AfD Stealthrabbit127's toolbox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although the "keep" view does a much better job of justifying their positions with regard to Wikipedia guidelines. For the record, simple comments as "nonsense" and "patent rubbish" in the face of references are not helpful to us admins in evaluating the discussion. AKRadecki 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beerwolf[edit]

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

An article about a word that has apparently only ever been used by one person. I don't see how this can possibly be notable. Derlay 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was recreated after it was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7. --Derlay 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• del looks like joke to me. Mukadderat 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fairly obvious hoax to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article cited is real, and in fact does describe the term. I found this article and one other describing the term and concept on JSTOR. Sci girl 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as patent rubbish. Elrith 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think it's a hoax. My German isn't up to much anymore, but there are references such as this, and you will have to search for the word Beerwolf [1] that seem to confirm that Martin Luther did indeed use the term and in the context mentioned in the article. (That's a Google HTML version of a Windows .doc file and it is in German) I should also point out that there is a problem in the reference provided with the Wikipedia article as it requires registration to see the whole article on the JSTOR website. I tend more towards this being an article of unclear importance, as I can't find many references to Luther using the term regularly Perhaps the article might be merged into a more relevant article. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment All that said, regarding the rest of the article, I should also add that I can't find any references to the term being used in any other theological context.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem is FUTON bias, and that is not a problem with the citation in the article. Uncle G 08:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. I did have a problem with the phrase "In the context of the theology of resistance", which I took to mean that the term was in more general use, beyond Luther, and I couldn't find any mention of the phrase, which I think would have appeared somewhere. But I think I might have misinterpreted the intent of the phrase. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep if there's more than this one source. Paid sources are perfectly appropriate in the absence of equally good free ones, and hundreds of libraries subscribe. WP is not limited to the free resources on the web, and the point isn't the least relevant in terms of an AfD discussion. (The ref should show the name of the printed source as well, as all JSTOR articles are simply electronic reprints of articles in specific scholarly journals.-- The print journal ref by itself would be sufficient, as there is no prejudice against printed sources, but its best to give the electronic version also.) I adjusted the refs, and changed the paraphrase to a more exact quote. Luther's concept is certainly notable, but I do not know if Luther used the term more generally, or just once. Otherwise merge into an appropriate article. DGG 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Total nonsense, bad scentence structure and unsourced quotes. Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation is sourced. Uncle G 08:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KILL THE WOLF! aka delete, per nom and as a probable hoax. --Whstchy 03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Whstchy and others - look at the reference - it is a legitimate journal by a legitimate author. Unless that is no longer valid and equals hoax in your eyes. 172.165.190.243 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, if the article is expanded and the importance of the use of the word by Luther is explained in the context of the evolution of Luther's theological position. I think the article needs more context, but should be given the time to develop. And I think in fairness to the author, I think I should point out that there is nothing in the article that would lead me to think it is anything other than a good-faith, constructive contribution.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep

A few brief observations by the original author:

1. Regarding the comments on a 'fairly obvious hoax', 'patent rubbish' and 'kill the wolf'. While I understand the amount of total nonsense that comes up in Wikipedia, and the consequent need for your eternal vigilance, you would seem less silly if you at least extended your verification efforts to Google Scholar, Google Books or Amazon, all of which find references of the existence and use of the term as described in the article.

Needless to say, the fact that you do not have access to JSTOR has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of deletion. It certainly is not sufficient grounds for assumption of bad faith. I regret that so much information is locked up behind gated archives such as JSTOR, which is why I create pages like this, however marginal they may seem to Joe Bloggs.

2. Regarding 'sentence structure and unsourced quotes'. I hope you do not mean to suggest that this merits deletion? We all know very well that less than perfect style is, alas, one of the drawbacks of collaborative and constantly-evolving efforts such as Wikipedia.

3. Regarding Flowerpotman's comments. The significance of the term is not so much that it caught on (as many philosophical notions, the name itself did not pass onto authors), but that Luther used it to describe a rather radical idea, in strong departure from his traditional theory of resistance.

4. Regarding notability. As I understand it, this is the only reasonable grounds for deletion. As I noted above, it is true that the term was (probably) not explicitly used by others in highly visible ways. This is, given the historical context, understandable. A 'beerwolf', after all, is a mythical beast in German, and those who most directly drew on Luther's theory of resistance to secular power were Huguenots, who for understandable reasons preferred homegrown French words for their theories. This, of course, raises a further claim to notability: a 'beerwolf', just as a griffin or unicorn, is a creature of mythology.

I will make a few quick additions to put the concept it into better and clearer context, but I am neither qualified nor particularly interested in writing an extended article on it. I would be surprised if the article did not subsequently grow, as so many other inchoate entries on Wikipedia have.

I also readily grant that there is not even an article on resistance theory on Wikipedia. No doubt it will come into being before long.

5. Regarding Derlay's comments. Yes, this article was restored following a speedy deletion, which, in my understanding, unequivocally did not meet criterion A7, contrary to claims otherwise. Unless the user who opted for speedy deletion has never heard of Martin Luther, in which case, perhaps he should spend more time reading and less time editing Wikipedia.

In short, I would hope that the article be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, and that those rendering pithy verdicts such as 'an obvious hoax' engage in better research for the next article that they propose to delete. Sluggy 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In response to your third point first, and as I commented above, I did take the phrase "In the context of the theology of resistance" to mean that the expression had taken on a wider importance and usage. Your subsequent edits to the article have made the meaning clear, but I am sorry if my misintepretation added any confusion to the discussion.

Regarding JSTOR access: As someone who actually should know better as I do remember life before the World Wide Web, I think that DGG's comment and Uncle G's polite nudge above were a needed reminder. I must admit to a frustration, albeit wrong, in seeing a valid reference on a website but not being able to access it.

On a more general note: of course, it could probably go without saying that I am not a expert on the life and thoughts of Martin Luther. On first seeing the article, however, I did have enough general knowledge of the subject that even on first glance, I thought that it was potentially of importance. Again, your subsequent edits and other edits have clarified the notability of the subject and have addressed any of the concerns I expressed above. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Referenced and even if you don't believe those a simple google seach returns more than enough scholarly reviews. Nuttah68 12:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 23:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frictionman[edit]

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

Hoax, no sources cited and Google search of "Frictionman" returns nothing related to subject of article, "Frictionman" and "Kevin Smith" or "Sticking it to Evil" returns no results. Wingsandsword 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• del hoax. Mukadderat 00:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Elrith 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A joke. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hoax. A1octopus 11:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Mmmmmm, spam. Herostratus 13:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Does Dallas ... Again[edit]

Debbie Does Dallas ... Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable television series, poorly sourced. External links are either spam or not accessible to those under 18 or outside of the US. Recurrent target of commercial spam. Risker 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a big ol' slimy slab of spam. No notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as rubbish. Elrith 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Absoloute no notability. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no valid reason offered for deletion. I'm not seeing any reason why this isn't as notable as any other reality TV series. Sources appear to exist; just because they aren't accessible to those under 18 or outside the US doesn't mean they aren't reliable. Otto4711 01:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Sr13 07:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UU Players[edit]

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

Non-notable, unverified, barely even a stub. Elrith 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7--Whstchy 03:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary Peerage Association[edit]

Hereditary Peerage Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obscure, non-notable stub on tiny UK pressure group that seems to exist largely only as a website. I did try and discuss the notability but was basically told to did it myself if I wanted notability proven!. This society reminds me a lot of the Federal Commonwealth Society and I am sure those same editors who have WP:COI issues will turn up here. I would prefer if the wider wiki community that is not conflicted would determine the notability. Additionally there are only 10 ghits for the association, some of which are for its own webpage and only ONE mention in a reliable source here in the FIVE years that it has been in existence, therefore fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:CORP .Vintagekits 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its membership makes it notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no comment!--Vintagekits 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Kittybrewster. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (god help me). It is a genuine body, and while by definition it's only going to have 92 members, those 92 are all notable (right or wrong) by Wikipedia standards, and by virtue of who they are it's more likely to have an impact as an organisation than your typical club. It does get (some) independent non-trivial coverage (for example). Judge it by the article, not the two primary contributors (who I admit set off warning bells) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, ONE fleeting mention in a newspaper in FIVE years! Just because it has notable members doesnt make this association notable - what is it notable for? It fails both WP:V, WP:N and WP:CORP--Vintagekits 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Certainly not a strong keep & I wouldn't lose any sleep if it were to go (they certainly don't seem to have accomplished anything), but since presumably they'll be the source for talking heads come the final push against the Lords by Labour once Tony goes/restoration of the old system under the Tories (delete as appropriate), I think warrants keeping. I certainly agree that they appear to have been the least effective pressure group of all time. However, I do think they (just) meet WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations ("The scope of activity is national in scale and can be verified by independent sources") — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense - it needs multiple non trivial sources - its doesnt have this - but ignoring that it has never done anything!--Vintagekits 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it holds regualr events, but only members (who must be hereditary peers or their heirs can attend, they may bring guests - but they too must be hereditary peers)

• Strong Keep. Google can not be the arbiter of notability for the subjects of articles that do not have a cyberspace focus.
  

The HPA is notable for the size of its membership and the members' political influence within the United Kingdom (since if it is indeed a "pressure group", its notability is largely determined by the influence of its members.)
As regards, its influence as a "Peers' trade union" and whether we like it or not, the membership of more than 200 seems to have a certain degree of influence within Her Majesty's current Loyal Opposition:[2] and includes at least one member of the European Parliament. This is a bad faith nomination by a sloppy User who can not be bothered to even proof read his own nomination and only wishes to harass and expel editors with a different political viewpoint to his own minority political view point rather than improve Wikipedia. I note again the nominating User's bad faith technique of deleting material in the nominated article (without prior consensus or discussion on the article's talk page) so that he can then justify deletion of the shrunken stub article as non notable. I personally find it difficult to believe that its members (many of whom have run large businesses or organisations) would each be conned into paying £15 for annual membership of something that "seems to exist largely only as a website" and that this amazing confidence trick should continue for 5 years. W. Frank ✉ 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you make that reply a bit longer, please? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, is that your reason for a "strong keep". This is an AfD nomination not a joke = please try and take it more serious in future.--Vintagekits 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If I know your tactics, Vintage, I'm sure the serious squad will be along very shortly. Do we need to wait until they come back from their Wikibreaks? W. Frank ✉ 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this is not some points scoring excersise - you have attacked my nomination and myself - try basis some analysis on the article in relation to wikipolicy instead - this is a discussion NOT A VOTE. This organisation has ONE reference to it in the real world yet you !vote strong keep - that speaks volumes.--Vintagekits 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Google is not the real world. I presume that you have already read relevant Wiki policy so I can not help you further if you do not understand the comments of others above. Please do not expect others not to attack your sloppy and harassing conduct. [3][4][5] And please be a bit more accurate and less cryptic and formulaic with your edit summaries. It's hardly a "reply" when you (justifiably) delete more than 3000 characters of another user's comments. W. Frank ✉ 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The material removed was a paragraph containing historical background to the fact that only some of the Peers now sit in parliament. It does not mention the association [[6]].

