhaps in other nearby and Islamic nations, and presumably they would have their own Wikipedia. It is probably a reflection of the religion / culture there, which is fine, but it is still redundant. No compelling reason for this special list to exist in the English wiki. I might have sprung for a hypothetical "Banned in Great Britain" vs "Banned in USA or Canada", as a cultural-morality comparison or something, but this one is just a list copied from elsewhere. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Menard[edit]

Article was created by Tanner Menard himself (barely.audible is him). Claims to notariety are shaky at best, no sources cited, blatantly self-promoting, etc.

Clearly meets Wikipedia criteria for AFD.

--Prop21 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless reliable sources are provided and WP:V is met. --Tikiwont 14:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, especially after the recent additions of "sources" by barely.audible. User is a fledgling musician clearly attempting to create an article promoting himself and the "sources" are Youtube videos. Unless a Youtube video of a recent performance of this gentleman can be established as a reliable source for his notariety, we're obligated to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as an encycopædia. This is not the forum for building a career in the music industry.--Prop21 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I the author of this article, tanner menard hereby remove himself from the process of maintaining this article and ask that others please rewrite the article as the claims made in this article are true to my understanding. I hereby admit that i was unaware that it was not the practice of wikipedia to allow a person to write ones own entry. I ask the the wikipedia community keep this page open long enough for members of the wiki community at large to ammend this article from a neutral point of view. I fully understand if this article is deleted and appreciate the efforts of the wiki community to maintain the standards of the encyclopedia. I also maintain that all remaining sources (as i understand what is a source) are not published by me and demonstrate my own noteriaty in the community of wind musicians and a certain portion of the indy rock world(through my deep association with peachcake.)--75.14.234.182 08:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding a signature to your earlier entry. Please sign your posts, in accordance with convention. --Prop21 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the POV problems, cited all of the information presented. There should not be a problem with this article. --Nikolai stavrogin 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond happening to mention the name of one of three kinds of vehicle. Otto4711 13:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated once previously, closed no consensus. Previous "keep" votes look to have been based mostly on how interesting the list might have been, which doesn't strike me as a valid reason for keeping, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Otto4711 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft. Songs have nothing else in common so they are essentially a random collection of information. If we let it stay what will be next? List of songs containing words? A1octopus 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its just random, and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. Thehalfone 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear violation of WP:NOT. May be interesting but that is no reason to hang on to something patently unencyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is completely random and doesn't even deserve a category. DBZROCKS 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. --Haemo 22:51, 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. --Core desat 01:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mayberry[edit]

Non-notable businessman, non-notable runner-up in election Clicketyclack 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some sources, but he's just not notable. Losing an election and publishing a small magazine don't count for much. Placeholder account 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable either as businessman or losing candidate. NawlinWiki 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Placeholder. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn as losing candidate and businessman.xC | ☎ 19:42, 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 redirect. W.marsh 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunt[edit]

Delete - There are lots of uses for the word Brunt; returning a search page is far better than arbitrarily dumping a user at a Star Trek page -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's content was merged. The GFDL requires keep. Uncle G 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be kept then it should be as a disambiguation page, NOT as a redirect. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I have created a disambiguation page which I feel this page should redirect to. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also a transformer by this name that is linking to this page. Just FYI. Slavlin 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Transformer probably wants the links removing - from what I can see he's a fairly minor one, and there's certainly no article on here about him, other than the minor mentions with Trypticon and on the The Transformers (animated series) characters page. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:17, 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. --Core desat 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Davis[edit]

He's the CEO of a fairly minor company (wikia.com) but beyond that no secondary head - apparently no media interest. Find some reason why he's important or delete this. -Doc^g 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this navel-gazing. If any Wiki users want to know who he is, I'm sure he has a user page. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nope, being something senior at Wikia does not automatically grant notability. Hut 8.5 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO unless that doesn't apply to the execs of our own WP. Carlossuarez46 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article, he is COO, an even more non-notable position in a small company, who has received no significant media attention. Risker 22:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense/obvious hoax. What is it with people and fake TV show articles? NawlinWiki 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sightmare the Fish[edit]

Article appears to be a cut and paste of parts of Lidsville, including the IMDB link. A Google search for "Sightmare the Fish" returns no results, and a search for the individual words (sightmare fish) returns very few results, none relevant. Travisl 15:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as poorly crafted hoax. DarkAudit 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Some keep advocates did not substantiate why the person is notable, but simply noted that the Green result in Oregon was the best in the US. I guess a mention about the Greens having their best result in Oregon could go in the general senate election page.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Keane[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Asserted notability that she received highest percentage of green vote in that election is sufficient. -Pete 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Getting 2.4% of the vote for U.S. Senate is not notable; the fact that may have received the highest percentage of "green vote" is irrelevant; minor party nominees who fail miserably at the polls are not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. I just don't see this claim as anything notable. Generally third-party candidates in the US system do not attract significant media attention until they cross the 10% threshold. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is not the same thing as electability. If a candidate is significant within a third party, and attracts media attention, that is something; an individual can be notable without having a major influence on a specific election. -Pete 10:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable politician. Deletion nom in a disturbing pattern of GP politicians by same user. T L Miles 16:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken Tambourine[edit]

1987 British children's books. The article is a plot summary providing little or no context. No evidence whatsoever that the book or its author are notable. I can't see how the book meets WP:BK. The book is now out of print and worldcat finds only 28 libraries worldwide with a copy. Pascal.Tesson 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with a rewrite, the book itself lacks notability and WP:RS. The author could possibily fulfill WP:BIO with a quick glance at some of the search results from Google, but this book in particular is fairly obscure (I concur with the Worldcat assessment). The article was created by a user whose only edit is the creation, so lack of Wikipedia experience and knowledge of WP:NOTE is apparent. María (habla conmigo) 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: It's clear from prior precedent and consensus here that this huge list of indiscriminate trivia simply does not belong, but a well-sourced paragraph or two could probably be written explaining and summing up the spread and influence of this phrase through popular culture, so I've moved it to a subpage of the talk page so that such a section can be written. Krimpet (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us"[edit]

