< May 30	June 1 >

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

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon MacPherson[edit]

Biographical page with no claim of notability. ((prod)) recently removed by anonymous user. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised it's lasted this long in its current state. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Changing to keep per Mwelch/DGG EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming someone with adequate knowledge of the field can clean up the article. It obviously sucks rocks as it stands, but there is a lot of stuff just from a general Google search that seems to indicate he's widely published, cited and recognized. I'd imagine searching the medical literature of the field of immunology, particularly with respect to dendritic cells, would yield results for him that would be more impressive still. I certainly am not qualified to take on the task of adequately describing his work in this article, but perhaps someone else out there is? Mwelch 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched pubmed for articles by "Macpherson G" and got >120 over the past 35 years. He's clearly a solid biomedical scientist - that's not the issue. The issue is that there is no independant reference establishing his notability (also see WP:BIO), nor is there even any claim to notability in the article (e.g. "Widely recognized for his contributions to the field of dendritic cell research") on which which we can base a search for a confirmatory reference. There are tens of thousands of funded researchers in the world, and they can't all have pages sitting on WP, waiting for someone to come up with the right references to show what they did that makes them important. (Note that there are many dozens of co-authors on the breast cancer susceptability paper (recently added to his page), and they are definately not all notable.)-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm looking more specifically at WP:PROF, which (to my very non-expert and very much subject to being wrong) eyes, it appears he meets. I absolutely agree that the article, as it stands, without even a proper assertion of his notability, isn't to be defended. But if he's notable per WP:PROF, then that's cause for the article to be improved, not deleted. At the very worst, the exact phrase you use above could be put into the article. And just in quickly scanning the Google hits, I saw references that could certainly be used to back up that phrase. I saw that his work the basis for a textbook chapter (a notability criterion explicitly cited in WP:PROF). I saw that he's given seminars internationally with regard to dendritic cells. So it looks like the references are there to support that basic claim of notability. The claim and refs just need to be put into the article. The only reason I haven't re-written the article accordingly myself is that I know absolutely nothing of the field and am hopeful someone else can do it better justice. I guess if no one does by AfD close, I'll be happy to give it a whirl. Mwelch 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a direct way to tell, and the basic one we generally use: notability in science is being cited, and he has been the principal author of some exceptionally highly-cited papers: 427, 279, 250, 176, 146 , and fifty-three others, mostly of dendretic immune cells, obviously a hot topic, though not intimately familiar to me. (some of those 120 are other people, & letters & corrections). Even for experimental medicine, where people publish and cite a great many papers, this is remarkable. In addition to his main subject, he is one of the large group involved in a major recent publication on additional breast cancer genes--I can not tell his exact role. As Rustavo say, he is unlikely to be the one in charge, since he's still only the equivalent of an U.S. Associate Professor. If I can figure out who did what, I'll put it in. Other confusions: Despite the (incorrect) link, he is not the Dunn Professor of Pathology, it's just the name of the Institute. The Google search above was curious in its details--there is actually another Gordon Macpherson who edited a medical dictionary that covers, among many other things, immunology, was published by Oxford University Press, and is beings sold on the web by dozens of online book stores. And our guy has posted from his university address to rec.food google groups, and advertised on the web to find a post-doc. Those are the sort of things that get ghits, in addition to the real stuff. Another of these infuriatingly modest pages that don't look like much. Good catch, Mwelch.

Incidentally, I see no reason why there shouldn't be 10,000 articles for scientist bios, just as with musicians or politicians or authors, or athletes. Of the probably about 50,000 active researchers with significant grants (that's a guess, but it's more than 10,000 in the US alone), the top fifth are the notable ones. WP has only a half-way decent sampling of those from the English speaking world, and we have barely begun to start the other areas. We have very few continental European biologists, for example, & the German French and Scandinavian Universities are every bit as good as the Anglo-American ones. DGG 04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment I certainly can't argue with that last sentiment. Since you seem to have taken on the task of fixing up this article, can I ask that you try to include the subject of the highly cited articles-perhaps use review articles that discuss a major finding as references? -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, I will identify some review articles in the citing papers; I seem to have taken on the job of fixing academic bibliographies & showing their significance, but I leave subject editing to those with a more recent knowledge than mine--I last taught the subject over 20 years ago.DGG 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work - the "Annual review of immunology" citation was exactly what was needed. I hope you don't mind that I rewrote your summary a bit. I think we have consensus to close this discussion. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely referenced and cited papers, as DGG points out. I'll let the originating editor know that an article they created is up for AfD, shall I? – B.hotep ^u/_t• 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but all of that information and those citations were added by DGG since this AfD discussion started. I agree that as a result of changes inspired by this discussion, the article now merits a Keep. There is also no need to be rude - I did notify the orginator that his article was proposed for deletion, and I didn't think he needed a second reminder when the deadline was extended though a switch to AfD. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's written or co-written papers that have been cited thousands of times. Passes WP:PROF in his small but extremely important sub-speciality. --Charlene 11:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the House of Valcore[edit]