• Comment, Instead of commenting on me would you like to comment (per policy and guidelines) on why this Association is notable.--Vintagekits 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless additional references are provided. As with many organisations, it is notable if people know about it and write about it. At present the only evidence is the Guardian article cited, which mentions it in one short paragraph with a much longer article. Its members, however distinguished, do not make it notable . There have been other articles on aristocratic organisations of one sort or another which are strangely never mentioned in public sources. DGG 02:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is notable due to its membership, its aims and the fact that it is the only "trade union" for hereditary peers. I would also like to question whether this article was nominated in good faith. Vintage kits made no attempts to improve the article, but was intent on its being nominated, and also made comments such as this; "Read what these these snivellers have to say for themselves", made on User:One Night In Hackney's user page here [7] show his obvious PoV in this area.--Counter-revolutionary 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - above Vintagekits says this has one reference. Not true. [8], it is mentioned by the Dept. for Constitutional Affairs etc. Also not all refs. appear on the internet.--Counter-revolutionary 07:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that Vintage's claim, that there is only one reference for the subject, refers to the fact there is only one reference in the article. Under that interpretation, the statement is demonstrably true. In any case, it is good that you're taking the step of trying to find more sources. Now, I would suggest you take a further step: add the source, properly cited, to the article. If multiple sources can be added, as you suggest, then there isn't much reason to delete here. Charlie 08:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Instead of commenting on me would you like to comment (per policy and guidelines) on why this Association is notable.--Vintagekits 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, unfortunately your reasons for nominating the article seem to be relevant. --Counter-revolutionary 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, my reasons for nomination are clearly set out in the nomination above and on the articles talk page and are soundly based on wiki policy. If you can not defend the article based on policy and prefer just to attack the nominator and the nomination then that is fine but you are then just losing the argument. This is a discussion not a vote. If there are 100 "keep" !votes and only 1 "delete" !vote then the article can still be deleted as it the the argument you put across that counts not the number of !votes.--Vintagekits 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another ancient body that as useful as a glass hammer in British politics, won't be around for much longer either. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 12:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, its not that ancient infact it was only founded five years ago and doesnt seem to have done anything since created.--Vintagekits 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So obviously the above "delete" did not even read the article. He also seems to be arguing that he doesn't like it, not that it's not notable. Counter-revolutionary 12:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt disagree with that, however, if you read the "keep" votes - none of them are rooted in policy. I knew that the same old editors would turn up and vote to keep this hopefully once we get through these the unbiased community at large can have their say.--Vintagekits 12:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more rubbish that has no current purpose to wikipedia or anyone else. the site should contain info that is useful. Maplecelt 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above user has made only 10 edits, the last contribution was to Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet's unsuccesful Afd. It also argues that he doesn't like it, not that it isn't notable. --Counter-revolutionary 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "they appear to have been the least effective pressure group of all time": if this statement is even partially accurate then this, by and of itself, is a ground of sufficient notability in the way that Eddy the Eagle (Britain's Olympic Ski Jump competitor) was notable for his failures rather than his achievements.

Actually, the scales have fallen from my eyes and I wish to apologise to Vinny the Vulture. His edits and nominations for deletion really are notably accurate and neutral. W. Frank ✉ 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they were the worst "pressure group" in the world that would be fine. What we are missing is multiple non-trivial sources. Please provide this!--Vintagekits 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's notable organisation due to its membership and their relation to British politics. Nick mallory 15:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a notable organisation with very notable members, of which we will undoubtedly hear more of their much-heralded legal constitutional challenge goes to the High Court. David Lauder 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball.--Vintagekits 21:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, for the reasons (for keeping) given by User: W.Frank -- irrelevant "pressure group" unrepresentative of any meaningful constituency, fighting a lost cause, in a "country" the size of a pinhead which is daily attacked for crimes against humanity stretching back 4 centuries and more. Even if there was a shred of notability in this (which there isn't), it is such a morass of irrelevancy to the new century as to be utterly unworrthy of Wiki. If the authors love it so much, let them found their own (SPA) Wiki for it. -- SockpuppetSamuelson

Comment - again this is simply a PoV statement of why you don't like it! --Counter-revolutionary 07:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Samuelson is basically telling all comers that Wikipedia is now a communist/socialist/republican site which loathes any other perspective of life. His approach is a disgrace. David Lauder 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An organisation formed in response to the single largest constitutional change in Britain in recent years, by and for people who have previously been members or are currently members of the country's upper legislature and are therefore inherently notable. Reliable sources here and here. I don't know what more you want, and while I try to assume good faith I clearly see that the majority of the delete !voters here are driven by their own POV against the cause that this group represents. In response to the original nominator's unsubstantiated suggestion of WP:COI I declare that I am not a member of this group, nor do I know anybody who is a member of this group. JulesH 11:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I've waited to see if this has improved, but it has not. There are no non trivial reliable sources that an article can be written from. While The Guardian does cover the association, the coverage is not sufficient for an article to be written from it. The second "source" is nothing of the kind, as this clearly shows the sites are user-submitted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a member of the serious squad, you have made a good and valid argument, 303. Unfortunately, if we were to be as rigorous in applying your (traditional) standards of scholarship and only summarise existing secondary sources in print to make an article, the majority of WP articles would be strong candidates for deletion. As I understand the sequence, one begins with the test of notability for a non-profit organisation.

I genuinely believe that the Hereditary Peerage Association is notable according to WP standards. The article is currently a stub and I believe that none of the material included in the article as I saw it when I voted is either controversial or wrong and there are sufficient sources to confirm the existing statements. I have amended my support to a keep on the basis that if we delete this article we should logically then proceed to delete some 720,000 other WP articles (including many of the articles that you personally hold so dear).

Niggles: Please don't edit this page without placing a signature. Please don't edit the comments of others (obvious minor typos excepted). Please don't add or move contributions out of chronological sequence - if each did that, the record and sequence of contributions to this debate would become very difficult to follow. W. Frank ✉ 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In my lengthy experience of AfDs, chronological sequence is not always followed. If adding a "keep" or "delete" !vote the comment is added at the bottom, however if a comment replying to another editor is made the comment is placed below that particular comment. To do otherwise would make the debate very difficult to follow. This organisation is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. WP:CORP specifically states that even non-commercial organisations must satisfy the primary notability criterion, in that it has been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. At present there is only one such source, and it is insufficient for an encyclopedic article to be written even if one source satisfied notability requirements. Also we are not discussing other articles, we are discussing this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The organisation in question was consulted by the Department for Constitutional Affairs with regards to the continued reform of the House of Lords; it thus fulfills a lobbying function, rather than "exist[ing] largely only as a website" [9] [10]. It has been referenced in Parliamentary debates (albeit by a member) [11]. The group itself is small, but the members, for the time being, possess a considerable degree of legislative power. McPhail 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of the links you provided are non trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: coverage by Intute [12]. McPhail 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's user-submitted, as I noted above. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as far as I can see, this is a genuine association of British legislators. How about the All-Party Group for World Government or the Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group? (What would you say if someone took the time to write up the Lords and Commons Cricket Club, or the House of Commons Yacht Club?) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd insist on multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, as required. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It clearly exists - it has a website, people claim membership in debates the House of Lords, it submits responses to consultation papers. Is the complaint that its profile is not high enough? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This article seems to scrape through all the tests. First, it clearly meets WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations; this is the association of a group of people who elect a sizeable proportion of members of the House of Lords. It is irrelevant whether any editor thinks that arrangement a good or bad thing, but that's how it is, and this body has a position not unlike a sort of unofficial grouping of the majority of members of a parliamentary constituency. As such, it is clearly a group of national scale, albeit not a high-profile one.
  Secondly, there is no dispute that this group exists: we have one good secondary source, and several undisputed primary sources.
  WP:ORG notes that "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." If this was a paper encyclopedia, I doubt that this article would merit as many as five lines, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is a weak article, but it's not a bad or misleading one, and it's a pity that it seems to have gotten caught up in a political dispute between some editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:V due to lack of multiple independent non trivial sources. Explain your way around that.--Vintagekits 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am being obtuse, but which part of WP:V says that we have to delete articles which lack "multiple independent non trivial sources"? WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ... Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." So which parts of this article do you think need further verification? Which parts are challenged, or likely to be challenged?

In any event, this article has sources ranging from the organisation's own website (to be treated with circumspection of course, but, to pick an example at random, much of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists comes from its own website - shall we delete that too?) to Hansard, papers published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (as was), and The Guardian (all about as copper-bottomed as sources get). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a lot of the deletion arguments here are based on the assertion that policy requires there be "multiple non-trivial reliable sources" written about the subject. I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that as a result of a challenge as to whether it has consensus or not, WP:N (the source of the assertion that this is required) no longer requires multiple sources, although it does state multiple sources are preferred. However, as the group in question is clearly important due to its membership, I would say that a single source, in this case, is adequate. JulesH 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, so what criteria should be judge it by then?--Vintagekits 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria on WP:N or WP:ORG as they are now, not as they were a couple of weeks ago, would be my suggestion. The standard is requiring reliable sources, preferably multiple. But due to the obviously important nature of a group formed from former and present members of the upper legislature, I think a single source is adequate in this case. JulesH 23:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:ORG/NGO. The rationale behind the nomination, i.e. is this a republican vs. royalist debate, is irrelevant. Mmoneypenny 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terence John Arbuthnot (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Second nomination — the first is here, and was closed somewhat dubiously - aside from Kittybrewster's keep, there was one "keep" with no explanation, one "weak keep" again with no explanation, and three "deletes".

This is, I believe, the first time I've entered the murky world of an Arbuthnot nomination (Kittybrewster, before you start attacking me you might want to remember that I generally !vote keep on them) but I really can't see anything salvageable about this one. It's virtually unsourced (not even Memories of the Arbuthnots in this case; the only information is from the thepeerage.com website, which comes from the creator of the article). The only assertion of notability is the two military awards (the award from the Venerable Order of Saint John is meaningless). However, the Croix de guerre is a lot less notable than it sounds, being apparently awarded to every airman following their first air-to-air victory. The Order of Léopold is a bona fide "Highest military decoration", and if he won it would warrant a keep. However there's nothing to indicate that he did win it or what he won it for; it was added to the article by Phoe in December, but the sole source for this is thepeerage.com, which as discussed ad nauseam in recent days cannot be taken as a reliable source. I would expect the winner of the Belgian equivalent of the Victoria Cross/Medal of Honour to be listed in numerous places (especially someone who won it as a foreign national) but nothing, not even Dutch/French Wikipedia. A source for the decoration given on the talk page is about him, but does not mention the award at all.