Delete - nominated once previously and closed no consensus, improve sourcing. The sourcing has not improved, and the article remains an indiscriminate list and a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items listed here are unrelated to each other in any way beyond happening to use a particular faddish catch phrase. A number of the listed items are not uses of the catch phrase at all but are instead things that in the original-research point of view of some editor resembles or sounds sorta like the catch phrase. In summary, a solid mass of indiscriminate poorly- and un-sourced trivia. Strongly oppose merging any of this information back to the main article on the catch phrase. Unsourced trivial garbage doesn't belong in the main article any more than it belongs in its own article. Otto4711 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --GreenJoe 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only reason why we have an article on All your base are belong to us in the first instance is that the phrase has become a staple of net-based culture, widely repeated and parodied. If it is thought that this information is "indiscriminate" or "loosely organized" (currently used as to try to make the traditional "cruft" argument sound more like "policy" and less like WP:IDONTLIKEIT), then the article in chief should be deleted as well. Most of the entries in the list are largely self-validating in any case. If it is thought that this data is too disorganized to appear in the article in chief, the right thing to do would be to move it to a subpage of the talk page for the convenience of future editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - arguing for the preservation of this article based on the possibility of the main article's being deleted is a variation of WP:ALLORNOTHING and is not convincing. WP:NOT#IINFO is policy, as is WP:NOT#DIR; WP:CRUFT and WP:ILIKEIT are not. Characterizing policy arguments as a case of cruft by any other name or whatever is a mischaracterization of the argument, one which, assuming good faith, I will assume is based on a misunderstanding of the argument and not a willful attempt at misrepresentation. I do not agree that it is a good idea to make it convenient for editors to add garbage that will never be sourced to the main article or any other article. Otto4711 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Calling the factual data that other editors have added or tried to add to any article "garbage" strikes me as deeply uncivil, and it began when this AfD was opened. On the other hand, I have tried to remain constructive and suggest the right thing to do with "popular culture" sections that other editors find poorly organized. Perhaps it is time for a moratorium on the forking of popular culture lists or proposing their deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the whole thing trivial garbage. --Agamemnon2 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the main article. Edison 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep AYBABTU (you should know what that stands for) Is a very notable and is a very common in popular culture. It has real world significance, it just needs cleanup thats all. DBZROCKS 20:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual article that is about AYBABTU covers the notability of the catch phrase. That the catch phrase is notable does not mean that every single time that the catch phrase or something similar to the catch phrase appears anywhere at any time in anything is notable. The passing trivial references to the phrase do not inherit notability from the phrase itself. Otto4711 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge per Edison & per WP:FICT, which this is. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't changed my opinion from when I nominated it the first time. It is an indiscriminate list that could cover any verifiable instance in which someone used AYB (or "for great justice," etc.). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also (I almost forgot), per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists): "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The items on this list have no chance of becoming articles. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the list items have articles within the information either Wikipedia or News outlets. An example of this is in the television section - in order Futurama; two news sources; Static Shock; Ripley's Believe it or Not; Megas XLR; Whatever Happened to Robot Jones?; Pani Poni Dash!; Berserk; "Ill Suited" of Kim Possible.TheSun 04:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, and it's fun (unlike the great bulk of boring Wikipedia articles).--Mike18xx 08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please cite a reliable source that attests to the notability of, for instance, this item from the list: In Series 1 TiVo PVRs, if backdoors are enabled then 17 presses of the Channel/Page Down button on the System Information screen (from the first page of System Information) will cause the message "All your tuners are belong to US" to be displayed. Otto4711 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came across this article because I was looking up AYB references. Shows it has some purpose to me... Ian¹³ /t 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - as sprawling trivia -- Whpq 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively Strong Keep - It's an important to internet and non-internet culture and has been discussed in or referenced by many notable parts of society (games, movies, websites, authors). TheSun 04:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, there is an article about the phrase itself. The article about the phrase itself is not being considered for deletion and it is in the article on the phrase itself that the notability of the phrase is established. Otto4711 13:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the list of cultural references should be Merged with the article TheSun 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was kept last time conditioned on the sourcing being improved. The sourcing has not been improved. Unsourced information should not be merged to other articles. Otto4711 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article. This is an interesting and informative list but it doesn't merit its own separate page from the normal AYB page. It would be great if it wasn't just a "Trivia" section, but I feel like that's unavoidable, and there is salvageable information here. bwowen ^T/C 06:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless information that has no purpose beyond being trivial. The Filmaker 20:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shows how large of a meme AYB really is, but is too large for the original article. Geshpenst 02:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Pentel[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable Green party activist and was a Minnesota governor candidate. Minnesota Public Radio did a major piece on him here. The Star Tribune also did a piece on him.[39]. The nom is AfDing, prodding or speedy tagging a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I just saw a lot of non-notable entries in the cat. I appreciate the addition of source material. --GreenJoe 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. He was a candidate for governor of Minnesota in the 2006 election. Unfortunately, I don't think he had much of a chance against the major parties, but the name is still notable enough.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable minor party politician--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His in-depth environmental blueprint must go on record--tomcleland^tomcleland 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be noted that he is a brand new user. GreenJoe 19:05, 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 kill with fire. --Core desat 01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manpons[edit]

I couldnt find any thing on the acronym Manpon or Manufacturer Purchase Order Numbers. As for the "tampon for a man" definition, thats obviously a joke. 99DBSIMLR 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced neologism, and burn the silliness. DarkAudit 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, burn it with fire. Burntsauce 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anatomically incorrect --Infrangible 04:17, 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. --Core desat 01:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Shotko[edit]

The guy isn't notable, article isn't sourced. Fails WP:BIO. Extreme delete GreenJoe 15:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable losing minor-party candidate. NawlinWiki 18:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & NawlinWiki. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 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 cast into the fires of Mount Doom. --Core desat 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth in popular culture[edit]

Yet another "in pop culture" article. While I'll admit that the lead is written well enough and it is organized correctly. It still does not disregard the fact that it is simply an article filled with trivial references of "that time that that show mentioned the name Gandalf!") How is this information useful? Some may argue that it paints a picture of how broad cultural impact the works of Tolkien have been. However, on an encyclopedia, we're not here to paint a picture. We're here to state the facts in the most elegant, yet efficient way possible. Since it's information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article). This not to mention WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:ATT and probably more policy pages that it violates. The Filmaker 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another mass of trivial piffle gathered on a page pretending to be an article. We do not need a directory of every single time someone in any fictional medium or even in real life says "hobbit" or "gollum" or "one ring" or whatever other fragment of Tolkienity some script writer happens to drop into a TV show. And before anyone suggests it, DO NOT MERGE a word of this into any other article on any other aspect of Tolkien or his works. It is worthless garbage in its own article and it is worthless garbage in any other article. Otto4711 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another unencyclopedic trivia article and a perfect example of what Wikipedia is not. *** Crotalus *** 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another 'Spot the insignificant one line passoffs to a major work' list, completely unsourced, completely unverified, and no indication that anyone has studied the subject as a whole, making this an original synthesis of unrelated material. Delete. -- saberwyn 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cast into the fires of Mount Doom for being one of the daftest "in popular culture" articles I have ever seen. Not sourced, not verfied and probably original research. (Obviously deleting this article would be have to be without prejudice to my latest article "Fictitious teaspoons in popular culture.") A1octopus 22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Manski[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable. Not sourced. Delete GreenJoe 16:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable Green party activist. Has appeared in numerous very notable publications and news outlets. The nom is AfDing, prodding or speedy tagging a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I just saw a lot of non-notable entries in the cat. --GreenJoe 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Co-chair in a notable third party easily deserves article. Davewild 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 7 co-chairs, so that argument doesn't hold water. GreenJoe 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. the only "source" is a local paper's interview of the guy about John Kerry; so if I get asked by some reporter about George W. Bush, I'm notable; Yahoo!; under WP:BIO several unrelated articles about the person in question is what's required. This falls waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy short. nn. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was interviewed as a political authority, not as a man on the street as would be the case if you were interviewed. The title even starts with "Green Leader." --Oakshade 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established above. I will assume good faith but apparent 'agenda noms' show a lack of judgement.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDon't see reason for deletion, but i do see pattern that looks like 'agenda noms'T L Miles 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Allwine[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable. Not sourced. Delete GreenJoe 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable losing minor party candidate. NawlinWiki 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., hasn't garnered more than 10% of the vote in her repeated 3rd party candidacies. nn. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 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^Assistance! 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Branum[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable. Not sourced. Delete GreenJoe 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Guy lost a local race 82%-18%, and has since run for the state house garnering under 5% (presumably last in the three-person race). nn. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All politicians are notable. Reebokmaster 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New user. GreenJoe 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Ferrucci[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Senatorial candite and recieved over 15% of vote in New Haven majorial election. The nom is AfDing, prodding or speedy tagging a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I just saw a lot of non-notable entries in the cat. GreenJoe 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally speaking, losing candidates for races are not notable; this more so the more minor the race or the further down the field one finishes. Coming in 2nd in a US Senate race may confer notability; coming in 4th doesn't with a whopping 1/2 of 1% of the vote does not. In fact the pinnacle of his career appears to be his receiving 15% of the vote in a mayoral election of a mid-size city (the majority of whose mayors - i.e., the folks that win - don't have articles) and its been downward since (2.5% in a congressional election, and 0.5% for senate). nn. The keeper's accusation of bad faith is way out of line. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Black Parade. Sr 13 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep (My Chemical Romance song)[edit]

Absolutely no proof that this song will be a single; the reference link is broken and there is no other evidence from a search on google. Freddie McPhyll 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No proof of this song being released as a single. Song not notable. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No references that prove it is a single and it is otherwise not notible. – Zntrip 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not being a single, or failing that, merge and/or redirect to the appropriate album. -- saberwyn 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe it should also be noted an article with almost identical information is available at Sleep (song). Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it back to The Black Parade. – Zntrip 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is all that info fake then? icelandic hur ric ane #12 _(talk) 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isn't sourced so there is no way of knowning. Even if it is true it still should be removed untill sources are provided. – Zntrip 21:42, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KCC LIVE[edit]

Non notable school radio station. The article makes no claim to notability and reads like an advert/name check. No sources have been provided Nuttah68 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - it should be speedily deleted. Its format has been copied from that of BBC Radio Merseyside and is not at all notable. --172.142.0.137 21:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A format copy is not a copyvio. There are no grounds for speedy deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The radio station is useful information. I work at KCC LIVE presenting and producing. If you want sources for the information; please contact the office via email (office@kcclive.com) or the website (www.kcclive.com) or the MySpace (www.myspace.com/kcclive. I would like to also add that that User 172.142.0.137 should be banned due to persistant vandalism of the KCC LIVE Wikipedia. The KCC LIVE Wikipedia is viewed by a varity of people everyday, from children to adults, so there is no need to post pornography on the site.