Fiction, as stated in the article. Contested prod. Kathy A. 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reenactmentcruft with no encyclopedic value. Deor 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No. --Infrangible 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither the reenactment gruop nor its fictional background-story seem to be notable. --Tikiwont 09:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per users above. Recent editors are also causing trouble at Society for Creative Anachronism. --Avery W. Krouse 18:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it completely non-notable, it was copied word-for word from their homepage with no mention of permission. Sci girl 22:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No worthwhile information, and raises notability questions.
Delete as per above. Bearian 00:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Flagot[edit]

This is a hoax. No ghits for the subject of the article or any of the people and places referenced (e.g. the Boris Klarringoffher Mental Asylum). The article is also unreferenced and internally inconsistent, e.g. the subject was born in 1900 and died of acid (?) at the age of 79 - very Burroughs! andy 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Deor 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per nom. Suggest that it is rewritten, expanded and submitted somewhere as a screenplay. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax and for being WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted House Productions[edit]

non-notable production company. Absolutely no assertion of notability per WP:CORP. "Official site" records a whopping 427 hits. *delete I doubt that its a hoax. I looked through the "official site" which is "under construction." It looks like an upstart production company with high hopes but as yet zero notability.—Gaff ^ταλκ 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnotable company producing unnotable films. Google returned 23 hits, most of wich are just copies of this article. The rest dont assert any notability. 99DBSIMLR 11:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morrow Road[edit]

Non-notable independent film that isn't even in production yet. Sources are a dubious-looking "official site", MySpace, and Yahoo. User:DarkAudit has a small genital system, and is gay. DarkAudit 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubiousness of the contributor aside, this just doesn't look up to snuff. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. According to the "official site" this is still at the stage of seeking investors. Deor 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Delete What little info I could find was from the film's website. Nothing from other sources to indicate its anything more than an insignificant indy film. There are a couple semi-notable actors slated to be in it, but that isnt enough to warrant an article while its still in pre-production. 99DBSIMLR 11:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD-A6, plus WP:BLP -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Stokke[edit]

This probably should be speedy deleted, but unfortunately I'm an administrator so I am bringing this here. The article reads like a tacky tabloid about a teenage girl who is above average in appearance, and most definitely fails WP:BLP policy. Burntsauce 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 50 Google News hits. Punkmorten 21:02, 31 May 1970 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I don't see anything that violates BLP in the article, and even exclusive of the internet phenomenon part she's a national record holder in her event. That's gotta count for something. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:04, 31 May 2000 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any reliable published sources that discuss that record separate from being background on the Internet phenomenon? —Centrx→talk • 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further, checking google news archives turns up 52 stories about her before she became an internet phenomenon, mostly focused on her national records. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO requirements. Valrith 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia articles are not simply news reports. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I read WP:BLP I see:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry.

If the reliable sources only cover the person in the context of something else, then a separate biography is probably unwarranted.[...] Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual

Also applicable policy:

News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography.

To summarize: this young lady is notable only for an Internet phenomenon, and a lewd one, at that. Apart from that phenomenon, her personal achievements, while good and respectable, would normally not have obtained a Wikipedia article. I notice that we don't do articles on every student who's particularly gifted in some area (be it pole vaulting or mathematics) and could perhaps one day reach a top career in his field. There does not seem to be any article in non-local newspapers that solely talk of her sports achievements. All articles in national newspapers focus on the Internet phenomenon.

Furthermore, it seems that this desired celebrity hurts her. Thus, following policy, there is every reason to delete. David.Monniaux 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, both the article and this deletion debate were speedy deleted by David.Monniaux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). After discussion on his talk page, I've restored it to run a full term since nothing about this fits the criteria for speedy deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio and stuff. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Florida[edit]

This page seems to be a hodgepodge of information without much of a context. Apparently it's a history of vampires however it's name says "Vampire Florida" so I don't know. It's subject is Vampires and any factually relevant information contained in this page could easily be put into articles relating to Vampires however most of this information seems to be nonsensical so a merger is out of the question. I recommend deleting this page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save everyone the trouble of reading this rubbish - it's a copyright violation of an essay-writing website so I've marked it for speedy deletion. andy 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Tracey[edit]

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent Irish election who has held no publically elected office and doesn't seem to meet any other notability criteria Valenciano 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed candidates with no other claim to fame don't make the cut. Nick mallory 00:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if deleted, this could be used as a redirect to the much more famous politician Seán Treacy. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a major politician with significant press coverage, hasnt held office, fails WP:BIO for politicians. 99DBSIMLR 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Nico Kasanda. KrakatoaKatie 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Docteur Nico[edit]

The article Nico Kasanda is about the same person and much better-written Katharineamy 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --ROASTYTOAST 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge. There is very little to merge though... The other, older, article really is much better. --Merzul 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per nom. Closenplay 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cristin McCauley[edit]