In terms of WP:BIO he fails utterly (only 3 Ghits excluding Wikipedia mirrors and the three Arbuthnot sites, all three of which are trivial sources which appear to be mirroring this article; not a single hit on an RAF or military history site, even as part of a laundry list of pilots).

Obviously, if anyone can find a reliable source for his having won the award, consider this nomination withdrawn. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: clearly a notable airman who participated in importanty early campaigns for the RAF and who received seriously high military honours. I have added two important reference books, one with an ISBN for those who wish to consult. David Lauder 21:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a group captain isn't notable. If some independent record of the awards and some documentation of what they were for were forthcoming, we might have a case to retain it. But in the absence of that, not at all notable. If this guy is genuinely some sort of war hero, then sourcing it from more reliable sources should not prove too hard. -Doc^g 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As per this conversation, apparently the reference for the Order of Leopold is Burke's, which is a reliable source. Is anyone in a position to check and confirm this — if so & it checks out, I withdraw this nom — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very thin sourcing. Burke's is a start. Would reconsider if more sources are added before the close of the AfD. Since he lived until 1995, he might have been written up in some newspaper stories. At a minimum, someone should be able to find his obituary. EdJohnston 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Daily Telegraph would certainly have given him an obit since (if genuine) he ticks every one of their boxes. No hits on a search of their website for "Terence Arbuthnot", "T Arbuthnot" or "T J Arbuthnot" but I don't know how far back they archive — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Elrith 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I may have tracked down, or begun to track down, a reliable reference for the award of the Order of Leopold. See here: "ARBUTHNOT, Terence John, G/C - Order of Leopold (Officer) with Palm and Croix de Guerre (1940) with Palm (Belgian) - awarded as per London Gazette dated 27 June 1947." - now it is just a question of searching the London Gazette. Carcharoth 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable. This is an encyclopedia not a private family web-site. Giano 06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Highly decorated by the allied governments, nominated for deletion by the users of wikipedia. That says it all. --Counter-revolutionary 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a recipient of the highest military honour in Belgium is notable (it would be nice to have more information about what he actually did of course). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete in the light of the new evidence. I was under the impression that his Belgian medal was a Victoria Cross analogue - in which case he would clearly have done something especially notable, whether the article mentioned it or not. In the absence of that, his article discloses nothing of particular note that justifies an article on him. Perhaps he did something interesting in India or Europe, but we just can't tell from the article as it stands. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as we don't actually 'know what he did'. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've found official proof that he won the Order of Leopold here (near the top of the first column). As confers automatic WP:N as a "highest military decoration", changing to keep in this case; I can't withdraw the nom now there are delete !votes. This doesn't change the basic problem that the article says nothing about why he won it and I'd urge Kittybrewster and friends to improve the existing Arbuthnots rather than creating new ones — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like rather a lot of people got this award for "services rendered during the liberation of Belgium". I don't think all those people should have articles. If anything, a section in the Order of Leopold article mentioning the "World War II" awards of the Order of Leopold might be better. Carcharoth 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we knew anything about why he was given this medal then it should be considered that it contributes to notability - its certainly doesnt give automatic notability especially as there is no detail.--Vintagekits 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe he is a coat-hanger to wrap other notable facts around? Aatomic1 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) PS Kitty, I think the emphasis is on you to explain the Mohmand Operations[reply]
• Delete If you look at the dates, this article appears to be an amalgam of information about two individuals. While the peerage info seems reliable, it doesn't make him seem terribly notable on its own, and the newspaper must refer to another individual as it was published before his birth. Sci girl 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless proved to be truthful; and delete again as non-notable. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
• Delete the article per Sockpuppet (did I really say that?) but with thanks for the link to the St John mumbo jumbo article, where we can view a charming fancy-dress partygoer. -- Hoary 07:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know how he came to serve in the East India Company which was disolved some 48 years before he was born. Giano 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would I...It doesn't seem to say that in the article, though I may be wrong.--Counter-revolutionary 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Arbuthnot ended his career in the HEIC as a Colonel" I assume that is not the local building society in his nearst High Street! Giano 08:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've just noticed that. Hmmm... --Counter-revolutionary 08:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aatomic has been adding nonsense. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ...er, I think you will find that it was not me. I have done the research for you. [13] Aatomic1 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)...er maybe I did ...sorry Aatomic1 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So it the passage true or not? Additonally - Kitty there is no need to refer to Astomic as a "muppet" either.--Vintagekits 10:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true. The above user added it by mistake, I presume. --Counter-revolutionary 10:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you answering if you dont know, I would prefer a concrete answer rather thana presumption - please allow Aatomic1 to answer the question and to explain how and why that section was added. regards--Vintagekits 10:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do know; unless he had a time machine it was impossible. --Counter-revolutionary 10:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that instead of hitting return; I hit paste; My memory is not serving me well but I believe that particular snippet came from User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel's research on a different Arbuthnot Afd Aatomic1 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was George Bingham Arbuthnot not this one... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to wonder what exactly is going on with these Arbuthnot pages. For the record it would also be helpful if everyone editing pages, including Kittybrewster and Aatomic1 left edit summaries [14] Giano 12:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in case the above references to the East India Company and pre-birth newspaper references confused anyone, it was due to this edit, which was later reverted (it is a different Arbuthnot). Carcharoth 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, Belgian military honours notwithstanding. As I see it that can be used as a criterion for establishing notability, but does not automatically confer notability per se. Eusebeus 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've just written an article on his second wife Evie Greene - but my opinion of this article stands.--Doc^g 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His wife was never Evie Green. --Counter-revolutionary 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he met her over the counter in the local Building Society? Giano 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have your Arbuthnots confused. They were not married. --Counter-revolutionary 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too many inexplicable inconsistencies, no valid google hits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If we include all Colonels in the Army or Captains in the Navy who got a medal in WWII we are going to have a lot of articles about not particularly notable people (what did he do between 1945 and 1995 BTW?) Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that many of the other senior officers in the airforce who were awarded the Croix de Guerre + Order of Leopold medal (given to most people involved in the liberation of Belgium) have British C.B.E.s or O.B.E.s but not this person. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to strong delete. The plot thickens... Turns out that, while the "Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold" is, indeed, a bona fide "Highest Military Decoration", there's also a "Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold" which is Belgium's 39th highest military decoration. there's also an "Officer of the Order of Leopold" which is Belgium's 16th highest military decoration. Whilst Kittybrewster hasn't specified which version of the medal he won, in light of the general lack of any mention of him anywhere, I know which my money would be on. Changing back to strong delete unless someone can provide any evidence that he did win the higher version — and, since Kittybrewster presumably does know which version he actually won and has chosen not to mention the fact, if he does turn out to have won the lower version my willingness to accept the legitimacy of any other Arbuthnot claims has dropped like a stone — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are confusing me now! :-) You are claiming that the "Grand Cordon" is a "highest military decoration", but the Wikipedia article on the Order of Leopold says: "The Grand Cordon title is reserved to national and foreign royals", which doesn't sound like an inclusive "highest" honour to me. I'd also presume that the article's lack of mention of which level of the order is not a deliberate omission, but just a lack of information. If anything, this is a lesson to not jump to conclusions next time and assume that "Order of X" = highest level of that order. Maybe someone round here should go and tidy up the Order of Leopold article so things are clearer on that front? Carcharoth 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you've also confused 'Order of Leopold' and 'Order of Leopold II' (two different awards). On the list you linked to, there is a 'Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold II', but no equivalent for the Order of Leopold. Go back to the gazette link you gave above, and that makes clear that he was made an Officer of the Order of Leopold, which is the fourth of five classes within that order. Doing all this research is great, but it is misleading to start making mistakes like that, and confusing two different orders. The London Gazette is a reliable source, so why did you cross that out? It won't make much difference, and I don't particularly want the article kept, but swinging back and forth like you've done only muddies the waters. Can you make clear your final stance on this, following what I've said here? At the least, you might want to retract your "the plot thickens" comment. Carcharoth 05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify, he was awarded the Order of Leopold with Palme and Croix de Guerre 1940 with Palme, officer class (the fourth out of five classes). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In which case, it is definitely not a genuine "highest military decoration", so he doesn't get the exemption from normal WP:N rules which that would give him under WP:MILITARY#Notability. The article, either through innocent mistake or deliberate omission (I'm certainly willing to assume the former) gives a misleading impression that he won the higher version. For the benefit of Carcharoth, sticking with strong delete now; that "London Gazette" entry now counts against his inclusion, while Kittybrewster's attempt to change other users' comments in this AfD[15] appear at the least unconstructive — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Iridescenti, you missed my point. I was pointing out that you have confused the Order of Leopold and the Order of Leopold II (see Leopold I and Leopold II)- the "Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold" that you got all excited about doesn't exist (you were, in fact, referring to the Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold II). I was hoping you would strike out your comments about that, as they are just confusing and misleading for others reading this discussion. Carcharoth 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Since all this means is that he won the 16th highest decoration instead of the 39th, I don't see how it detracts from the point — WP:MILITARY#Notability is very clear that only winners of the highest award are exempted from normal WP:BIO rules, and this still clearly isn't — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree. I've !voted below. Carcharoth 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me a thoroughly poisoned afd. Please note from the history that the person who inserted the Order of Leopold was not me but Phoe. Presumably she got it from the London Gazette It is confirmed in Burke's Peerage. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08