If you want evidence of this - please consult the history of the KCC LIVE Wikipedia and you will see that User 172.142.0.137 has vandelised the page with pornographic material.

If you want to contact me, please leave me a message either on Wikipedia or at office@kcclive.com

Jakeyross 22:58, 16 May 2007 — Jakeyross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No pornography was posted, they are images used from other Wikipedia articles posted on your page, allegorical of the fact that what you post is also just a load of shit. --172.142.0.137 07:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the edit history, there was indeed pornography posted on the article at one time. Further, do not make personal attacks against anybody here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is self-referenced, as it displays no reliable sources independant of the organisation and/or its employees. Only claim for notability, "one of the best student stations", is subjective and unsourced. Fails to meet the notability guideline for organisatins, groups, and companies, the use of reliable sources guideline, or the verifiability policy, and as such should be deleted. -- saberwyn 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article is a mess of POV with statements such as "one of the best student stations", reads like a promotional piece, fails WP:N and WP:V, and is also suffering from conflict-of-interest-itis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 Orderinchaos 05:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No "vote" -- IMHO, the discussion (and apparent conflict) above reads to me like a manufactured entity, intended to make people think that the article has some notability, which would lead me to think delete. but I shall leave decisions to those wiser than me (i.e. the Cabal) -- 195.92.40.49

Some people are so sad and petty. This article is valid. GET OVER IT! Why delete something that is valid? Go get a girlfriend/boyfriend, along with a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.74.195 (talk)
- Please do not make personal attacks in attempting to prove validity of this article. If you wish to prove that this article can be upheld to our requirements, please see WP:N for notability, WP:V for verifiability, and WP:RS for what we consider to be reliable sources. You have not done this, you have only yelled and screamed - and yelling and screaming does not prove your article to be "valid". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete it doesn't have anything that says it is notable in any way
Delete I am shocked that this hasn't been deleted already. It is evident that from the grammatical structure of the article, the author has obviously created this for a personal false sense of fame and self promotion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Moore (politician)[edit]

Failed candidate. Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable, and not soured. Delete GreenJoe 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 0.4% of the vote in a Senate race is nn, and may be little more than random chance (particularly given Florida voters' hangging chads fiascos). Carlossuarez46 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, article has no real third party sources as I'm not going to count the voter's pamplet since that info would have come from the candidate. Aboutmovies 04:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of Generation Y[edit]

I originally came across these articles because of the proposed merge and was trying to think of the best way of accomplishing this. On second thought I realized that even merged together they are problematic - for one, there exists no authoritative definition for Generation Y and thus the inclusion criteria are subjective. Furthermore, we have categories for births by year making this list redundant. Finally, is it a potentially unmanageable list as more and more poeple from this generation achieve notoriety and thus become eligible for the list. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - indiscriminate unmaintainable lists with arbitrary inclusion standard. Otto4711 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all completely indiscriminate list Hut 8.5 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, pointlessly indiscriminate lists. Punkmorten 22:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - list of people born between 1977 and 1996, maybe, if you accept this definition of Generation Y? No, that's not a good list. --Haemo 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the List of notable baby boomers. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For making me feel old. --Infrangible 04:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO - Generation Y isn't even well defined (the definition seems to change every time I hear it), and besides, what do these people have in common apart from being about the same age? Orderinchaos 05:33, 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. --Core desat 01:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando balentina[edit]

Delete as non-notable minister / radio show host. There are only 4 Google hits for the name. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - conflict of interest problem and not sufficiently notable. Addhoc 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity article. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. -- jwillbur^talk 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not notable as of yet. Perhaps it could be recreated if he ends up winning.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Jones Jr.[edit]

Notable enough not to speedy, bot not notable enough as a local politician per WP:BIO DarkAudit 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Jones' position is notable. The previous politician to hold the position of Councilman for the Fourth District (Michael Nutter) was just elected Mayor of Philadelphia. AR-82 12:52, May 16, 2007

ReplyThe Mayor of Philadelphia is notable. Without significant media coverage, a city council member is not. There is no source providing evidence of any such coverage. DarkAudit 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jones has been featured in multiple articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News. Videos regarding the campaign have also been viewed by thousands on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOKHVIQhleE&mode=related&search=) AR-82 14:15, May 16, 2007

ReplyYouTube is generally not considered a reliable source. What coverage has he received outside of the Philadelphia metro area? DarkAudit 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The two references in the article are noteworthy enough, including his image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominee for a city counsel seat does not give you inherent notability. Carlossuarez46 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well below the threshold of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Both Councilman Juan F. Ramos and Councilman John P. Kelly have Wikipedia pages. Jones is not yet on Council, but with the Democratic Party's dominance in Philadelphia he is virtually assured of victory in November. He is noteworthy for defeating the formidable incumbent Carol Campbell, additionally, the Fourth Council District seat is an important position with its previous occupant, Michael Nutter, having just been elected Mayor. AR-82 23:46, May 18, 2007
- Reply to Reply Just because someone else has an article, it is insufficient argument to keep this one. The articles on those two will need to be judged on their own merits. And after an initial check, it's likely that they will also go into AfD status in the near future. DarkAudit 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Philadelphia is the fourth largest metropolitan area in the U.S. The decisions of its City Council affect millions of people. It's a valuable resource to Philadelphians for Wikipedia to have pages on its City Council members. Certainly it would be undesirable for there to be pages on the members of the City Councils in every city in the U.S., but that is not going to happen whether or not a page on Curtis Jones exists. To deprive Philadelphians of having a page on their Councilperson (as nearly every New Yorker does New_York_City_Council) is not justified merely to prevent a rash of pages on City Council members. If Curtis Jones were still the President of PCDC or a local ward leader I would agree that he is not notable. However, the position he will soon hold is an important one and he is additionally visible for defeating Carol Campbell, a longtime political force who was expected to trounce Jones (http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2006-09-21/cover.shtml). Lastly, Jones' close association with Rep. Chaka Fattah and State Sen. Vincent Huges gives him significant leverage with other politicians and will help him rise through the ranks at City Council. However, if you feel that Jones just is not sufficiently notable right now, then the article can be deleted. Thanks for everyone's time on this. AR-82 10:58, May 19, 2007
- Reply Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the chamber of commerce. If the citizens of Philadelphia need to go find more information on their council members, there are much better avenues than Wikipedia. And that's the way it is intended to be. Referring to a future position is called crystalballism here. We are not supposed to speculate on what may happen. DarkAudit 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources are just enough for me... I think we can write a verifiable article here. Perhaps merge to an article on the election or something like that if one exists. --W.marsh 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DarkAudit. --Michael Greiner 22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 09:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage (record label)[edit]

non-notable label Lugnuts 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the intersection of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SPAM. YechielMan 23:51, 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 speedily deleted by Woohookitty as patent nonsense. --Core desat 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Try/Me and all my N*****s[edit]

being sneaky! Using this as a faster way to get an expert to verify if this is a hoax or not! Postcard Cathy 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystalballery. Even if not a hoax, not enough information exists about this song to verify the article as anything more than idle speculation. A1octopus 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Even the Heat Magazine attribution hasn't been sourced! Postcard Cathy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.133.68.127 (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

COMMENT Just an FYI - several of this author's articles have been speedily deleted as vandalism. I suspect this one is too as well since all the others also had to do with Beyonce. 172.153.123.99 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable. --Core desat 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinkeh Dragon[edit]

Nonnotable online RPG, no independent sources. Prod tag removed so bringing here. NawlinWiki 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnotable? go play it :-p Now that players are aware this page even exists, a couple people will expand the content here. broken links are fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.58 (talk)

Delete non-notable article. Only gets 21 hits on Google for "The Kinkeh Dragon" (in quotations) and the primary site isn't even the first hit. After the first couple of hits, it's just RPG sites linking in, nothing notable or reliable. Alexa doesn't have any information at all (which is a shocker since most sites at least have something there, even if they aren't popular). Article is also written in an advertising tone. I highly doubt this can be expanded much more than it already is. --pIrish ^Arr! 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given all this bullshit, I'd make my own informative site for the game LONG before putting information on a site where people are just going to leave idiotic comments. Go ahead, delete the entry, you idiots aren't worthy. As the person from 205.156.36.58 said, go play it, then I'd put some merit behind your comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.138.249 (talk)