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent Irish election who doesn't hold any elected office and doesn't appear to satisfy any notability criteria Valenciano 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The very few results in google's news archive aren't very encouraging. For a politician I would demand more, else I doubt how this can ever be expanded beyond the current one sentence. Feel free to ignore my comment, if somebody manages to significantly expand this entry using reliable sources. --Merzul 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Precedent shows unsuccessful candidates aren't notable. Nick mallory 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roadside G's[edit]

prod was removed with no real changes to the article. Still no idea why this group is wiki worthy and the controversy with the TV station is confusing and arguably not notable. Plus the link to Channel U leads to disamb page and I have no clue to which page it belongs to. There are no sources whatsoever, not even to a myspace page or their own website. Without any source of verification, I have no idea if this is even a real group. I should not have to provide sources - the author should. Postcard Cathy 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything redeemable here. --Infrangible 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like self-glorification. The article makes them out to be some kind of music collective (without specifically saying so), but the Brixton article says they are a gang who are "mainly responsible for the high level of drive-by shootings in and around Brixton". Google does give hits suggesting they might be musicians, but they only seem to have put out white label releases. CLW 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable band. Possibly WP:SPAM. Probably WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 04:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuddles Show[edit]

Author deleted my prod without addressing my concerns: This is a cable access show in a small city/large town that may get no more than a few thousand viewers if that. But we don't know if it even gets that much. Vanity page and/or fan page. Postcard Cathy 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Public access is last generation's YouTube. "Widespread" is in quotes, so it's apparent there's not much coverage at all. DarkAudit 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks reliable independent secondary sources, thus failing WP:N. Google search for "The Cuddles Show" gives only 8 links, none leading to "independent" results. There are no hits on Google News or Google News Archive. ikh (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete because I did address the concers these people had, I already defended my arguement, this is not an advertisement, and last I checked, what you think the show's viewerbase is doesn't justify it being removed.Thecuddmancometh 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you added this article in good faith, however, I still have a concern regarding the shows notability. Take a close look at WP:N, esp. the part about reliable independent secondary sources. I could not find any online, nor hint of any (see my "delete" opinion above). If you know of any (especially if the "show has received widespread acclaim and mention local newspapers"), it would be very nice if they would be added to the article. If you manage to find them and add them to the article, I would be willing to change my vote. ikh (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an article from a newspaper in "external links" Thecuddmancometh 12:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You sourced one article in a local newspaper with limited circulation. That hardly equals widespread acclaim. Postcard Cathy 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient reliable sources. A single local paper article isn't enough. -- Whpq 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -non-notable... for now. Good luck and maybe some day.... Sethie 05:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeddah Gallery[edit]

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files files; these images would be more appropriate being on Wikimedia Commons and linked from the main article, Jeddah. -- tariqabjotu 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Send somewhere else - but don't delete the content. It would be a shame to so many interesting images because we can't find a place for them. --Haemo 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, we are not discussing deletion of the actual images themselves, only the specific article here which displays them as a gallery. The images will still exist on Wikipedia or Commons, as they do now, and can be incorporated into other articles as appropriate. -- Satori Son 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an image repository -- Whpq 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, which states "Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." -- Satori Son 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. IronGargoyle 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs covered by the band Pearl Jam[edit]

Playing a cover song at a concert is not particularly notable. Any notable recordings of another artist's song by Pearl Jam should be noted in the article for that song and in a Pearl Jam discography. Otto4711 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable --Speed Air Man 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pearl Jam has gained some notoriety for the songs they have covered, as should be evident by the sheer number that makes up the list. It also serves as a sort of counter-discography of songs that the band plays (some regularly), and is a very handy tool for discerning what is in fact NOT a pearl Jam song. Perhaps the focus should not be to delete the article, but to clean it up with notes on frequency of play/ETC. Many of these songs ARE purchasable on commercially available "bootlegs", and therefore are part of the official Discography. The fact that the band records and sells just about every show they have conducted would make coming up with a truly viable and accurate discography VERY difficult. BUT to that end, perhaps this list should be integrated with the Pearl Jam Discography page? (although doing that would likely case that article to become too large, and it would be recomended that it be split into several articles). I could write a ton more reasons, but I fear that soon someone will figure out that I'm not really working right now. Cstella23 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC) - addendum, the person who nominated this for deletion seems to just go willy nilly nominating things for deletion (see his talk page) Bear that in mind before you make this go away.[reply]