41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete abject failure of WP:N. This is what a notable airman looks like. There do not appear to be any non-trivial sources independent of the Arbuthnot family for the article under discussion, and it is about bloody time that Kittybrewster discovered GenesReunited instead of trying to put his family tree on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Politenessman wishes to point out that we should avoid use of the "B" word: it scares the horses. Instead, we may choose among "about sanguinary time", "about corpuscular time", and others. Thank you. -- Hoary 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Guy. Dodgy awards or not, that doesn't matter: there's just no evidence he passes WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 10:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Guy. failure of WP:N. --Fredrick day 11:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - received multiple military decorations, including the Order of Léopold, which is described in its article as the highest order in Belgium. This means the subject is notable per the guidelines set out at WP:MILHIST. JulesH 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MILHIST guidelines don't really matter. WikiProject guidelines do not trump WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 11:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why have them? WP:N is only a guideline, and I'd suggest that in this case we're looking at a subject-specific exception that has consensus among those who work on the subject. A clear case of WP:IAR. JulesH 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the article clarifies that he has done something exceptional or notable. The mere fact that he was awarded several orders and medals do not constitute notability. It's not because he was made an officer in the Order of Leopold that he merits mentioning. Literally hundreds of those are awarded and most are awarded as a long service award. More so as officer is the second lowest class of the order (Grand Cordon - Grand officer - Commander - Officer - Knight) . -- fdewaele, 25 May 2007, 13:55.
• Delete per Guy. Userify if there is anything of value to keep but I suspect that a bare recitation like this one doesn't have much to salvage. Unless this airman is much more notable than the article indicates and unless more varied and more reliable sources are introduced, this article utterly fails WP:N. Apparently there are a fair number of other Arbuthnot articles that need more close examination as well. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could I just point out Lar before there is a huge rush to nominate pages, following the publicity on (WP ANI) those that seem non notable and obvious candidates for deletion cannot be nominated for non-notability if they are Peers, Baronets, Members of Parliament or (it now seems) Bishops, many have been deleted over the last couple of weeks those remaining probably need close examination rather than immediately nominating for deletion. This is not going to be quickly solved problem Giano 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, most definitely. I'm sugggesting close examination, not willy nilly nomination for deletion. If a bunch of articles are nommed for deletion that oughtn't to be, that just makes more work for everyone. Note that an article about a notable person can be deleted (or superstubbed out to just the name and clearly verifiable facts, which may be a better approach than nomming) if it doesn't contain any verifiable information. Thanks for the reminder, though, it's good to keep in mind. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not quite correct there, I'll take this to your talk as this is not really the place Giano 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Resolute 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V, per Guy and Lar. Sarah 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per various discussions above. Carcharoth 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with hot-ass fire. Utterly fails just about every person-related criteria for notability I can think of. Wheres the news articles about him, discussing him in a critical fashion, not lists of award winners and lists of people related to someone? -M^ask? 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person is simply not notable. Acalamari 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AegeanLinux[edit]

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

No notability (still)

Delete Agreed. Why would this have a Wikipedia article of its own? Elrith 23:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of evidence of notability. Someguy1221 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. NicM 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Enough for Us All[edit]

Blood Enough for Us All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a little-known album and there is nothing to the article except for a list of songs. It does not merit an encyclopedia article. Tetty2 22:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A self-published demo, and no information about it to boot. Elrith 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Elrith --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E J Boys[edit]

E J Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was nominated for speedy deletion, but doesn't qualify: there are several claims to notability, enough to avoid speedy deletion. I'm moving this to AFD instead. Procedural listing, no opinion. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tagged it for speedy originally (said tag got removed several times), the thing is here, none of the claims have been backed up. Also, check the logs, it'll go from "world's leading researcher into" to "the world's foremost authority" to "a leading authority" on his supposed subject matter. Just because the author claims the person in the article is notable, doesn't mean he is. --Whstchy 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add on comment Also check what links to the page. The subject the person in the article researched doesn't even link to it. --Whstchy 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the premise that the subject doesn't even link to the page in question. Obviously non notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually there is a link to this page from the relevant article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren1986 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The link to the article was added by you user:Darren1986, after this appeared. Pardon me, but something smells of sockpuppets. Whstchy 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • just tryin to be helpful...a link is a link isn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren1986 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Yes, but you also removed CSD tags from an article without asking first.--Whstchy 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops..sorry! I'm new at this. I thought that if you didn't agree with a deletion or the article had been amended you could remove the tags. My mistake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.81.41 (talk • contribs)
• Delete unless sourced. I know this is valuable research but there is no, available, evidence that the artice subject has ever been noted. Nuttah68 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AKRadecki 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Plaza[edit]

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

A article on a fictional place that seems to be a direct copy of infomation from the How to Stop an Exploding Man episode article. It is not notable enough for it's own article, and i highly doubt that any of it can be expanded beyond what is there now without just simply copying and pasting from the character and episode article articles for Heroes. I recommend that the article be Deleted, since merging it serves no purpose to the Heroes articles. dposse 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems pointless and redundent22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs)

Delete Not significant enough to warrant its own article. Windmillninja 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a recurring place within the show, other articles pertaining to shows have articles for repeated reoccuring places. 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godloveslamb (talk • contribs)

Comment - Recurring, how? It was only featured in two episodes as the meeting place for the final battle. dposse 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which in itself means it's an important place, as the entire SEASON was leading up to this. There's also the office complex itself that the article lacks, as a great deal happened in there as well. Keep or Merge.--Brad Rousse 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to appropriate episode article in the background or script section. --Madchester 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable, only mentioned in last few episodes. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant enough for an article, information can easily be folded into an article about a particular episode or season of the show.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant enough yet. --Piemanmoo 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Put it in the article for the Heroes finale episode How to Stop an Exploding Man.--70.146.45.154 09:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - reasons already stated above, otherwise Delete. It seems unlikely that this location will be used again, but who knows? — « hippi ippi » 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Myers (Artist)[edit]

Jonathan Myers (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sources are missing (on the site advertised as "Gives more information about the artist and his projects", I can't find any biographical information about him), questionable notability (at least his current publisher seems to be himself - reviews of his work in well-known publications? Awards? Sales figures? ...). High on a tree 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, self-published comic-book artist, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability aside from creating a non-notable graphic novel. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and likely WP:COI/WP:AUTO (article was written by Vestalman, subject is from Vestal, New York. Caknuck 23:03, 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. Sr13 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katilce Miranda[edit]

This survived a previous afd. But despite that, it has no content,, no sources, and no obvious notability except that she snogged Bono^{[citation needed]}. Sort it or kill it, either way.--Doc^g 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete totally non-notable. Bigdaddy1981 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kissed Bono, you say? Unlucky. tomasz. 23:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ^{[citation needed]}. Obviously non-notable person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You could argue that she has notability for perhaps being the least-notable person ever recorded on Wiki -- but, no: delete and salt -- SockpuppetSamuelson

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since it has been wikified and reviews provided that demonstrate notability. AKRadecki 19:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Grabka[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:BIO. No independent sources. —Visor (talk · contribs) 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, principal soloist is a position there might be several at any given ballet (i.e. it doesn't mean THE principal soloist), but it seems like she's had a fairly strong career. Most of the search results I found are in Polish, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment currently there are twelve soloists with the Hamburg Ballet.Bigdaddy1981 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Definite Keep per below. Bigdaddy1981 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is now cleaned up, sourced (reviews in New York Times, the U.S. 'Dance Magazine' etc) and wikified. She's danced as a soloist with a host of major ballet companies - English National Ballet etc - and if she was an actress, rather than a ballerina there'd be no question about her notability. She has 40,500 ghits and if many of them are in Polish that's because she's, you know, from Poland. Nick mallory 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - that NYT review just made my heart sink, especially that part about war's soldiers songs. What else is new? greg park avenue 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Elinks are not proper references, per WP:BLP we bios of living people should be better referenced to avoid any possible hoaxes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Weak delete. Self-promotion, perhaps. Picus viridis 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Chopra[edit]

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

non notable person. no sources. could not verify his stated television apppearances. only article by creator. vanity article C5mjohn 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, provisionally. Person is obviously notable IF he's a regular commentator on television. Article just need it sources listed, and a thorough chainsawing to eliminate the fluffery. Before any editor posts "delete", they should consider taking this task up.--Mike18xx 08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, if you need verification you can look on the www.bastioncapital.co.uk web page, look under the newsroom section and then click on media, Some of the clips of Ronnie Chopra on TV can be found there. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.81.179 (talk • contribs)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources, nothing in Google News Archive either. NN talking head. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung; non-notable person. Bigdaddy1981 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Modify per Mike18xx. If one is not lazy and uses something other than Google for their source of nourishment (as if Google holds all the knowledge of mankind) it's pretty evident going to www.bastioncapital.co.uk and scanning the video archives that this bloke has indeed done a few notable things. I suggest someone editing the article to clean it up a bit, but to say the guy is NN is ridiculous. Seems a lot of Wikipedians are themselves people who will never, ever amount to anything at all, and therefore have a grudge against those who are out in the real world, slugging it away and doing something. I suppose if I were a computer programmer, sitting in a dark room and getting my nourishment from Digg.com, I'd be a pretty sad bastard hating MySpace bands, up-and-coming actors, and other sorts of REAL PEOPLE who are out there doing something constructive, instead of wanking-off in front of Wikipedia. Oh, and let us not forget your "esteemed professor" who turned-out to be no more than some bollocks git from Kentucky. Hail Wikipedia! Nightlink 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced possible vanity 65.241.15.131 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced biog of a non notable. If evidence is provided of notability I will reconsider. Nuttah68 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I am quite new to this so please accept my apologies if I get the format wrong, just a quick note regarding guy, I have seen him on TV. Have also seen some of his articles somewhere. I travel to London now and then and do remember seeing this guy on Sky News. All the Best. Brian Walters btw68@yahoo.co.uk

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 23:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esmie Tseng[edit]

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

A minor convicted for manslaughter, who had 15 min of fame by blogging about it. I'm just not sure we need to do this. Please delete it. -Doc^g 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete a person killing their own mother, while sad, is Common. Check out Google News for the past month or so. While this has some false hits, just read the stories and you can see that killing your mom (or planning it) is more common than what some think. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No google news hits afree with Doc and zscout that she just had 15 minuets of fame. --St.daniel ^Talk 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone has fifteen minuets of fame, wouldn't that make them a composer? :-P Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would there be google news hits on a story that mostly wrapped up a year ago? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who hasn't killed their mother in a knife fight at one time or another? This was a one-day wonder, not of lasting encyclopedic value. Herostratus 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of sources and lack of notability. Per the above users, someone killing their mother is (sadly) a common thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep try Google news ARCHIVE search. Gets 51 hits, including multiple instances of non-trivial coverage going on for almost 10 months after the murder. [16] She even gets trivial mentions from before the murder for her school accomplishments along with several of her classmates. Also has international coverage, e.g. [17] cab 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 51 hits in the 10 months after. How many since? I clicked on three of the 51 at random and all of them had been removed - the 15 min of fame are over. We should not be in the business of prolonging them. Someday this child comes out of prison and tries to get on with her life - does a Wikipedia bio then follow her about. Perhaps we need a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act--Doc^g 22:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Let's make a bot that strips criminal records so we can have an article for every criminal ever. Zsinj^Talk 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets notability standards for people by receiving multiple nontrivial coverage; doesn't lose it just because no one's written about her lately. It was a high profile crime with sufficient coverage for us to write about. Being common isn't a reason for exclusion. That's the essence of WP:NOT#PAPER Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruna Surfistinha[edit]

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

A blogging prostitute that got 15 min of TV fame. Yawn. -Doc^g 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pointless waste of bytes. WP:BLP / WP:UNDUE apply, of course, but even if they didn't it would be pointless. Anything even vaguely porn related gets gazillions of hits, if we can believe them (which we can't). Guy (Help!) 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Guy and Doc. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Ok, so I misjudged her fame inside of Brazil. Based on what I saw below, keep. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and continue to expand and cleanup. Not a BLP issue, again, as she's very much a self-promoter - chances are, writing a blog and book about one's sexual exploits does not imply shame, nor should anyone's specific ethics get in the way. Over 150 Google News Hits in the archive, the page is at her pseudonym, there's no problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She looks to be notorious enough. Herostratus 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. May be a yawn for us but was she a real topic of debate in Brazil? Canuckle 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she is then keep. But that's not grounds for keep unless she is verifiable so. We don't keep things just in case they have merit.--Doc^g 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could ask the Brazilians, since they could have more coverage about her than what we have found in English. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep' per User:Badlydrawnjeff. The Google News hits seem to indicate a fair enough amount of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Guy & Doc. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This person is obviously notable in Brazil. SchmuckyTheCat 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

Delete bruna surfistina from wikipedia ? This is crazy. She is a well known person in Brazil. She gave interviews to dozens of brazilian periodicals. She Gave interviews to portuguese magazines She also gave interviews to the BBC, as well as argentinian media.