Delete Non-notable single-paragraph advert, no sources and a google search indicates there are none. QuagmireDog 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the main page shortly, but won't have time to do much else until next week.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.58 (talk)

Delete 17 Google hits for "kinkeh dragon". Of interest to its players, maybe, but nobody else has taken notice. --Alvestrand 18:08, 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. --Core desat 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luna (Ultima Online)[edit]

non-notable fancruft C5mjohn 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge or redirect to Ultima Online: Age of Shadows Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:19, 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, Sr 13 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's useless indiscriminate information, not sourced and not relevant to anyone who's never played the game. YechielMan 23:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a single city in an MMORPG, which has spawned two sentences in two years. QuagmireDog 07:14, 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 Speedy delete, textbook WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CharonBoat.com[edit]

Contested speedy. Author removing tags repeatedly even after warnings. No assertion of notability per WP:WEB DarkAudit 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Should some assertion of notability be included, then I would recommend heading over to the website in question and counting the available articles on the front page and in the archive (One (1) and Zero (0) respectively). CIreland 19:00, 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. --Core desat 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coleytown Middle School[edit]

This article about a middle school provides too few details and is not very notable. On top of that, the other middle school in Westport, Bedford Middle School, has no article on Wikipedia. An alternative to deleting this article could be creating the article on Bedford Middle, but since we're just talking about middle schools here I think deletion is the best bet. Besides, Coleytown is a smaller school than Bedford. --Nicholas Weiner 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten 22:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable and verifiable sources exist re school; additions have started, with more to come. Alansohn 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, elementary and middle schools should generally be merged with school district articles. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. middle school. Eusebeus 10:16, 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 Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LowerMyBills.com[edit]

Contested recreated article that had been speedied yesterday. Original content of this recreation was vandalism, since replaced with the actual content by the author. Author's contesting statement suggests that much of what will to come will be original research. No sources beyond the site itself. DarkAudit 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Author's contesting statement suggests that much of what will to come will be original research." This is untrue, and nothing to this effect has been stated. There is nothing more to come on my part, as I'm not all that knowledgeable about the site, which leads to "No sources beyond the site itself." That's why it's a stub. - MSTCrow 18:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was how I interpreted 'empirical research'. If the sources of the research come from other sources that are reliable and verifiable, then I have no problem with it. Apologies if there was any misunderstanding there. DarkAudit 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, I'm not the only one that thinks the ads are totally off the wall. So does the NYT. Linked in article, probably needs a notes section. - MSTCrow 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep changed my mind again. well sourced sounds good to me. --CyclePat2 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC) keep: (changed my mind... firefox was just acting up on me! holy meuh! I hardly have time to correct my comment and I'm getting 300 responses. wow! someone cares about this article.) I'll add the endnotes to help out. delete: link at bottom doesn't work and jams up my firefox. Possible spam. No matter the case, I'm not going to bother checking more than that and believe this should be deleted because of 1) self-promotion and 2) lack of proper reference. adieu. --CyclePat2 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC) --CyclePat2 19:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NYT article is definitely an acceptable source per outside coverage per WP:WEB. DarkAudit 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does work, with FF (I'm using FF 2.0.0.3). Your install could be corrupted. I don't see how it could be self-promotion. I don't work for Experian, and I hate LowerMyBills.com, for their screwed up ads littering the internet. A corporate website for the article entity in question and the NYT are generally accepted references. - MSTCrow 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has ample reliable and verifiable coverage to fulfill the WP:CORP standards, including the abovementioned NYTimes article which is entirely about the company's advertising strategy. Alansohn 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Fair enough. Article went from a Speedy to a Keep in a few hours. I call that a good day's editing. :) DarkAudit 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C: pn: I think we should close this one up! CyclePat 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 Count Wrestling[edit]

Local wrestling promotion, no independent sources, no evidence of notability. I live in England and have never heard of it. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have heard of them, but it's a stretch to say they pass WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:53, 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 redirect. W.marsh 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Rhodes[edit]

non-notable per WP:BAND Closenplay 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the first revision in the page history. Delete the content because she's not notable. YechielMan 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Wafulz 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Over the Hedge[edit]

There is no evidence this series exists. Higgs Raccoon 19:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Based on a Google search and the references given, it's probably legit. If October comes and the show doesn't air, please come back and renominate. YechielMan 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were legit, surely Fox would have announced it somewhere on its Web site. All the refs in the article are message boards, as are most of the ghits. (Most of the remainder are WP mirrors, and the couple that aren't are nonreliable.) This is WP:CRYSTAL at best, a hoax at worst. Deor 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Article can always be re-made at a later date, once more reliable sources have verified it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete & Salt - Hoax page created by the UPN vandal --AAA! ^(AAAA) 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, contribution by a known vandal. This is a unquestionably blatant hoax perpritrated by the vandal, as he cites his own sources (e.g. on May 11, posts something with the content "On May 14, blah". --Sigma 7 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ~~& Salt~~ - per above : the UPN vandal Danski14^(talk) 02:06, 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 obvious no consensus, defaulting to keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameTZ.com[edit]

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, as clearly demonstrated by the previous deletion. Proposal to delete and salt. Doko124 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to own discussion page. Original deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com. Mop work - no stance -- saberwyn 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note, deletion was reviewed and overturned on Feb 14. -- saberwyn 23:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as bad faith nom by possible SPA. Nominator has done little other than nominating this and one other article for deletion. The article clearly establishes notability as shown in the DRV discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to note that I don't use an account for contributing to Wikipedia. Due to issues of conflict, (and personal identity) I'm more comfortable with anonymous contributions. However, I do use this account for edits restricted from anonymous users. (i.e., AfD) Although, I'm not sure why anyone would nominate this article out of bad faith. Have there been problems with this subject in the past? I couldn't find anything in the article's history that would suggest this. That aside, the article still doesn't meet the relevant notability guideline. I want to point out that Nihonjoe is the only user contributing toward its progression. I believe this is a strong case of article ownership. 65.6.50.204 07:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are we back to this again? The article hasn't changed since the last deletion was overturned. There's really no cause for this discussion to happen other than that the deleter is hoping to slip one by when no one is looking. Dstumme 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There isn't a single notable mention for this website. GamePro, maybe, but that's still pushing it. The editors have been given a significant amount of time -- both when the article was originally nominated, and after the deletion was overturned -- to provide more sources. Frankly, I can't even understand why the deletion would be overturned, unless this goes back to being a strong case of article ownership, as stated above. Secondly, the comments directed toward myself are irrelevant to the nature of this discussion -- comments should attempt to establish the notability of the article, not resort to ad-hominem because you disagree with the nomination. 74.242.102.194 13:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We must be talking about 2 different definitions of "notable" then. GamePro is a notable publication, within the context of video games. In addition, I see a citation from USA Today, plus a link to a nationally syndicated TV news story. Dstumme 15:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that these citations are trivial. For example, this is the only excerpt from the USA Today (online) article: "Another favorite is the Game Trading Zone (gametz.com) a site that allows you to trade games you've already played for other people's used games." I'm not sure how this is a notable mention... 74.242.102.79 15:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nihonjoe and Dstumme are the only supporters of this article. Reviewing the decision to overturn deletion demonstrates this, as their votes were cast in clearly biased interest. Again, this is going back to being a strong case of article ownership. Unfortunately, this article doesn't seem to get much page hits as it is, and thusly, I don't think we'll be able to reach a consensus about this AfD nomination. Even if we do, Nihonjoe and Dstumme will likely continue to fight for another overturn, which is why I made the proposal to salt the earth. Bearing in mind, both contributors have been given plenty of time -- beyond what I would normally consider fair -- to provide solid references. Secondly, I feel some of the supporting votes in the deletion overturn log are a result of meatpuppetry. I'm calling for an investigation of both Nihonjoe and Dstumme. 74.242.102.79 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of West Florida Renaissance Style Fencing Club: Salle McAfee[edit]