First off, words like "willy nilly" indicate a failure to assume good faith and are not civil. Second, you make my point for me when you note that some of the songs are part of the Pearl Jam discography. Those songs should definitely be in the discography instead of being split off into a list of any song that the band happened to play at some point. Otto4711 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are right about the willy nilly, very sorry. Additionally, I have looked into the deletion process a bit more, and it is nice to see that due process is being followed, and that there is legitimate debate on both sides. Cstella23 16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. This is helpful, and our excellent popular culture coverage is one of the key strengths of Wikipedia. It would be nice if songs that are on official bootlegs would be sourced in some way. Currently, this article lacks references, I mean can I just add my favourite song here, if I put some random obscure concert in my edit summary? There are verifiability problems, but the list itself seems very nice. See also List of songs covered by Dream Theater, another band notable for their covers. --Merzul 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs covered by Jimi Hendrix along with similar nominations for similar lists for Phish, Limp Bizket and Genesis. The existence of the Dream Theater article does not justify the existence of this one. Otto4711 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted, my vote was not quite so informed. I didn't realize there was a general drive to get rid of these lists. I don't think I have an opinion on this issue, as I'm not a pop-culture editor myself, but I appreciate the effort people put into these things, and I think they add some charm to Wikipedia. While I think this is rather harmless fun, in fear of any further pipped links, such as this, I withdraw my vote. (Just kiddin, I didn't feel intimidated, I changed my vote because it was a convincing reply). --Merzul 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a little troubled by this one. There is obviously a precedent for deleting these lists & if Hendrix doesn't fly, then neither will Pearl Jam nor that other band you mentioned...Still, the argument that much of this is verifiable, by being on a bootleg playlist or part of the official discography is compelling. The argument as well that it cannot be seamlessly incorporated into the Discography article also makes sense. This information, though it may seem "un-encyclopedic" to some is really, really interesting to others. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's not just a question of verifiability. Some of this is apparently verifiable, although none of the line items in the article are sourced. The bigger concern for me is notability. Any actual notable covers, for instance those that are officially or "semi-officially" available as recordings, should be on the discography. There's no need for a separate article from the discography for notable covers, and without the notable covers there's really no grounds for the article. Otto4711 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are up against an agreed upon definition of notability to apply to these sorts of lists. I was surprised to see that the list of Hendrix songs went down so decisively, as that could be of interest to many people. However, I did just vote to delete the list of left handed people on the argument that WP is not a directory. This feels about the same. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since they have covered more songs than they have written by a factor of 50:1, wouldn't this oficially make P.J. a cover band? --Infrangible 03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely over-the top unencyclopaedic information. Better suited to a Pearl Jam fansite. - fchd 05:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too trivial for an encyclopedia. I'm also having trouble seeing how this could be sourced, I assume the info has been added by fans who have heard a cover in a live show. Pax:Vobiscum 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to merge it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomalak[edit]

Minor character in the second Star Trek television series. No notability nor any assertion of any. Appeared in 4 out of the 150+ episodes that were made. Valrith 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of minor Next Gen characters per WP:FICT. Otto4711 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto4711. --mordicai. 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. JJL 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Dunno if it needs to be said again, but there's only three votes so... Goodnight mush^Talk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May only have appeared in 4 episodes, but AFAIK is the only Romulan character to ever appear in more than one. Plus, appearance in the last episode at least suggests that the writers felt the character was important. JulesH 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sela (Star Trek) appeared in multiple episodes, for what it's worth. Otto4711 15:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Otto4711. Clearly notable enough for Memory Alpha, but per WP:FICT doesn't meet notability in the same way that Sarek, for instance, does. --Charlene 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wc3 Banlist[edit]

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

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

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

Website is not notable number29^(Talk) 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved this comment from the top of the page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)) DO NOT DELETE This article is completely valid. How about discussing before throwing out random deletions of well informed articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikernum1 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete, this piece of software doesn't have any coverage in reliable sources, so it fails Wikipedia's notability criterion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Tens of thousands of users use this software everyday. It is written under the GNU General Public License and if you view Banlist.nl forums, you will have +10000 users who can vouch for the software. User:spikernum1 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment w3banlist is not under the GPL licence.Esby 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, do you have sources to prove this? The number of people using a piece of software does not make it notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable. Creating editor seems to be confusing notability with popularity. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as I've already done once today. No ascertation of notability, no reliable sources. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It was speedy deleted earlier for being non-notable, and it is still non-notable. Acalamari 22:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. When there is a DotA topic the banlist must be inlcuded. You can delete both but these two things just have to go hand in hand. 2. This tool is used by many thousands. 3. Why are their no reiable sources ? if it is necesarry we can show you some prove how much the banlist is used (but i think your decision is already made; sad but probaby true) 4. btw why do you just delete the topics and don't propper notify the creators? kinda strange. - - - . 5.Maybe we can solve this - if you don't see our point - by moving our hard work to the DotA Allstars Topic and get a section there(in the german version there already is such a section as far as i know) (User:Georgschm)* — Georgschm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You need to have reliable sources to show how the banlist are notable, reliable sources are things such as newspaper articles. (Read the two blue links I've give you to show what I mean). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- what about point 5 ? I will seach for any of such reliable prove
Speedy delete it's been deleted before, and nothing's changed since then. JeffyP 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As "DotA" seems so fulfill that requirements Banlist should fulfill it, too... I guess you can ask most persons regarding DotA that you would call "reliable": The wc3banlist is one of the usually used tools in the Battle.net and got downloaded already 1442237 times... What do you suggest to do to prove the reliability of that tool/community? Antragon — Antragon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- What constitutes reliable sources on Wikipedia is defined here. And bringing up the fact that Defense of the Ancients has an article is not a reason to have an article on this piece of software. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trying to discuss with people only interested in reliability is futile.
Wc3banlist is obviously failing the wikipedia criterii. If the goal of such article is to inform potentials users, then banlist.nl is already doing this job, no need to waste time and resources here in an futile encyclopedic sourced quest.
Wikipedia goals after all are not to inform and give useful information to people (and potential users), those are to have reliable and sourced articles with the direct consequence that what do not fit theses criterii do not exist.
Anyway, the only 'keep' supporters are members of the banlist community, so this poll is biased Esby 08:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are these pages of other anti-cheat tools notable? Choac DMW Anticheat GameGuard Valve Anti-Cheat. Is the information provided there much more reliable than it is in this article? Deflator 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC) — Deflator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep good point from Deflator and your still not going into my suggestion at any point to get a section at the thread like it is in the german version. If you have your rules - and i respcet that - then it must apply to all and all equal. And please some Mods or what you call yourselfe here seem to help us and that is very kind of you. But others just throw in the rulez in a not helping and maybe even rude way. Georgschm — Georgschm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Neutral If it would be ok to have some information included in the dota-article itself with links to extern information-pages, it might be ok to delete that article here... Antragon