The new york times as well as the times of london made articles about Bruna Surfistinha.

From the times of London

"Online call girl exposes sex myths of Brazil".

SHE was known to her clients as Bruna the Surfer Girl, a chic São Paolo prostitute who fled her middle-class home at the age of 17 to sell herself to up to five men a day. Then Bruna took to the internet, and her racy accounts of life as a high-class Brazilian call girl have earned her international fame. Six months after she gave up prostitution to turn her blog into a bestselling book, Bruna — whose real name is Raquel Pacheco — has become an improbable sex symbol in Brazil and a potential goldmine for publishers and film-makers around the world.

bruna surfistinha in the times of london

Larry Rohter in a New York Times article does call Bruna (quote) " a cultural phenomenon ".

article about bruna in the NYT

The fact that bruna is not well known by many english speaking people does not mean she is not deserve to have an entry in wikipedia.

second reason : there is an entry of bruna surfistinha in the portuguese wikipedia.

Bruna surfistina in wikipedia portuguese version It does not make sense to delete an entry about bruna in the english version of wikipedia while leaving a large entry about the same person in the portuguese version of wikipedia.

Either she deserves or does not deserve an entry in wikipedia. If she does deserve an entry in wikipedia both wiki in english and portuguese should have such entry. If she does not deserve an entry ( as many claim ) if it is justifiable to delete bruna from the english version of wikipedia why the portuguese version has a large entry about that very same bruna? Deleting the english entry of bruna while leaving the portuguese entry does not make sense.

According to the Times of london Bruna is a Symbol in Brazil . Her book sold 100 000 copies. She more than deserves an entry in wikipedia.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chartered Insurance Institute. AKRadecki 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Institute of Manchester[edit]

Insurance Institute of Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From speedy. It claims to be the oldest insurance institute (what an insurance "institute" is I cannot say) in existance, which I suppose could be notable. It was only founded in 1873, though. The article in its present form is pretty bad, too. Herostratus 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Neutral as nominator, I am just bringing this in from speedy. Herostratus 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too much spam. An exam-giving body with a royal charter could possibly be notable but not to this degree of detail or self-promotion or lack of sources. Canuckle 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing on Google News Archive. Some results in Google Books (as a publisher of e.g. electrical safety lectures), but nothing substantial. The timeline and some other parts of the article are taken directly from the Chartered Insurance Institute article, and are a history of British insurance institutes generally. Other than being the oldest in Britain, a fairly minor claim of notability, it's not clear why this should be here. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune - This appears to be a professional body concerned with insurance. However too much of the article duplicates Chartered Insurance Institute. This duplication should be removed and the article Wikified. Since it merely gives a timeline, the article is weak, but I have seen many that are worse. As the first of its kind, I would have thought it was notable, even if it is now only of local significance. If the eventual decision is to delete, then redirect to Chartered Insurance Institute. Peterkingiron 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. I'm withdrawing this. Sources and claims to notability have been added. -Doc^g 08:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Riley[edit]

She pretty. She's a porn star actress. She's virtually unsourced and terrible typical. I guess I know what you'd like to do to her, but I think you should delete her.--Doc^g 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete an interview on a fan site and an industry report with 1 line about her that says she'll be in some movie... these are not acceptable sources. While covering porn stars and any fringe topic for that matter is something that should be done and it would be nice if Wikipedia could do, it is not currently compatible with our policies of verifiability and neutrality unless sufficient reliable sources exist. That these are less likely to exist for porn stars doesn't justify running what amounts to original opinion of fans about them alongside other factually accurate and encyclopedic articles. I will reconsider if better sources are found. --W.marsh 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral for now, source mentioned below is a start... but not sure it's enough. --W.marsh 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She recently won Front Magazine's Top 20 Girls on the web, satisfying #1 on the criteria for WP:PORNBIO. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might help if the article included that info and it was verified.--Doc^g 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added that 5 seconds ago.—Ocatecir ^Talk 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the magazine contain any actual information on her? Meeting PORNBIO doesn't really mean much if there's still no verifiable information to include in an article. --W.marsh 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it has a blurb, then an interview, spreading about 3 pages. [18]. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I so wanted to make a comment about "spreading", but I refrained.  :) Corvus cornix 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well-spread references, and hot to boot. -N 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator seems to want to delete all such porn stars from Wikipedia which would be, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this, a tragedy. Sources have been added to the article and it passes the necessary standard for such things. Nick mallory 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't.--Doc^g 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, decent references and after all she is a real person and can be classified into the amble "Category:Lists of porn stars", it seems that the Pat Robertsons of Wikipedia always want to delete these things. Aricci526 04:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G11. ^(H) 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massage Therapy Schools[edit]

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

Looks like a bunch of advertisements; links go to commercial sites; I think this article is pure SPAM as it is. Only a complete rewrite would make it encyclopedia material DanielCD 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam, speedy if possible. It's structured as a listing page, links to the commercial sites for this one business, and lists bios of people who are likely non-notable using marketing language. I'm not sure whether the institute itself is notable enough to have an article, but if it is, this shouldn't be it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete WP:CSD#G11--Whstchy 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as spam (G11). So tagged. Article exists solely to advertise the Cortiva schools, apparent COI - (User:Cortiva created the article). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 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. AKRadecki 19:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cajun instrument makers[edit]

List of Cajun instrument makers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another list - I think Alaibot's reached the letter L on its stub/uncat tagging run. All but one of the entries are redlinks and I suspect likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, but I don't really want to prod it since for all I know this is a big thing in Louisiana — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no point in this. Also, from the page (at the time of this vote): "This list includes people who are not necessarily Cajun." --Whstchy 20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think what the author means by that is that there's some peculiarly Cajun method of making the instruments that they follow — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good point, still delete though.--Whstchy 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I know... another list. However, does a list get removed because the "red links" have yet to be written? Plenty of other lists have this same issue yet stay on. See List of Cajun musicians. Noone outside Louisiana knows these people however, they are well known in the state. What percentage of the world has to know these people before the article can stay? Lets say the articles on the Presidents of the US haven't been written yet, a list of them is place on Wikipedia, causing lots of "red links". Does this list no longer matter? Should it be removed??? However...... do what you wish.--User:falcanary
• Delete. I can see no value to this list. The phrase 'This list includes people who are not necessarily Cajun' concerns me. If the instruments are made in a unique way for Cajun music, that deserves a mention on the instruments page or maybe even a new page and exponents can be listed there. If the maker of, say triangles, is renowned for their skill they deserve an article, regardless of what genre of music their instruments are played in. Unfortunately, what we appear to have here is a list of people who make instruments that are used in Cajun music, and that isn't notable. Nuttah68 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AKRadecki 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkwood-Dellinger[edit]

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

I tried a speedy under WP:CSD#A7, but that was removed. Don't think it's really notable, but the main reason for this is the lack of resources. They also seem to be a garage band that formed in high school. Whstchy 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep - even though I'm sure they're only getting press coverage (in local papers) because he has a famous dad, I think the papers are just non-trivial enough to push them over the WP:MUSIC line — they're not just reprinted press releases but bona fide features — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - their record label just barely exists according to Google, they're reported to be touring a little this summer. I looked at the refs; a couple are short bits that make me think 'entertainment calendar,' but the longer ones aren't bad. However, it's still quite local coverage, and I'd be more comfortable if a) they were covered outside their home town, and b) the one member wasn't getting coverage for being the son of a Meat Puppets member. In time, if the band continues as it has, we'll see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Karcz[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:BIO —Visor (talk · contribs) 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Everyone's a photomanipulator... tomasz. 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced. Only claim to notability is designing cover art for a book and a handful of album covers for minor artists. Caknuck 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unreferenced bio of a living person.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (along with Maggie Leigh which is about a character in this film). WjBscribe 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Side of Youth[edit]

The Dark Side of Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A movie (that I can find little to no outside references for) that is still in pre-production, yet already has a plot summary (an unsourced one) Tagged as possibly non-notable since Feb. 2007. Looks like unverifiable speculation or the plot is written by someone involved in production Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless it is sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- per no notability —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Telcourbanio (talk • contribs).
• Delete - Not notable Kernel Saunters 22:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Cassidy[edit]

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

Deleted via PROD, but restored as a contested PROD per deletion review. Brought here as I feel that the merits of the article may need to be discussed; however, as this is a procedural nomination, I abstain. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nomination. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Per me" doesn't really work here, since I didn't give a reason one way or another... --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--WaltCip 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nom abstained, there is no "per nom" deletion criterion. Please come up with your reasons. Corvus cornix 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on what can be done to add merit to article? Credits seem extensive and respectable in regional scene.