Contested prod. This is a re-enactment society, of which there are very many in both the US and elsewhere; there is nothing notable about it. Fencing and re-enactment are well covered in WP. Renaissance Style Fencing can either be added to one of the existing articles or be created as a separate article. andy 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability or substantial independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modular sign[edit]

Tagged as spam, but not obviously so despite being clearly WP:COI in origin (check edit history). However, the articles as written are patently original research. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the spam is just below the surface. YechielMan 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the external links, it has been spam; with the links removed, it's just a non-notable article, or maybe even OR. --B. Wolterding 20:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unsure about this article when I saw it on Special:Newpages, but with these concerns, I can't justify keeping this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:10, 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, non admin closure. Article was AfD'd when it was in a vandalized state, this page has since been protected by an admin. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBT[edit]

Non-notable bank (at least as article is written). Inexplicably something of a vnadal magnet as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote, but at the minimum it's a terrible article and would need a massive cleanup. YechielMan 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, it's a live bank on the NYSE. That's pretty notable. If it's being vandalized, then semi-protect it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking at the history, this page was originally a disambiguation page. It has evidently been vandalized. I'm going to revert back to that state, but I'll preserve the AFD information. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear This used to be a disambiguation page: [40] until User:Adrock02 managed (after several attempts were foiled by RC patrollers) to replace it with the article about the bank at the beginning of May. The bank should have an article, I think (it took very little digging for me to find sources), but that article should be Investors Bank & Trust and it certainly shouldn't be (most of) the article as written at the moment. CIreland 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...wait, there was no AfD information on the page. Nothing to preserve. Revert committed, have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was no AfD template because it was removed earlier today: diff. CIreland 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Go figure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since this was a clear cut case of vandalism, is it safe to close the AfD? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was not vandalism. I nominated it, partly because the article is such a wreck that it seemed a hoax. Although Investors Bank & Trust does trade on NYSE, there still seems little about this company that is remarkable. I think that the best thing to do is have the bank article at Investors Bank & Trust and have IBT be a disambig page. Sorry if my nominating for AfD was incorrect. —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaff, to elaborate, the AFD is not vandalism, I agree - the article that was AfD'd, however, was vandalized. The vandalism, last I checked, has since been monitored, and appears to be being dealt with for the most part. I'm suggesting that this be closed in light of that the article itself is fine. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:04, 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 Speedy deleted - blatant and evident hoax, nonsense. Newyorkbrad 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gee[edit]

A suspected hoax, but even if legitimate being the 279th richest man in Australia does not make one notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia Mattinbgn/^talk 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Delete an obvious hoax.

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America[edit]