~~Keep~~ How is Messenger_Plus! (which contains a Wikipedia article) any different than Wc3Banlist? It is a tool used to improve MSN Messenger. Banlist is a tool to improve Wc3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikernum1 (talk • contribs)
- Your vote doesn't count twice. Also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; just because other software have articles doesn't means yours is worthy of one. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:OR to me, I can't find any reliable sources, so it fails WP:V, also I think this falls under WP:NOT. As currently written, it also clearly fails WP:NPOV. The only major policy it fails to violate is WP:BLP. Studerby 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as game instructions and as OR. DGG 03:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Banlist helps alot around Battle.Net. It is notable to be on Wikipedia. —comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 20:26, 2-June, 2007 year (UTC).
- Then show how it meets Wikipedia:Notability, because I still don't see it. Something being useful is not a reason it should have an article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why no? We used to have it on DotA Allstars page, but it was deleted because of "clean-up". I can understand that wasting space in external links is not good. But why instead not create article for it? —comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 21:31, 3-June, 2007 year (UTC).
    - Because something that may be useful doesn't always meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources about this piece of software. no notability, no article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Imo, the main problem is that the notability criteria. If you play custom games on battle.net, or are related to it, it will be not difficult to have never heard of banlist, if you are not playing, then you'll have no reason to even have heard of it. This is just like a specialized field. Banlist fails wikipedia notability criteria, but is notabile around battle.net. The missing 'reliable' sources is kinda classic and usual for articles that are on recents and modern subjects.Esby 15:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've sprotected this sockfest fiasco. Hopefully someone will come up with some references that mention this piece of software. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:NN.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Emo Girl[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Cites no sources, has no Google hits, and appears to have been made up at school one day. Was previously prod'd, and seconded, but template was removed without comment. Should be deleted with extreme prejudice.Haemo 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks made up in school to me. --mordicai. 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious WP:NFTism here seeing as it turns up absolutely bupkis on Google. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin TV[edit]

Non-notable local cable network that is now defunct. Corvus cornix 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a German cable channel/network serving a part of South Florida that never got off the ground and received little press. I found one news reference with three or four paragraphs, but that seems to be about it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the channel's now defunct and practically appeared and disappeared without a trace, then it should be removed -- or at the least, recategorised as a defunct channel. The article's author, Oschaper, has been generally defensive of anyone editing his articles, practically of stations that he owns that you haven't heard from anywhere else, ohere than here at Wikipedia. -- azumanga 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sources and pruning provided. - Richfife 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine National Heroes[edit]

List is unverifiable opinion of editors and definite edit war bait. If an article of this type is not based on the opinions of an official entity like this one is: National heroes of Nepal, it really shouldn't stay. - Richfife 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdraw nomination - Lenticel has done an excellent job of finding sources that justify the article. Hats off! - Richfife 17:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep If the list of heroes was handed to wikipedia from an external source (as with the Nepalese heroes mentioned by the nom), then it would be something. As it stands, this is the epitome of original research and it is inherently POV. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference/source for the list from the Phillipine Congress has been provided (see below). Now that an external source is identified, I am more inclined to vote keep. It is no longer unmainatable "cruft."—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reeks of WP:OR, and agreed, major edit war bait. Whs itc hy 20:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who defines who a national hero is, and will they have agreement from everyone else? Far too broad a spectrum of possibilities here, and unreferenced to boot. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Whsitchy Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced original research. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the list was based here. Its origin seems to be questionable[6]

Selection of Phil. national heroes can be gleaned here. Which came form the Phil. congress [7] I believe they have some recommended (and short) list of national heroes as well.