• Weak delete. Two reviews of his work in a production of Hamlet are the only sources on notability I have; a review wherein he's quoted and his page on Horror Unspeakable are the only other two links. Biggest problem might be of regional interest - he only seems to be notable locally. Are there sources that establish notability beyond one production of Hamlet, or something wider than that? If yes, I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notability. Corvus cornix 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should have stayed prodded. How is the Hamlet reference notable? "His Hamlet was a huge local success1 and was filmed by the UA Channel. It continues to air on Tucson's channel 19." WP:BIO says: "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." How is a university production of Hamlet notable? It plays on cable broadcast. Whoppie do. My high school's production of Macbeth won a nationwide award in 1997 and it ran on the community access channel. Should I go making biographies for my former classmates? I don't think. One also cannot really rely on local theatre critics--many of them tend to gush on and on about how wonderful local actors are. The rest of the claims to notability are also dubious. --Kunzite 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, too, though, that Arizona Rep and Arizona Theatre Company are very reputable, to say nothing of the world premiere of a Steven Dietz play, working with Jon Jory, etc. I went to his band's Myspace page and he's got over 11,000 listens and seems to be popular in the NYC music scene. And many pictures--that Hamlet is pretty far from a video taped high school production on cable access. I'm not saying one way or another not to delete, but this entry strikes me more as just poorly written and documented (he has reviews on nytheatre.com and the Off-Off Broadway Review, it seems, too), rather than totally unnotable. --(random stranger who gets a kick out of reading AfD logs)

• Comment: Now that I re-read this article, it reads to me as if it was copied word-for-word from a Playbill. Corvus cornix 17:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zvezdno Obshtestvo Observatory[edit]

Zvezdno Obshtestvo Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not any prove of notability. Publish or perish fails to find any reviewed articles from researchers from that observatory. Few observational notes can be found on the Net, in majority coming from their site. Although they claim they found "five new asteroids and recovered a number of comets", the observatory is not listed in the Minor Planet Center's list[19] of Minor planet discoverers. PetaRZ 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PetaRZ 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Someguy1221 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , with my sympathies, for lack of sources to demonstrate accomplishments Their blog says they suspended regular observations in Sept 2006 due to lack of money. Canuckle 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is discovering "five new asteroids" (unsourced claim in the article) a big scientific contribution, or is it something I can do in my backyard on a bright night with a cheap telescope? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Even with a very expensive (visible wavelength) telescope, all but the largest of asteroids would be too dim to reliably spot (at best it would look like a faint star moving a bit too fast. You might see it, but good luck identifying it). Detailed asteroid observations often use radio telescopes instead. However, there are likely millions of asteroids in our solar system, so there is no shortage of asteroids to discover. Someguy1221 22:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So we can assume that if this claim is verified and referenced, it goes a long way to establishing the notability of this observatory? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Er, I was actually trying to make the opposite point. While amateur astronomers can't detect most asteroids, most asteroids are decidedly uninteresting. However, if they have the equipment to do more than the most basic observations (ie, figure out its axis of rotation, or probable composition and shape, which are much harder than simply finding it) then they likely received enough attention to be considered notable. Someguy1221 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I completely agree with SomeGuy. The majority of the bright asteroids are already discovered, so finding new ones needs sophisticated telescopes, and is not of great interest. In addition, the last NASA's surveys (e.g. LINEAR or NEAT) find them automatically. PetaRZ 06:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sorry, guys. Elrith 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It takes more than 5 minor reports to make a scientific institute notable. That wouldn't be enough forthe notability of even one of its members.02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Comment Copied from the article's discussion page : Look gays, A79 have a lot of contributions (go to the IAUC and MPC) and considering the small country I think that this is ok.. Unsigned message, sent from 82.199.197.34 ----PetaRZ 15:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck this comment. If the user wishes to join the AFD discussion, he or she has to come over here and cast his or her !vote personally. Comments made elsewhere carry no weight in AFD discussions. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is what I found, many mentions of objects having been discovered, observed by this observatory, but no actual discussion of the observatory. Reliable soruces must discuss, not merely mention the subject of the article. Someguy1221 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete" Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.50.182 (talk • contribs)

• No edits have been made from this IP outside this AFD. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance Software[edit]

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

Deleted via PROD, but restored as a contested PROD per deletion review. Brought here as I feel that the merits of the article may need to be discussed; however, as this is a procedural nomination, I abstain. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Entrance Software serves the oil and gas industry in Texas. They were recognized as one of the fastest-growing high tech firms in Houston. They are accredited by Microsoft and have a high customer satisfaction rate, according to reliable source x. Clients include x, y and z, according to reliable source y. Everything else is spam. If they can't source those, then Delete. Canuckle 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Article cannot be made encyclopedic without fundamental rewrite and therefore should have been speedied as blatant advertising per CSD G11, not prodded. 75.62.6.237 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tone is poor, lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this ad. Mmoneypenny 19:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE - Nabla 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Road to Success is Always Under Construction[edit]

The Road to Success is Always Under Construction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable self published book without reviews, awards, or other reliable secondary sources about the book, thus fails WP:NOTE. Fram 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems much like an ad, nothing to commend its notability. tomasz. 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep please. It is not my book. I did not publish it. I did not write it. I just have a copy at my house. If you insist on being bullies, then I guess you can. But in that case, you might call your selves Bullies. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• continuation of previous There. I added external links. Are You Happy Now??? And I forgot to add to my previous comment that you are basically discouraging me from Being Bold. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 22:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence presented showing notability of subject matter. Sir Intellegent, we do not mean to discourage you from creating articles, but they should meet minimal standards of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment well, then, you could help make the article better.... That would help, wouldn't it? Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No, it wouldn't, because the subject of the article is still non-notable. That's what we're voting about here. Elrith 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Fine, do what ever quickly please. This would be the second article of "mine" that has or will be deleted. The other was my school, Paradigm High School. It seems like everyone hates the articles that I create, so I guess I won't create any anymore. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. don't forget the picture. I won't be using that for anything else.[reply]
• Delete An article on a self published book that offers no indication or evidence of notability. Nuttah68 13:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'DELETE - Nabla 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foul Mouth Shirts[edit]

Foul Mouth Shirts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was originally a G7 speedy-deletion. DRV found an assertion of notability was present, and so refers the matter for a full AfD. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite Rewrite as encyclopedia article. If not rewritten with reliable sourcing by AFD close, delete. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I have never heard of these people and their claim to notability is backlinks. A good Search engine optimizer would manufacture such notability. However, the number of google hits lends credibility. The problem of this page is that the age of the company begs WP:VSCA contestation. I truly believe they are a valid subject for a counterculture article and but have trouble voting to keep the article as presented. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no google hits at all. I searched for "Foul Mouth Shirts" and only one link was actually related to the site. Hardly a basis for notability. G1ggy! 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some of the claims of reliable source coverage in the article are turned into references. Google only returns ads and blogs. Nuttah68 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euphrates (Iraqi hip hop band)[edit]

Euphrates (Iraqi hip hop band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. There is an assertion of notability in the article, in multiple outside coverage in sources independent of the subject. I don't know if those sources are non-trivial though, and whether they are enough to establish the notability of the subject. That's why I'm bringing this to AFD. Procedural move, no opinion. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I kind of have my doubts about the reliability and non-triviality of those sources; there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of salvageable material here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, not much in Google News Archive to prove they meet WP:MUSIC, but there are some indications they may have toured Canada (they're from Montreal), which would suffice. Albums are self-published. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- Canuckle 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix the citations and keep - If those citations are valid; maybe attempt to search Google for more or better citations to satisfy notability. "A7"? --Remi 09:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Enough of an assertion not to warrant A7 (although in its current state could probably be G11, but those sources are about as trivial as you can get short of myspace pages. It's an ungooglable title so relies on someone with a knowledge of the field adding something by the end of the AfD — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from this Wikipedia without prejudice to their inclusion on their local one. As has been stated they aren't googlable, which means they have no references in English, which suggests that they are probably not notable outside the Iraq. However in Iraq they might be the biggest thing since... ...er... ...the supergun. However as notability for this wikipedia cannot be ascertained, we should delete it here. A1octopus 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they're notable in Iraq they're notable anywhere per WP policy. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khush Pish[edit]

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

The term does exist as i use it myself but wikipedia is not a dictionarry - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a dicef, or possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per TenPoundHammer. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comic Book films cast members[edit]

List of Comic Book films cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this poorly named, incorrectly capitalized, and useless article that is wholly redundant to other articles, yet another creation from a User:EJBanks/Poker Master/Fatone411/Creepy Crawler/Batman Fan sockpuppet. Doczilla 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as completely redundant, all material available in relevant linked articles already. No need for an incomplete, as well as confusing, list. Charlie 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --GentlemanGhost 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Stephen Day 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE - Nabla 18:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDSA Micro Corporation[edit]

EDSA Micro Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom - adverspamcruftvertisement. Fails WP:SPAM - a couple of editors have been very active trying to insert this orgnaization's product into various articles (see: Power Analytics). No indication of notability. Self-referenced. Likely conflict of interest. Rklawton 18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Canuckle 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article mention the figure of $100 billion, but it turns out that is the total revenue of any of the power companies who have every bought one of their products. DGG 02:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Save - Company recently recognized by the technical staff of a) 7x24 Exchange and 2) the Critical Power Coalition, for developing one of the most important new technological developments for preserving the maintainability of electrical power grids, and keeping mission-critical operations (hospitals, transportation, etc.) functioning in widespread outages. See http://www.7x24exchange.org/downloads/7x24Newslink_Spring07.pdf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrneumann (talk • contribs)
• SaveComment Correction to the above. $100 billion refers to the value of equipment and infrastructure being protected by Power Analytics technologies, e.g. power generating facilities, FAA gound stations, computer data centers, public data networks, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrneumann (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - the above was added by the article's author and the author of Power Analytics. This editor's contributions revolve solely around promoting one company. Rklawton 16:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam with no evidence of independent sources to show notability. The one external source is an article written by 'Jim Neumann is Vice President of EDSA Micro Corporation'. Nuttah68 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, "club" with no notability asserted. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ro-JA[edit]

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

Non-notable kid's club Nekohakase 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as completely NN fanclub and tagged as such. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:32, 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 Speedy deleted by Alabamaboy. Non-admin closure. Resolute 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Lyneborg Lund[edit]

Rolf Lyneborg Lund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject not notable EvilOverlordX 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Speedy Delete Fails CSD #A7. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Del. per nom, Nenyedi. My advice would be to get that 9-string bass guitar on the market. tomasz. 20:04, 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. WjBscribe 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Shepard Scholarship[edit]

Matthew Shepard Scholarship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks the necessary multiple sources to meet WP:N. No doubt worthy, but non-notable. Delete recommendation Bridgeplayer 18:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Matthew Shepard. Struggles on independent notability, but surely worth a paragraph in the main article. especially with two notable recipients. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per EliminatorJR's suggestion; not notable on its own, but probably worth a short mention at Matthew Shepard. Krimpet (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per EliminatorJR. Merits a paragraph at Matthew Shepard, maybe as part of a "Legacy" section or similar. However, I wouldn't include everything in the current article; the list of recipients is unnecessary, and it's not clear that the two active links in the list actually point to the correct people. EALacey 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, Josh Olson definitely isn't the same one (compare the photos at [20] and [21], and the other link leads to a dab page. I still stick with Merge & Redirect, though EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, scholarships abound, and this one just has a famous name, not independent notability. If merged per above, do not include the list of recipients. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletions. -- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a local scholarship, available only at three colleges in Iowa. The list of recipients, almost all red links, is an indication of non-notability.,02:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Delete At best this should be a sentance in the Matthew Shepard article. If kept, then we should include any scholarship offered Jmcnamera 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AKRadecki 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter SWATriplex-18[edit]