A "list of six" schools of which only two have articles. No context, content. If need be that's what categories are for. These schools are based in Naturopathic medicine, which is an area of contested claims/cures. As the article stands now, its not worth keeping. I added the notability tag, but it was removed within hours and no amendments made. The Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges does not appear to be approved by the United States Department of Education as an accreditor. So this is basically just a org of six schools. Fails WP:CORP. Arbustoo 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Accredited by whom exactly? This article seeks to give a veneer of professional respectability to yet another brand of psuedo-science. Such claims are inherently misleading and, in the case of medicine, actively dangerous. Nick mallory 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These appear to be schools accredited by agencies recognized by the US Dept of Education, which is generally the criterion to refer to a school as "accredited". MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He asked by whom. It doesn't say. Arbustoo 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It says now. Alansohn 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. According to the Department of Education, accreditation by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education "does not enable the entities it accredits to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs." Anville 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply All four of the US schools are accredited by regional accreditation agencies -- with multiple sources provided -- which would establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs. Alansohn 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are only three degrees in the US that allows a person to be a primary care provider or physician. MD, DO and ND. There are articles for the allopathic schools and osteopathic schools. You have to be uninformed or biased to brand our medicine as pseudo-science seeing that our program is heavily science-based and accredited first professional by the US dept of Ed. The Federal Title IV school code for NCNM is B07624. [41]. If you read this page on Title IV information, you will see that the American Psychological Association, Committee on Accreditation has the same financial aid status as we do. Also of great importance is that fact that there are associations who claim to be accrediting bodies for other types of naturopathic education who are not recognized by the USDOE. It is important that people looking for accredited naturopathic schools can find this information.--Travisthurston 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user created the article and is personally connected to one of the two schools listed with an article. Arbustoo 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I performed a Wikipedia search for other "List of accredited..." articles and there are several. There are also several "List of unaccredited..." I really don't get the point of list articles in general as opposed to simple categorization; except that categorization is a black-or-white thing, where lists can provide some of the grey details. I certainly think this list/article could be expanded upon. Discussion of the kind of accreditation these schools have individually and collectively would be a bonus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This vote was requested here. Arbustoo 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below) because of notability concerns. I have nothing against the idea, just the timing. A list with only two entries that have met Wikipedia's notability requirements is hardly enough for a list. First establish the notability of the other schools, then make the list. The following is my rule of thumb to reduce misuse of lists: "Eligibility requirements: If they aren't notable enough to have an article here at Wikipedia, they may not be eligible for inclusion here. Only include those with articles, so write the article first. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising." To avoid the risk of the list title being blocked from future use, I suggest voluntarily withdrawing the list, moving it to user space, writing the articles, and then reestablishing the more fully developed list. It should be relatively easy to do this. -- Fyslee/talk 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lean toward weak keep. I'm in agreement with Fyslee about the fact that the schools on the list should have at least stubs demonstrating their notability. However, I think this is a reasonable list, in that it provides useful, notable information. I'd like to see the text expanded, though, to specify exactly who has accredited the schools, and a brief description of why accreditation is meaningful. That said, these are respectable organizations which should be commended for going through the hoops necessary for accreditation (separating themselves from the truly "dangerous" (see above) degree granters out there) - particularly as there are quite a few fly-by-night programs out there. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment1) This vote was solicited. Shouldn't the list then be about the accreditation group that accredits these "schools"? Arbustoo 23:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the conditions that the good advice provided by MastCell is followed. -- Fyslee/talk 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the article, Travisthurston (voted above), solicited for votes from people sympathic to this questionable "medicine." Levine2112, ATurnerPhD, Dematt, MastCell, andJim Butler. Travisthurston is personally tied one of these schools. Arbustoo 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, and perhaps I should have known better and ignored it or mentioned it. However, if you check my editing history, I've generally been pretty hard on promoters of unproven medical ideas and systems, so I was a little surprised to be solicited. I've never been accused of being sympathetic to naturopathy or other alt-med systems before :) My opinion is what it is; I'll leave it up to the closing admin to decide how much weight to accord it, given that it was indeed solicited. Perhaps it should be discounted or de-weighted on that basis. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also think that as editors in good standing, we can assume good faith here and recognize that our votes and comments aren't dependent on our personal views on medicine, but rather on the policies and precedents of Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would have been nice for all those who came to the AFD to mention they were asked by the creator of the article. But yes, policy is important. How does the article currently meet WP:CORP? Arbustoo 02:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article would meet WP:CORP if there are secondary sources out there not just discussion these institutions separately, but collectively in general or the accreditation organization(s) or process as well. Perhaps this article should not be limited though to just North America. If there are accredited naturopathic medical schools on other continents, including those in an article such as this would only lend itself more to the article's notability. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am fairly new to editing, however I am personally investing the time necessary to research properly each of the listed schools and create at least stubs for them consisting of verifiable content. It is my understanding that each of these schools is accredited by the appropriate regional accreditation boards in addition to the aanmc and I am researching verification of this and will list it in the stub. I apologize that I am in the steepest part of the wiki editing learning curve and am taking time to insure that each of my edits conforms to wiki standards to the best of my knowledge. I am not yet affiliated with any of these schools. Wikipedia should not be about personal vendettas nor about our personal opinions, rather it should be an attempt to summarize the whole of human knowledge to that end I believe that this is a valid stub and I will continue to work toward bringing it and related articles up to wiki standards I agree with Travisthurston that anyone looking into this as a profession should be informed about valid in all states accreditation vs not recognized by the department of education accreditation Neillawrence 02:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment New user who is also interested in the school Travisthurston attends. Both these users have the same interest in articles, and share the same user boxes. An AFD is not a vote; give reasons/links who it passes WP:CORP. Arbustoo 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of the six accredited naturopathic medical schools in North America, and as accredited schools of higher learning, there seems to be near-complete consensus that such schools are notable by definition. Sources are provided to document this list. WP:CORP is not relevant here, as this is not an article about an organization or business. The nominator has had longstanding issues with both this field of medicine and accreditation status, both of which intersect here in this article to his apparent consternation. The Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges mentioned in the article does not claim to be an accrediting agency, it seems to focus on the fact that its member schools are all accredited by outside independent and reliable, nationally-recognized accrediting agencies, while other such schools are not; This fact confers notability on the list of schools. Our place is not to validate the efficacy of naturopathic medicine as a medical philosophy or course of treatment; As stated at WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth [emphasis in original], but the nominator seems to be fighting a battle here challenging the field as "an area of contested claims/cures." As the material here in this article is all verifiable, and serves an encyclopedic purpose, the article should be retained. Alansohn 17:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EditPad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Blatant advertising article of a software product. Does not try to establish notability, does not contain any references, or reliable sources. Vacuum Cleaner 01 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 (blatant advertising) and A7 (no assertion, no reliable sources). Let the others vote. Though I still think there is lack of notability and reliable sources. Vacuum Cleaner 01 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you start an AfD and then promptly recommend a speedy delete? I don't think you understand how speedy deletion is supposed to work. You should have put a speedy deletion template on the article and then waited for it to either be deleted or disputed. Bryan Derksen 05:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:195.113.33.33 did and it was removed very shortly after. I doubt it would last for an administrator to seize. Vacuum Cleaner 01 07:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not blatant advertising. The things stated in the article are true and not worded incorrectly or inappropriately. G11 does not apply. Also, this is about a software product, and not any of the mentioned entities of A7. Therefore, A7 does not apply. —msikma (user, talk) 08:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless can provide independent sources suggesting notability. Someguy1221 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G11 requires inapproptiate content, not just have a product as its subject. A7 is for articles about people, groups, companies and websites, not software products. --Urod 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC) (link fixed Urod 05:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. An article about a product is not necessarily an advertisement for a product. What advertisement would have a "criticism" section? Not to mention that this use of a sock puppet account strikes me as very dubious - who is this a sock puppet of, and why can't he nominate stuff for deletion with his main account? Bryan Derksen 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry about the sock. I considered my reasons well enough from previous troubles in AfD. I do not wish to fight with my own account when this is done. And I do not need my vote to count, consensus can be reached without me. Anyway, where is a notability established? And was the criticism section added by those, who seek to improve the rest of the article? Vacuum Cleaner 01 07:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I noticed you two voted for keep, does this mean you think the subject of the article is actually notable? Someguy1221 07:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do. If you want, I can explain why. --Urod 13:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on notability. According to Wikipedia:Notability#The general presumption of notability, notability is defined as being significant coveraged in (preferably more than one) secondary sources. For this product, there are at least ~~four~~three different secondary sources: ~~[42]~~, [43], [44], and [45]. The sites ~~codeguru.com~~, pcmech.com, softpedia.com, softkey.info are independent on the JG Software and on each other. --Urod 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC), fixed Urod 14:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please note that the codeguru review is about different EditPad. First, you can compare the screen shots. Second, the codeguru EditPad gives a source, our EditPad comes without source. Third, the authors of each EditPad are completely different. Vacuum Cleaner 01 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment That's right, removed codeguru. --Urod 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Also note, that CodeGuru, PC Mechanic and Softkey.info are probably not considered as reliable source. They are not even covered by Wikipedia themselves in any way. ~~Softpedia provides 100% clean certificates only, they do not review the software. Anyone can submit any software on Softpedia.~~ Vacuum Cleaner 01 15:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I read WP:RS carefully and didn't find any notice that a reliable source must be covered by Wikipedia. If it is written somewhere in WP:RS, please tell where. The three sources do not contradict each other, contain no exagerrated statements, and two of them contain also negative information about EditPad. I don't see any reason to consider them unreliable. --Urod 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC), reworded Urod 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Reliable source does not need to be covered by wikipedia. However, the WP:RS reads, that a reliable source is for example a peer-reviewed journal. In particullar, you might find a good-bad review of every text editor somewhere, but only some text editors are covered by well established peer-reviewed magazines. Are PC Mechanic and Softkey.info established peer-reviewed magazines (or other things named in WP:RS)? Do they suggest notability? I do not need an answer. My comment should only pointed to the fact, that they might not be enough. Vacuum Cleaner 01 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment: and another link, which is as good as the others: [46]. --Urod 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment One thing I have noticed: Your sources gives the EditPad not-so-good overall scores. It is 2/5[47], or 3/10[48]. But this does not count in notability. Vacuum Cleaner 01 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment 2/5 is indeed a grade given to EditPad, while 3/10 is a grade given by users to the article (see the "rate this article" box below). I think that a source which is not afraid to publish poor grades about itself or the product is more reliable. Unreliable sources would use words like "magnificient" and "incredible", and a lot of 10/10 grades. --Urod 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first tertiary search result for EditPad seems to be an article about an EditPad at CodeGuru. However, this is about a different EditPad. There is also a result for online Edit Pad, an online text editor. All other results (including the top five, in my case) are product information page about this editor that we're discussing, by the makers of the software itself. Despite having a non-unique name, it comes out at the top of the Google search, although the first non-endorsed page is about a different product. (This is not a full-fledged notability report.) —msikma (user, talk) 08:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (another): Why is this being nominated by a self-admitted sock puppet, and who does Vacuum Cleaner 01 belong to? —msikma (user, talk) 08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (on my sock puppetry) I hope I am not going to be lynched as far as I do not violate any WP:SOCK. Is it not allowed to do so when you have a real reason to believe that you will be hated by some and pursused thereafter for what you are trying to do? And again, I fail to recognize what good would it bring to my own account. Vacuum Cleaner 01 08:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright. I was curious for the reason, although I'd rather see one's main account be involved in this. Not that it makes any difference for this AfD. (Maybe this comment thread should be ignored entirely, it's useless.) —msikma (user, talk) 09:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have made that mistake elsewhere already. It is the Editor war that comes as a reason. Vacuum Cleaner 01 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Vacuum Cleaner's existence as a sock puppet has no bearing on anything. Sockpuppetry is permitted to seperate one's activities. So long as sockpuppets are not used to create artificial consensus, or wiggle around 3RR or blocks, there is nothing wrong with them. And so, Vacuum Cleaner has every right to have a sock just for starting and arguing AFDs, so long as his other accounts steer clear of them. Discussion on this page should be confined to the merits of the article, and what should become of it. Someguy1221 08:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What exactly is the problem here? This a pretty well known product. I'm not sure how exactly we can establish the notability of a piece of software to everyone's satisfaction (is Notepad sufficiently notable? or Word? and if so why? I can't see any WP guidelines for software, are there any?) but Google gives 372,000 hits for "editpad" which must surely count for something. Flapdragon 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above discussion, nominator should re-read WP:POINT. --Steven Fisher 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WDW Today[edit]

Article does not assert notability about the podcast. It is full of fancruft and original research. What few references it actually has are to the podcast itself or random sites that have little, if nothing, to do with this topic. The recurring guests don't have their own articles, indicating they are not notable either. Seems like the article is here more for advertisement purposes than anything else. pIrish ^Arr! 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No apparent notability. Google returned quite a few hits, but skimming through some of them I didn't find anything approaching a reliable, independent source. Someguy1221 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete This page is fine. If anyone had a question as to what the show was about, this would certainly give them the information they need. There are plenty of entries for podcasts, and this is just one of them. Of the many podcasts ou there in the world, this one seems to be of good taste. Out of a search of disney related podcasts, this turns up quite frequently, enough so to say that it should be noted on Wikipedia. I do think it needs to be re-written or edited, just not deleted. I propose a period of editing and rewriting before a deletion decesion needs to be made........jw 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the podcast must be notable. Arguing that there are other articles about podcasts on Wikipedia has no bearing on this one. We know that there are articles out there that meet notability requirements that can stay. However, we also know there are articles that should be deleted and they will eventually end up here if they cannot assert notability. If the page were fine, I wouldn't have brought it up for deletion. Whether the podcast is in good taste or that it gets hits on Google is not a criteria for whether it gets to have an article. However, notability, backed up by reliable sources, is a criteria. This article does not meet that and searches have produced no reliable sources either. You are more than welcome to edit the article while it is up for deletion to get the outcome changed. If you think you can assert the podcast's notability, please do make a go at it. --pIrish ^Arr! 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retort- In the field of the Disney online community, this is one of the most highly noted/well known podcast.