I'm torn between deleting the article as a Wikipedian and keeping it as a Filipino. I hope with these resources, you could come up with a more enlightened decision. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable list, potential cruft.Blueboy 96 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I started the article but I don't have time for it right now... too busy at the moment!... what ever the decision... I have no problem... but if there's someone generous to help develop the article you are welcome!... peads 04:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the first source, the second source contradicts it, and is from the actual government. Staying as delete. Whs itc hy 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll overhaul the whole thing using only the second and official reference. Hopefully it'll prevent the article into becoming an edit war battleground. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that list is sourced to official government proclamation. --Charlene 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up the list. In particular, keep only those historical figures that always figure prominently in historical texts and in educational textbooks, and remove everyone else (I haven't even heard of the other, supposed national heroes). (Rizal, Bonifacio and their contemporaries would count.) --- Tito Pao 12:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Devils[edit]

this article is about 13 months old and orphaned almost as long. It asserts that the team is all star but doesn't list them or reference sources that could back up that assertion. If it was truly an all star team, the author would have lots more to say than a few sentences but he hasn't; there would be thousands if not millions of news reports to back up what he says, but none are listed; and like truly all star teams like the NY Yankees, there would be links to the team. I see none of this here. Postcard Cathy 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the term 'all-star team' may indicate that the team is made up of 'stars' from other teams, thus making that the correct term, this article still violates WP:V & WP:N. Maintainerzero 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, I thought of that. But the point is still the same: We don't know who the team members are so we don't know if it is used that way or the fact that their team is just stellar! Postcard Cathy 21:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This even seems made up. Google has only Wikipedia spawned information to offer. Our article on Anil Kumble doesn't mention this club, which I would consider a major omission, if such a club ever existed. Now, even if this club exists, it is certainly not notable. --Merzul 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention from reliable sources about this team on the search engine. Hence it's not notable. Had it really played against another team, it could have been listed on an Indian sports newspaper, but it isn't.--Kylohk 15:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. Timmer[edit]

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord-Amon (talk • contribs) 2007-05-31 19:22:02

Delete The rationale above (copied from CSD G11) is invalid, but I think it's not notable. Likewise for the related article In Times of War. YechielMan 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS, WP:NN come to mind.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. -- Satori Son 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (group) by User:TexasAndroid. Non admin closure. Have a good weekend. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trois-Pistoles (Hockey Team)[edit]

A rec league hockey team is not notable. WP:NOT for things made up, etc. BoojiBoy 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adult rec league teams don't pass WP:ORG or any other notability guideline. ccwaters 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 19:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For pity's sake, this is a team in a local Senior B no-check rec league. I wouldn't even consider a local arena league notable were it stuffed with NHLers (a common practice in the summers in this neck of the woods, actually). RGTraynor 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the obvious reasons above. --Djsasso 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a rec league? Oh dear. Not even close to notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. First time I've seen a sports team named after a beer that Unibrou puts out. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Pparazorback 14:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by someone else. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z-lectrics[edit]

Reason for nomination. "-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant, who is Pete?
Do not cite sources? What is Z-electric?
It looks like a infantile vandalism

Delete Totally pointless article. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree w/ above. Obvious article-spam. Maintainerzero 19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Not sure how it got listed on the AfD page. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kra (band)[edit]

Clearly fails WP:BAND, and the article has been tagged to cite sources since April, but has yet to cite any reliable ones (obscure fansites do not count). Their label is non-notable, and it would not appear that they have any charted hits. In short, they do not satisfy any of the criteria listed at WP:BAND.-- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per requirements in WP:BAND. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete Keep only if someone can come up with some reliable sources to back up the article's claims. Closenplay 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Käpylehmä[edit]