Winter SWATriplex-18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ain't no such thing. A web search turns up only the Wikipedia entry and various mirrors thereof. scot 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, no claim to notability, no proof it exists. Nom is right that there's no on-line mention of it, though that's not proof... EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do believe most gun makers have websites these days. Someguy1221 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, lack of a website might just mean they're out of business, but the complete lack of mention on the web means they were almost certainly never in business, and it absolutely means that if they were, they're non-notable. Oddball guns often achieve notability just because they're oddball, such as the Dardick guns, Gyrojet and Liliput pistol. scot 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Actually, the SWATriplex did exist, but only as a prototype. You can read a little bit about it and see photos in "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons" (1st Ed). D.E. Watters 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Appears that it did exist in some form - I see reference to it on google groups a couple of years back in rec.guns - being in a 1979 issue of a gun magazine. Megapixie 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW: I just found an article about the SWATriplex's design by the inventor, John W. Winter. It can be found in the December 1979 issue of "Guns" magazine. Winter was a columnist for "Guns" during the late '70s to early '80s. The column was devoted to Winter's various experimental firearm designs. Also, in the late '70s, Winter was profiled in a cover story in "Guns" sister magazine, "American Handgunner." (I have yet to dig out that particular issue from my collection.) D.E. Watters 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, article still needs a rewrite, and it seems you're the only one with access to detailed sources ;-) Someguy1221 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, since you twisted my arm, I went ahead and wrote up a stub using the information that I had. BTW: Mr. Winter's profile in "American Handgunner" was published in the May/June 1979 issue. The positive reader response to this article led to the introduction of Winter's "Guns" magazine column in the October 1979 issue. D.E. Watters 04:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bit is it notable? Some prototypes, such as DWM's .45 ACP Luger, are notable due to some historical or other significance. Radical designs can also result in a collector' market, but generally only if there was enough production to allow a collector market. Since it was a prototype, odd but possibly not revolutionary in design, and there's only one source, that argues against notability. scot 13:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - (please kick me if I screwed up the close) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q.U.E.S.T.[edit]

Q.U.E.S.T. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

overlong, in-joke-ridden tract describing single column in non-notable student newspaper. tomasz. 17:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Even Fails CSD Part A7, according to my interpretation. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, no sources. So tagged. Nenyedi, AFD discussions aren't votes per se, but a search for consensus, so we don't number our comments. ---Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 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. AKRadecki 19:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Dillemuth[edit]

Charles H. Dillemuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biography that does not assert notability outside of a extremely small region. Article reads like an obituary because the primary sources are family contributed newspaper obituaries that do not pass as a reliable source. waffle iron ^talk 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep You said "Biography that does not assert notability outside of a extremely small region.", implying that it DOES assert notability inside a certain region. The subject may not be broadly notable, but if someone in that region wanted information, it would be a good page. I do agree however that the article does need some cleanup. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It was determined in March or April that congressional nominees of either major party automatically met "notability". Mr. Dillemuth's involvement in some fifteen civic activities should also be considered. If this is deleted, then what about Gloria Williams Hearn?

Billy Hathorn 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Greatest notability is as a failed candidate for Congress. As for "Realtor of the Year" ... --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The statement, "It was determined in March or April that congressional nominees of either major party automatically met 'notability'" is patently false. There's never been any such determination, and, in fact, each of the four times the subject has come up on WP:BIO discussion pages, the majority sentiment has been exactly the opposite: that such individuals are not notable automatically. Dillemuth may yet meet WP:N in his own right. (Per Dhartung, this article certainly does not establish him as such, but I also like to try to look into it myself before I make a final decision, and I haven't had time to do that yet.) But if he is, the reason wouldn't be any such automatic determination. Mwelch 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, after looking for more about him and not finding it, I'll go with delete. I have nothing but respect for DGG's opinion, but even a lot of those who do support congressional major party nominees being considered notable have offered the rationale that their status as major party nominee must mean there are adequate non-trivial reliable sources out there about them. I'm just not sure that I buy that. Today . . . maybe. But a candidate from almost 50 years ago? I'm not convinced. I certainly could be wrong in having my doubts about that. But if I am . . . hey, show me the sources, and I'll certainly change my opinion. Mwelch 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By the way, very good point about Gloria Williams Hearn. I looked and she's no more notable than Dillemuth. Her election loss was just last year and I still don't really see anything out there about her that's both independent and non-trivial. (So once again, I really, really don't buy the "Losing major party congressional candidates should be assumed to be WP:N because there must be plenty of sources out there about them" argument.) I've gone ahead and nominated her article for deletion. Mwelch 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my suggestion in March that congressional nominees of a major party ought to be considered notable, but the consensus at the time was otherwise. I'd still like to see the practice changed, but it is unfortunately has not been. DGG 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not appear to meet N or BIO and the article reads like a memorial.--Kubigula (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AKRadecki 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloshball[edit]

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

I can't find any good reliable sources about this; many in the article are either college newspapers or sites with user-contributed content. Google News search shows 2 extremely tangential mentions. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - i actually started/stubbed this article a few years ago (but no, i don't own it :-) ). today i am kind of embarrassed to say i did, and recently considered AFDing it. an editor sprang up though and took up the article as part of his class and i had renewed hope for it. after these efforts however i still believe it's non-notable - no reliable sources could be found. i would love someone to prove me wrong though, *shrug*. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and lacking sources. Kudos to User:JoeSmack for actually voting delete on an article he created. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As the current Sloshball article editor, I agree that it should be deleted. There were very few dependable sources and scrounging up information on it was not an easy thing. However this is an article being graded on Wednesday May 23, 2007 for just strictly the content, so if we could delete it after then or take this petition to delete down for just a day I would appreciate it and so would my grade. I know this is a rather odd request but to who ever put this up if you could just take it down till one more day, it would really help me out. After that feel free to delete it. Sloshball
  • AFD discussions normally run for at least five days, so even if the determination is to delete, the article should survive at least until the 27th. Deor 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions made since the last version turn this from barely acceptable work to a real contribution. The research is extensive, from a variety of sources and kinds of sources, the organization is clear and logically sequential, the tone is neutral, sober and yet a bit whimsical as appropriate to the subject, and the final advice is tolerant but sensible.

I believe the article will get considerable use and that readers will find it helpful. I give it an A grade.

In earlier versions, I might have agreed with commentators, including one of the authors, that the article should be considered for deletion. At this stage deleting it seems to me unfair and ill-advised. The reasons for deletion offered at the deletion discussion page would apply to any of the articles in the series prominently featured as "Popular Drinking Games." Rudolph2007 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - you're right! it would apply to many in the articles on ((Drinking games))! any that do should be tagged for deletion as well. i'm at work right now, anyone have time to throw up some AfD tags? JoeSmack ^Talk 22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial album covers[edit]

List of controversial album covers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as missing sources for a long time, this page's title is a problem unto itself. I don't think a neutral formulation of "controversial" is possible, nor do I think this list of otherwise unrelated content really adds any information. Verges on an "indiscriminate collection of information." (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak keep Well it makes a okay article although it would be a much better category. But with out sources I just don't think I can give it full support. (It would need a pretty massive amount of sources)--St.daniel ^Talk 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom. I, too, have my doubts about being able to conform to a WP:NPOV with the word "controversial", except maybe if enough reliable sources refer to something as being controversial. However, as it stands, there are no sources on this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting idea, there have been many, but it would need a lot of work.--Gloriamarie 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Really Weak Keep could be a good article if separated into sections (i.e. religion, nudity etc) and actually expanded on why some of the covers were controversial. As it is, it's pointless. Give it time to expand, and if it comes back to AfD in a few months time in the same state, then get rid of it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of any possible objective definition of "controversial," the lack of sourcing and the whiff of original research. Otto4711 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Exactly my thoughts.--Whstchy 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've copied the text into my userspace and I'll have a go at making an article of it. Looking at the individual records, there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of WP:OR and I think it could make an interesting and encyclopedic article - but not as a pure list. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The titled article would fail as WP:OR. The perceived intended article which is List of banned/censored album covers is something that could be passed if sourced. If sourced should be renamed and kept. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yep. some of the "controversies" are real storm in a teacup stuff, and I'll remove them. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this can never be objectively defined Kernel Saunters 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to provide a definition of controversial in context. No references are provided, and the subject matter of the list itself is too general anyway. CloudNine 11:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dannatt[edit]

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

Notability not asserted or evident Decoratrix 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Notability not asserted? Played at the highest level of his (professional) sport and represented his country. Not a huge amount on the web, though, probably needs expanding by a Hull fan with access to paper sources. I've edited the article slightly as it wasn't even clear which sport he played.EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What El.Jr. said. tomasz. 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Easily meets WP:BIO for athletes, having both played in a fully professional league and achieved representative honours at the highest level. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and expand as it definitely meets WP:BIO for athletes. Unfortunately, I'm not a Hull fan (whatever the Hull that means), so I'll leave the expansion to someone else. I did remove a bit of non-NPOV though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it seems that the only problem of the article is its size. I would improve it myself, but I haven't even heard of the Hulls... :) *Cremepuff222* 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability not asserted? Representing GB at a major sport seem to assert plenty notability to me. - fchd 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 prejudice to recreation once it is released and there is something to base an article on. WjBscribe 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Momma's Boy[edit]

No Momma's Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Crystal-ball-ism on an unreleased book, blatant advertising. Nekohakase 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This here's a press release. unsourced, not necessarily even out. tomasz. 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, until the book is released and sources can be possibly found. *Cremepuff222* 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On one hand, this should be speedy deleted as blatant advertising. On the other hand, it's already receiving some coverage, e.g. [22] [23] and most likely this meets the criteria of WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sourced content to merge. WjBscribe 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoolProof Security[edit]

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

Non notable security program that hasn't had an updated release in over five years Rackabello 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being old doesn't make the program non-notable, but the article doesn't even assert notability or cite any sources. EALacey 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Riverdeep. Without sourcing this cannot survive as a standalone article. TerriersFan 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Someguy1221 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I thought I might be able to improve this article, but I found it quite impossible. The only sources that I could find on the web stated what the article did: where and when it was founded, and the system requirements. This alone proves that the subject isn't notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. *Cremepuff222* 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Riverdeep even if notability (doubtful) can be established. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no independent sources to show notability of book or author. WjBscribe 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Road Letters[edit]

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

An unencyclopedic entry for a self-published book that fails WP:BK. The creation of Pribaudo, a single purpose user whose only other contribution has been the creation of Phil Ribaudo, an article on the author of The Road Letters. Victoriagirl 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as it fails WP:BIO:

Phil Ribaudo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete both as non-notable book and author, possible WP:COI too. By the way, I fixed the "Related article 1" link for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as non-notable Bigdaddy1981 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per my nomination (and suspected WP:COI). Victoriagirl 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, nn book/author + poss. almost certain self-promotion. Would still run if i saw him with a kitchen knife, mind. tomasz. 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, non-notable author and a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Seems to me like self-promotion... *Cremepuff222* 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete either, Does not fail:WP:BK or WP:BIO
  Pribaudo, NEW user whose FIRST contribution has been the creation of Phil Ribaudo, an article on the author of The Road Letters.
  Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and a 1000 other notable, non self-promoting places are selling this book. The book has significant importance. Raises: Breast Cancer, Social awareness. The book is currently being review by Hollywood producers to be made into a major motion picture. Phil Ribaudo is anything but not-notable—do your homework! Read the book if there's a question.