Notability: 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself WDW Today has been featured in many articles and columns on various online Disney related sites. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization WDW Today has won many awards in the disney community for outstanding podcast.

Reliability: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand Check out Mouseplanet.com, Allearsnet.com, Mouseextra.com for articles and information about the podcast. These sites are regarded as the go-to palce on the internet for anything disney, and all are run by dedicated knowledgeable people in the Disney fan community. What about Inside the Magic? Just becaue something seems unknown to one person doesn't make that the case. Again, I vote No Delete. This article is about a well known item in a particular field, is not an advertisement, and meets other Wiki Standards. I have also done some minor editing of the page to make blank links work ........jw 23:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not asserted notability. Your claims hold little weight if you don't cite them. People are not going to take your word that it has won "many awards" without seeing a citation (and the awards themselves must be notable as well). The same goes for the articles/columns; you've given me no indication that they are reliable. I looked through the sites you listed and used the search function on each. None of the links I was coming up with showed notability, they were all just plugs (advertisements) for the podcast. A reliable source would be something like a newspaper/magazine article that talks about the podcast and may even go in depth about it, not something that advertises it or talks about how the webmaster made an appearance on the show.

About your comparison between this podcast and Inside the Magic. I've Googled both. "Inside the Magic" gets significantly more hits, no matter how I search. This at least indicates that it is more popular/notable, even if by a little more than this one. Should the other one be deleted? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But this discussion is not about that one. It is about this one. Again, do not use straw men to support your argument. This nomination is for this article, don't bring up other articles to support this simply based on the fact that they exist because, in all honesty, maybe they shouldn't.

I will, once again, tell you that you are more than welcome to edit and even overhaul the article to improve it and change, not only others' minds, but mine as well. Regarding your most recent edits (I will assume that it was your IP since it was the only one that edited the page after I put the notice up), you did not make unclickable links clickable, you just removed them so they wouldn't show up as red links or you just linked to their personal outside sites that have little, if nothing, to do with this topic. I have little doubt that you want the article to remain (afterall, you did create it), however, you have thus shown no initiative to actually fix the article. I strongly encourage you to do so. Improve the article. Show why it is notable by citing references. --pIrish ^Arr! 03:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke lasalle[edit]

Totally non-notable music article with a whopping 38 Google hits. Need I say more? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - barely even asserts notability, let alone supports it with any sources. --Haemo 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable by WP:Music.—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete Not even a claim to notablity has been made. Certainly fails WP:Music. A1octopus 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gustavo Petersen[edit]

Autobiography. On a Google search I find directory entries, forum posts, a trivial mention on the website of one of his employers, and an article he wrote. No reliable sources about him that we can use to write an encyclopedia article. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not notable, too many external links to his own stuff. YechielMan 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per WP:Bio. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and protect from re-creation. I will warn the article creator. --Core desat 01:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metalsammlung[edit]

Non-notable, previously deleted Rich257 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is threatening to continuously recreate the article so I suggest that it is protected against recreation. Rich257 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - a once-a-week, hour-long, metal program on a college radio station, that's been on the air for all of 3 months? With no sources? Definitely not notable. --Haemo 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability. Ironically, the information in the article itself only serves to demonstrate the insignificance of the subject. CIreland 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, and no notability -- Whpq 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently non-notable per Haemo. Also, protect against re-creation and block the article creator for a short time due to his threat to re-create deleted content. --Metropolitan90 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, et al.—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:24, 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. --Core desat 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe-Shi-Win-Gi-Ji-Kens[edit]

Contested prod. Awards preclude a speedy. Non notable Scouting organization. No notability asserted beyond Scouting awards. No sources showing outside coverage. No sources whatsoever beyond it's own leadership. DarkAudit 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so you are saying that since i have no creditable sources, i cant be here... what else do i need to get to have this page stay?

For the Order of the Arrow, we have lodges with in it and we just wanted a page in wiki for Gabe just so people could find out more about us if they wished. There really are no published materials or anything that we can cite, mainly because we are non-profit and don't ask for recognition.

Comment Please place your comments at the bottom of the page or at the proper place in the conversation so others can follow along. What I'm saying with this nomination is that the article currently does not meet Wikipedia standards. I refer you to WP:CORP regarding organizations:

"1. Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. 2. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." The sources you have provided are your own leadership. Most editors will find that unacceptable. Significant news items from reliable and verifiable sources will be what the editors will demand. DarkAudit 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy WP:ORG. CIreland 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The order of the arrow is a national organization, and our lodge is most of the lower peninsula of michigan. I am rather dissipointed that just this one page is causing so much conflict. I'll look for some more sources i guess if that is what you wish me to do.

Comment This is nothing compared to other discussions. Don't be discouraged. The guidelines in WP:ORG and WP:BIO are there to help you. An AfD isn't a straight 'kill it! or 'keep it!' vote, it's a discussion, and will sometimes help an editor steer an article away from the precipice of deletion, and towards something that will stand scrutiny. It's just going to be a little harder in your case due to the local nature of your lodge. DarkAudit 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Order of the Arrow has a Wikipedia entry because it is a significant national organisation. The individual lodges of the Order of the Arrow are not national. CIreland 23:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being "totally awesome" is not the same as being notable. I was once a member of the Order of the Arrow myself, what seems like a hundred years ago. Deor 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Order is probably notable--but local chapters are not.DGG 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge with OotA article -- 195.92.40.49
Merge There is nothing at all notable here. Sounds like a noble organization, and probably a great group of people. However, article is vanity, full of peacock language, lacking in sources/references. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What exactly do you think should be merged? Order of the Arrow contains nothing about individual lodges (except a mention of the first one). Why should information about this particular lodge be included there? Deor 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable chapter of a national organization. Lack of third-party sources is a problem, and I'm afraid it's probably vanity as well. Wikipedia is not a free web host, and if you want people to know about your "awesome" lodge, you'll have to try elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informedconsent.co.uk[edit]

Non-notable. The website has not been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works. The references are either blogs or trivial. This is an example of a trivial mentioning of the website, but it's used in the article to prove the website's notability:

Tanos, operator of Informed Consent, a UK-based BDSM information and discussion website, says: 'I think in many cases you can tell. My view is that a 24/7 relationship should be nurturing and encourage the submissive (and the dominant for that matter) to grow.'

What we need is non-trivial articles about the site itself, which we obviously don't have. bogdan 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Jkelly 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources using this web site as an example of a site of its kind suggest that it is an important example. Yes, they don't say a lot about the site, but there's not really a lot to say. The fact is, however, it is an important site within the subculture it represents, and therefore should be included. JulesH 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB Orderinchaos 05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources are trivial mentions. All but one source is not-notable. The source that is notable (Channel4) is simply a directory entry, which WP:WEB explicitly excludes. Below is the total extent:

"Tanos, operator of Informed Consent, a UK-based BDSM information and discussion website, says: 'I think in many cases you can tellƒ My view is that a 24/7 relationship should be nurturing and encourage the submissive (and the dominant for that matter) to grow.'"[49]
"I don't make as many posts to Informed Consent as I used to, and I occasionally post to other general BDSM websites like Collarme.com and Bondage.com."[50]
"www.informedconsent.co.uk - A site for those interested in consensual Bondage & Discipline, Dominance Submission, S/M and Fetish in the UK. There is no visual or written porn on the site." [51]