Unsourced article that has remained in situ largely unedited for some time. I believe that the article should be deleted as it is no more than a dictionary entry with no notability claimed - thus fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bigdaddy1981 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Contested deletion by the way, so here we are. Bigdaddy1981 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Copy to Wiktionary, and perhaps WP:USERFY and redirect, since there's some sort of notoriety (not necessarily notability). -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly people do make these things. Here is a picture of them doing it. Here's another. The question is whether they've documented the history and cultural significance of these figurines somewhere, so that we have sources to work from. I'm still looking for sources. Uncle G 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, its not a hoax and I was also able to find photos of the items and people making them; however, I could find no sources documenting their historical or cultural significance - if someone can find some I'd gladly change my view. Bigdaddy1981 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
semi-keep - The information is worthy of inclusion, but maybe not it's own article? Maybe Wiktionary like wizzard says? Zab 06:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a Finn I can vouch for the authenticity of these things. Also, I wouldn't recommend dumping these to Wiktionary since they're more of an encyclopedic subject, not something that would belong to a dictionary. --ざくら木 13:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if references can be added--slightly more in-depth than a dictionary entry would be. Appears to be notable in Finland, hence the interwiki link. Is there a guideline regarding notability in terms of articles being English translations of notable foreign-language subjects? And is it permissible to use Finnish-language references, if English ones can't be found? I don't think this would be appropriate for wiktionary. Otherwise merge with conifer cone, expanding on the information that is already there. Katr67 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly people do make these things, but why on earth do they warrant a Wikipedia article? They don't have any such cultural or historical significance. Elrith 13:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could use some sources though. --Stlemur 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was created (translated from finnish wikipedia actually) in 2005 and no sources ever added to date. Deleting this unsourced and quite vestigial stub will not prevent future editors (perhaps someone above?) creating a properly sourced article on this topic if it should merit it. Bigdaddy1981 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, more references would be better. I disagree with the reasoning at [8] - obviously putting a stick in a pinecone doesn't make something notable, but if lots of people do this, it has a name for it, and there are reliable sources documenting it, then it's notable no matter how stupid the toy seems. Mdwh 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Company (magazine)[edit]

Propose Delete on grounds of spam and non-notability. --Gavin Collins 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems to me that the article is a little spammy in sections, the fact that "…Fast Company was sold to Gruner & Jahr USA, a division of media giant Bertelsmann, for $350 million…" means that it must have been notable to someone. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 18:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - created as part of a disambiguation, it has its own merits as an article. 227 NYT mentions. Several profiles. See: [9], [10], and [11] as examples. Jokestress 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful as part of disambiguation if nothing else, but also has some encyclopedic merit. Maintainerzero 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable publication. We even have an article on a parody of it! JavaTenor 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a significant publication that should be covered by an article. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly notable and easily passes any number of standards. Eusebeus 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per above arguments. --JayJasper 14:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm surprised this article is as thin as it is, given the splash that this magazine made at its debut and the way it has shaken up business reporting. I am a long time subscriber, it is for sale in every airport bookshop I've seen, even the small ones, so its subscription numbers must be quite high, making it a very notable American business magazine. Scarykitty 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Scarykitty. --Djsasso 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Foods Canada Ltd.[edit]

Propose delete on grounds of (non-) notability. Is there a Canadian in the house who can give me a steer on this one? --Gavin Collins 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Gavin Collins 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable, I doubt there are many Canadians who haven't heard of them. BoojiBoy 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember this brand -- it was a major brand -- and I was 8 when I emigrated. Sci girl 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable, used to be one of my favorite brands *smiles*. More seriously, was widely available where I live, I assume finding reliable sources should not be a problem, at least in the business press. Maegara 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly the most well known dairy company in the country. --Djsasso 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Keep. Canadian version of the late great conglomerate, Beatrice Foods, who we found out about after some massive advertising campaign in which they told us we've known them all along. Very notable and even the subject of many a weird joke. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the standard laid out at WP:CORP. Eusebeus 00:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National Brand in Canada, about the same importance as the US parent company Beatrice Foods, the brand is still in use in Canada. --M@sk 05:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by someone. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Aird[edit]

Notability not asserted. Vanity. Decoratrix 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable as per WP:BIO Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, clearly outside guidelines of WP:BIO— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maintainerzero (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A1. So tagged... The Sunshine Man 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Hass[edit]

Reason ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this hoax. Decoratrix 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see why Carolfrog did not include a reason for deletion. Article is totally a hoax and should not be considered credible under any circumstances. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Comment. You guys are speedy. I forgot to include my reason, but had an edit conflict, so here it is: This article is likely a hoax. "Hass" is a type of avocado, which may be related to the "salsa" line. The other apparent jokes in the text don't bode well for it being a legitimate item of folklore, either. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that A Hass is probably someone's friend from Ontario, note the last phrase in the article, and he uses those terms "bad news bears" and "nancy pants" frequently so they thought it would be funny. Gave me a good laugh but not supposed to be on Wikipedia. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. The creator of the article has a warning on his talk page for creating the nonsense article Pulling a Hass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), so I don't think this one is any more verifiable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Please put this in the correct place so it can be deleted now, instead of in a week. KP Botany 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for speedy deletion specifically exclude hoaxes. The assertion of folklore status put it outside patent nonsense (G1), to my mind. But I would not object to an administrative snowball close. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ah, well, people can assert anything. Still, I see your point, and can't take issue with your being careful. KP Botany 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the criteria may preclude hoaxes, but this is just utter nonsense, and that *does* fall under speedy. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imminent Psychosis[edit]