Who is the judge of significance?
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia to share and educate—why are you trying to prevent that???
tomasz. would run if he would see him with a knife—grow up!

NickAnthony.22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Notice that my serious reasons to delete this brace of articles are spelled out in the sentence before my "hilarious" commentary. The fact i said latter doesn't alter in the smallest part the legitimacy of the former. and thanks very much for nicking my sig, P"Jolly Roger"ribaudo, you can stop fronting like it's not you now. tomasz. 05:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper McVain[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, minor musician - totally non-notable. The page reads as vanity, no independent non-trivial verifiable sources, Myspace as a link puts the top hat on it. My deletion tag was removed so here we are. Delete as nominator Bigdaddy1981 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:MUSIC; no independant, reliable sources, and seems to not have made any major accomplishments throughout its life as a band (unless you count being on the Venture Brothers...). *Cremepuff222* 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jasper McVanity. A1octopus 15:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ellquist[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Delete See previous nom. GreenJoe 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Co-chair of Arizona Green Party. The nom is AfDing, prodding or speedy tagging a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I just saw a lot of non-notable entries in the cat. --GreenJoe 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key words are "could be". That kind of single-party deltion effort cannot be ignored. Not uncivil at all. --Oakshade 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncivil when you put it in multiple afd's. GreenJoe 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Information of a possible deletion agenda should not be kept hidden from other AfDs. All editors can make up their own minds. --Oakshade 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --GreenJoe 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you bringing a straw man into this? I don't see the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:POKEMON arguments being used here. --Oakshade 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, regardless of the "agenda" or lack of one on the part of the nominating editor, AfD discussions should focus on arguments about the article and its suitability for this encyclopedia, not how it ended up here for discussion. Sancho 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. An unsuccessful candidate for county attorney is not notable. Her co-chair status of the Arizona Green Party (which according to the article has only has 2 county organizations) is not relevant and it's not clear that this party has any affiliation with the national one (If it is affiliated, it should probably be deleted as not notable; I note that there are no parallel articles Arizona Democratic Party (except for a stub with a logo) or Arizona Republican Party and surely someone in Arizona votes those ways). Carlossuarez46 22:18, 16 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 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, her political involvement in itself dosn't make her notable, but I think her political activities do. I did some background research on her, and it seems that she is pretty well-known for her anti-death penalty beliefs. *Cremepuff222* 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment quite possibly so, but it's not clear from he article, which just says she had them and campaigned on them. DGG 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning Online[edit]

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

Fairly unclear situation here, so I'm removing the prod (which removed a speedy tag) and taking it to AFD. This article has been around in one form or another since August 2005. Back in March it looked more like this, with some judicious trimming as the websites have gone down, etc. I'm not entirely comfortable with deleting something that was once making news just because the ephemeral web-links are disappearing, so I abstain. -- nae'blis 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain - I replaced the speedy with the prod, but I suspect that the original speedy tag was placed ina WP:POINT tantrum, so I abstain. DarkSaber2k 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - dubious sourcing, probable WP:CRYSTAL violation, about a technology that little is known about and may not either work or exist. Yeah, not so much. Otto4711 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most links lead back to pure speculation and heresay with no factual evidence backing up anything. For example - the link leading to a supposed "legal threat" is nothing more than a link back to a satire or joke website with some "supposed" email text correspondence. Not to mention the fact that the posting of email correspondence on a public forum can be considered a violation of privacy laws and can be grounds for legal action. This page looks like nothing more than an attempt at defaming something or someone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sosoman78 (talk • contribs) circa 13:31-13:35, May 22, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ignoring the amusing legal spat with Something Awful, all signs point to this project being vaporware - nothing's been heard from them since 2005 or so, and the company web site is down - and as the game wasn't particularly notable before then, there's nothing left to write about. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, lacking in proper sources, appears to be close to vaporware. Gwernol 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh University trivia[edit]

Lehigh University trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

trivia from a college forked into its own article. Plenty of trivia articles on more notable subjects have been deleted, and this violates WP:TRIVA and various elements of WP:NOT Biggspowd 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This would be a fantastic sort of article if this were, say, the Trivial Pursuit Study Guide. But, it's Wikipedia, and a trivia guide is something that we are not. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there's anything that notable in there, put it into the Lehigh University article, and not in a trivia section. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The information should be inserted into the Lehigh article-- I remember looking at the Lehigh article a few months ago and it's pretty short compared to many university articles. It could use some expansion.--Gloriamarie 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Someguy1221 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, ye sinners! DS 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sins[edit]

A laundry list with no substantive encyclopaedic content. Reads like an essay or OR (in fact, see bottom of the page, where it says, "Compiled by: Dr Mohan C Thomas" — this article was created by User:Drmohancthomas). Severa (!!!) 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of sins is subject to interpretation and the term is too broad, it would include sins of other religions and of course it is not encyclopedic.--Janarius 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. Nothing in the article is verifed by multiple non trivial sources (not that it could be). The only source listed is the Bible and surely we aren't going to set precedent by allowing articles to exist solely on their connection to biblical passages. My only hope is that this discussion does not degenerate to the point that we are discussing the Bible's merit as a reputable source. --Cyrus Andiron 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is actually borderline A1 speedy material as there is no real context to this article. "Murmuring" is listed as a sin, but what is that supposed to mean? "Discouraged"? What? No context, no article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm afraid I don't trust the bible as a reliable third party source in the slightest, seeing as it's criticized so heavily for its ambiguity and being open to any interpretation. If this stayed, there'd probably be countless edit wars about other sins which might be suggested by the book, depending on how you read the passage (and what translation). And as Arkyan said, if it were much shorter, it would fall under CSD A1. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Penitential, of course.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. WP:OR out the wazooty here -- possible WP:SOAP too, given the article's creator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pink Floyd ROIOs[edit]

List of Pink Floyd ROIOs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. Arbitrary listing of mostly non-notable Pink Floyd bootleg recordings. WP is not a directory listing. Fails WP:MUSIC. The Parsnip! 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Decoratrix 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - quite apart of the suitability of the list, this is pure OR (right down to the "excellent quality" comments). There's a place for this on the internet but not here. (BTW in this context RoIO isn't the same as bootleg - an RoIO is one where the copyright status is unclear, while a bootleg is a known copyvio) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:31, 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. Sr13 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game 5 of 2007 Eastern Conference Finals[edit]

Game 5 of 2007 Eastern Conference Finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Artcile about overtime of a playoff hockey game being preempted for a horse race pre-show. While this is a controversial game for hockey fans, the event (which ended about 4 days ago) really hasn't had enough time to be written and talked about to be really considered significant and notable outside of the hockey community. This game already has a mention over at Heidi game, which seems to be enough for this event. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While this personally infuriated me on Saturday, its not worthy of its own article. A brief mention at 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs might be in order, but that's about it. ccwaters 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RECENT, etc. Mention it at 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, and recreate if anyone at all remembers it in a couple years. BoojiBoy 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Sports Illustrated. This information has no business hanging out in an article on its own and at best belongs within the context of the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per norm Kaiser matias 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per comments of Ccwaters, BoojiBoy and Arkyan. Flibirigit 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above; this places undue weight (never mind the coining of a neologism) on an event that has not, in fact, yet demonstrated any widespread notoriety. (Me, I just flipped the dial to Versus) Fully half the long article discusses unrelated incidents better described in a Preempted sporting events on TV article, presuming Wikipedia doesn't already have one.  RGTraynor  15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' A lot of these events are listed at Heidi Game. It seems there are enough events to make a separate article. Patken4 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the good reasons above. --Djsasso 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. While I have seen at least three reliable sources describing the controversy surrounding this, there really is no reason why this needs it's own article at this point. It can be given a paragraph at 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs and 2006-07 Buffalo Sabres season, though in the case of the latter, I am not sure if the game was preempted in Buffalo itself. Resolute 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Buffalo NBC affiliate stayed with the game. That was mentioned in one of the articles. I wouldn't be surprised if Rochester WHEC stayed on as well. ccwaters 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the game definitely stayed on in Buffalo. In fact, I had no idea this had even happened until I heard Jim Rome talking about it the next day. Skudrafan1 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. GoodDay 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Skudrafan1 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; agree with Resolute above. Elrith 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to bother voting, seems set as to what will happen, but what NBC did was rather stupid in my opinion.--Whstchy 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a poor quality single game article without any of the proper infobox formatting for important games. However, this game is more important than the Heidi game. Actually, the article does not really cover the details of the game very well. It focusses on the controversy. Any decisive Stanley Cup Conference finals game is important enough to warrant an article, if done well. Many merge destinations could contain a synthesis of this poor quality article including 2006-07_Buffalo_Sabres_season, 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)
• Delete. This event has already been added to the Heidi Game article. As RGTraynor says above, it could be added to a new article about sporting events that have been preempted. Patken4 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete haha, oh you poor American hockey fans. The victims of idiocy in the NHL front-office and their suck-uppetry to the apathetic NBC brass, kinda like a nerd doing the jock's homework, blindly hoping that the jock will finally befriend him. You guys can all hike up to here to Canada, where we got so much hockey up our televised wazoo, that they aren't even showing my blasted Blue Jays because of the Memorial Cup... anyways I've had my piece, I vote delete as per all the reasons above and I'm gonna go watch Game 6 of Detroit-Anaheim now without any fear of it being cut off prematurely. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well ... in the network's defense, horse racing is a good bit more popular than hockey is in the US these days. It reminds me vividly of listening to a radio sports show in Hartford where a caller complained that Whalers games were preempted for UConn basketball, and the moderator (Chuck Kaiton, who's been the Hartford/Carolina radio announcer since WHA days) drily responded that a hell of a lot more fans cared about the national champion Huskies than about the Forever .500s.  RGTraynor  13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: And yet the NHL still bows to NBC's every desire. Hmmmmmm.... Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all above. --Pparazorback 23:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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