- Francis Tyers · 06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Red Pepper (magazine) is a notable left-wing political magazine. OutNorthwest is a popular regional magazine for the LGBT community in its region. Just because you've never heard of a source doesn't make it unimportant. Yes, there isn't much coverage, but I challenge you to find any coverage that is more in-depth than any of these (the OutNorthwest article is the most in-depth, containing (IIRC) an entire paragraph on the subject) in a reliable source on a BDSM-related web site. I contend that this level of coverage is what one would expect of such an entity, therefore this site is a leader in its field, hence notable. I would also point out that the Channel4 content is not merely a directory entry; if it were a directory they would surely have more than two sites on the particular topic. I'd contend that the page is intended to form a guide to recommended resources (i.e. recommending only the best) rather than a directory (i.e. aiming to include everything that's relevant). The reason WP:WEB excludes directories is because of this lack of selectivity. The Channel4 page shows evidence of selectivity in its creation. JulesH 08:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A trivial mention in a notable publication is not a non-trivial mention in a notable publication. If RP or C4 did an article or show on informedconsent.co.uk, then you'd have a case, but a couple of sentences is pretty much nothing. I've got three sentences on myself in The Grauniad, does that mean I'm notable enough to get an article? Hell no. - Francis Tyers · 09:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Francis Tyers removed information from the article regarding its notability. The only reason I can think of for doing this is to make it more likely for it to be deleted. I'm trying to assume good faith, but this does not look like a good-faith action to me. JulesH 08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For what its worth, User:Francis Tyers removed two pieces of information: one was the weasel word "leading" (wholly unnecessary if the article can provide objective evidence from WP:RS as to why this is a "leading" website), and the other was the statement It was originally created by a man who identifies himself as Tanos, although he now contributes little to the site, letting it be run primarily by other users.. Neither of these are relevant, per se, to the judgment of notability, and regardless both statements are in the current version of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say the word "leading" is very relevant to the sites notability, and it is sourced from two of the items in the references section. I see no justification for removing it here. JulesH 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and my comments about this article in Wipipedia's thrid AFD nomination. This article seems to have been created solely to save Wipipedia. — Pious 7 10:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WEB with only trivial mentions in what appear to be fringe publications. Sandstein 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a web site for a fringe community. You expect it to be discussed in The Times? JulesH 10:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, if said before, if it's not notable it then doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — Pious 7 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from multiple, nontrivial reliable sources that site meets WP:WEB. As for the keep recommender's assertion they don't say a lot about the site, but there's not really a lot to say... well, then the article does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOT a primary or secondary source of information, it is an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. I can understand the assertion that the article was created solely as a last-ditch effort to save Wipipedia; that ship has sailed, so without any evidence as to notability, this one should join as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, source mentions are trivial. No indication that the site is notable or that enough source material exists for a comprehensive article based on reliable sourcing. Seraphimbladeflying 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Wesley Jones[edit]

Missing references; one of the two linked web pages doesn't mention anybody of this name at all, while the other one is about a very different Ben Jones (who is still alive). High on a tree 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references fail the relevant guidelines, and being a bit part in some famous movies is probably not notable anyhow. The article creator is a newbie and may not be familiar with the rules. YechielMan 23:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE. One of the sources is likely the creators AOL Members page Black Harry (T|C) 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this guy is notable, there should be sources galore. As they are lacking, delete. Also, not only is the link provided an AOL member page, it does not even appear to reference this actor.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, although the article is still lacking in reliable sources. Tagging it for cleanup and sources. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North-South divide[edit]

Not a single source, I am not certain as to what is the point of this article. Looks entirely to be original research to me. -- Cat ^chi? 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the current page is unsourced, the term may be in some use: [52] has it used by a secretary general for the United Nations. I'm looking for more sources, but I'm running into a lot that are talking about the N/S divide in England (which has its own article). Perhaps somebody else will have more luck? FrozenPurpleCube 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is human development, we have an article or two on that. (See articles that use Image:HDImap2006.png). Image:HDImap spectrum2006.png would be a better map. The terms "North" and "South" doesn't mean much to me. For instance North Korea is underdeveloped compared to South Korea. Calling South a part of North and North a part of South blows my mind. -- Cat ^chi? 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blown though you mind may be, if this concept is indeed embraced by reputable sources and the subject of academic review, it's still a valid concept to cover. There are critics of the Third World designations, and the Eastern Bloc could include Cuba, which is clearly in the Western Hemisphere. But like I said, I haven't been able to find anything beyond the one comment, so the issue of sources remains. FrozenPurpleCube 02:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about it in a university course as the "North-South Gap". The term may sound absurd, but it has been used. If someone feels really strongly about keeping this, I'll try to look up the textbooks. As FrozenPurpleCube said it's not easy to differentiate sources, but here are some mentions: [53] [54] [55] [56] –Pomte 03:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually is verifiable and a term in common use in development economics (I've seen it in UN documents and heard it in BBC interviews personally). Orderinchaos 05:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if referenced, the term in itself is not original research. Inaccurate as it may be, it is nonetheless very commonly used. Punkmorten 06:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a notable analysis of global economics, whether or not it meets some imposed sense of "accuracy". It was deliberately intended to change the understanding from the East-West divide of the Cold War. I wouldn't say it has disappeared but it is certainly far less prominent now than in the 1985-1995 era. But historical notability is still notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A bit of searching indicates that the 1980 Brandt Commmission report (that's Willy Brandt, a major German/European leader over several decades) did much to popularize the terminology. A follow-up seems to be less keen on the geography but happy to pay forward what was learned in the interim. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I say "north" is there a commonly accepted group of countries like how East/West was well defined? Why isn't human development related articles insufficient? -- Cat ^chi? 10:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a particular description of human development that merits coverage in its own article, and yes, it does seem to be reasonably defined. It may not be strictly accurate, but that's a problem for the description, not a reason to delete the article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Agree with Manticore. It isn't for us to determine whether the analysis was accurate. I didn't turn up any last night, but I know that in the 1980s the idea was much debated and I'm sure that there is sourceable criticism of the concept that we could add. It's trivial to observe that by the 1980s, the developed world was largely north of a line somewhat north of the equator, and the "third world" below that same line. The point isn't a defined list of countries, it's the balance of wealth and capital. Jared Diamond provides a number of plausible hypotheses as to why this occurred in Guns, Germs and Steel. Before Diamond, though, it was basically laid at the feet of imperialism. In any case, the division is less striking today, as Latin America has caught up substantially, the Asian "tigers" spread wealth more broadly, and even India and China have made undeniably enormous strides. Today, Africa remains the greatest area of concern, so a north and south geographic division is of primarily historical interest.--Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sattelite TV and Terrorism[edit]

This article might have made a good paper for school, but it violates WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR because it presents an analysis of facts and not just the facts. The information in the article is better represented in the articles Roj TV, Al-Manar, and Al Jazeera. Perhaps we could also put a short note on the article Satellite TV as well. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. I don't think this would have made a good paper for school, as it have many grammatical mistakes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Switch to digital cable or the terrorists win. --Infrangible 04:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR; this is an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 07:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bacon[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable musician. This article previously makes no sourced claims to notability. It was tagged for deletion earlier, but an anon removed the tag. Recommend delete Dchall1 23:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough non trivial sources about this person to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band this person plays for is also subject to an AFD debate. A1octopus 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page seems like more of a farce than actual information. While I do like some of the bands he has played in, I don't feel like he has a need for his own page. Mpete510 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear that he or his band are yet notable enough for WP. If they keep on rockin' somebody else can write 'em up and we can have the article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Cummins[edit]

Although he has probably done a fine job, none of the sources mention him specifically, and google only returns 28 hits for "Wes Cummins" police. Delete for being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to establish notability, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Davewild 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, yet non-notable per WP:Bio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (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. I'll have the honors on this one. The reason for my decision is that no likely improvements are to be made, besides the fact that this discussion has ensued for over a month. I hold no prejudice toward recreation on the condition that appropriate verifiable sourcing is found. Sr 13 05:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sundiata Xian Tellem[edit]

The article is poorly written, isn't sourced, and he fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge already Has a article as an author. best to put this info there--Cryo921 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? -- saberwyn 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I merged the other article into this one. Still non-notable. GreenJoe 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's nn based on his political career; and his books are nn, too. Spring break with Melanie Nuntia ranks 4,047,668 at Amazon.com; Reptilian Aliens A Book of Memes is ranked 1,537,157; and the others aren't even ranked at Amazon.com. There is no assertion of notability; being on some bookclub's lukewarm review receipts list doesn't confer notability. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Green Party Black Caucus Co-chair, published author. Poorly written and lack of sources are grounds for rewrite and sourcing, not deletion.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:33, 17 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 21:00, 22 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, --GreenJoe 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge political parts of article to Green Party of Texas. If sources indicating notability beyond that come along later (since his literary career appears non-notable currently), the article is free to be restarted. SnowFire 00:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone going to close this? Relisting, I guess. SnowFire 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SnowFire 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - when I first looked at this one, I was on the fence. However, no improvement seems to be happening, and it's been relisted 3 (!) times, which pushes me slightly towards delete, since no one seems likely to work on it. No strong prejudice against recreation though. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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