I am proposing deletion since the band seems non-notable. They have one self-released album, no national tours, no charted hits; and no independent reliable sources are given in the article. (Only some webzines are quoted, incompletely.) Hence they fail WP:MUSIC. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC to be notable. Could be kept only if they were to list more sources and provide proof of notablility Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Decoratrix 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The founders don't even have surnames on first reference? Gimme a break, this isn't Myspace. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 23:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and ors. Does not meet WP:MUSIC and looking around the web for information which would help demonstrate they meet the criteria. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Orderinchaos 11:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after a quick look, they don't seem to be notable. Lankiveil 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:MUSIC fan-band-cruft.Ga rr ie 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesnt meet the criteria in WP:BAND. John Vandenberg 08:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a light-colored delete. Krimpet (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles with "Darker" in them[edit]

This list seesm frankly bizarre and un-necessary. Its not realy a disambig page. Not sure what to make of it. Someboy placed a ((prod)) on it, but that was removed with protest to talk page. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will we next have articles for list of titles with "lighter", "beige", "limburger", in their title? Its totally arbitrary to have a page like this, as it is not what set list articels are about. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - completely indiscriminate directory based on the coincidence of name. Otto4711 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is a totally pointless article. Who would ever want to know this information and why would it be pertinant? Also, it would be impossible to keep up with this list through maintainence as titles for movies, books, etc. are constantly being released. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a set index article, but rather listcruft. Or, maybe, it is The Darker Side of Nonsense. --B. Wolterding 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG MEGA UBER ULTRA KEEP!: How is this article any different than any other list or disambiguation page that has a list of links to articles containing the page's name? Stop being hypocritical, people. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Those articles are useful (or they too need to be deleted). This article is arbitrary and not useful, as mentioned in the comments section of my nom. There is nothing hypocritical about this. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. Arbitrary relative/according to who? Not to me. I could argue every single article on Wikipedia is "arbitrary". ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that is probably why you created this article in the first place: to disrupt the work that is done on Wikipedia for the sake of a point that it seems only you feel necessary to make. But hey, this article's deletion will give you something else to blog about, right? —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having a list of things with "darker" in their titles is unneeded. A separate article should not be created; it's not encyclopedic. -- JHunterJ 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says the consensus of Wikipedia editors. When you are the only one arguing a point, Eep, to the dgree that you are getting blocked and listed for RfC, its maybe time to reconsider your position. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is neither a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page as none of the listed subjects is commonly known as "Darker," nor a justified list under Wikipedia:List guideline. The section WP:SIA#Set_index_articles, which User:Eep² cited as justification for keeping this article on the talk page, needs to be re-worded or removed. The definition of "set index article" that's currently at WP:SIA#Set_index_articles appears to imply that we can use any ol' "index"--including the criterion of having the word "Darker" in the title--to define a "set" that will be the topic of a Wikipedia page. The results are pages like these. Pan Dan 19:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, we have to ignore all rules and exercise common sense. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IronGargoyle 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz clubs[edit]

Nominating per DRV discussion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jazz clubs. Note to admins: Do not speedy close this. Allow it to run for its entire course to build sufficient consensus. Srikeit 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think its worth repeating that the addition of locations to this article brings it more in line with the precedence set by longer-existing and as-yet uncontested articles such as List of opera houses and List of indoor arenas. WP should be accessible to the masses, and lists such as these make it so. As a non-jazz fan, this is the only way I would access these articles. Looking up tedious amounts of embedded categories is for researchers - not general users. WP should be accessible. - Freechild 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Keep. - Freechild 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm betting this is going to turn into a heated list vs category debate. I think that this list is in keeping with precendents mentioned by Freechild. Some might have bias against jazz clubs as less high-brow than an opera house. I could see this list turning into a great big red-link farm, if people try to add in every non-notable jazz club in their neighborhood. However, with a little maintenance to avoid that, the list would be of notable jazz clubs. Definitely can be categorized as cool.—Gaff ^ταλκ 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much different than a list of bars that feature XXX genre of music and not more useful. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Make it into Category:Jazz clubs. What purpose does a list serve? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created Category:Jazz clubs specifically to contrast with List of jazz clubs. One is clearly useful, the other is clearly hard-to-use. This list makes WP easier to use. - Freechild 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A list frequently shows more information than a category page (in this case, the city and state in which the club is located) or can be organized in a more helpful manner. The additional information makes the list useful in a way that a category never could be. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as list is limited to notable jazz clubs. Should also be organized by location, rather than alphabetically. DHowell 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I re-organized the list according to location, as per DHowell's suggestion. - Freechild 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Although "handy" I am not convinced a list is the answer to everything. For now give it a chance to mature.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially as it is now -- splitting by Geography, this could be a very useful list. Jazz clubs are historical locations, and their geogrpahic distribution is signifigant, since they started in an era where communication of musical ideas was taking place in these locations as much if not more than it ws on records. This is valuable to the layperson and to researchers. Blueswalk 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a spammy delete. Sr 13 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoanimation[edit]

Neologism and/or spam. The article itself states The term ¨Infoanimation¨ was coined recently by Graphite Media, which confirms this is a neologism. Also appears to be promotion for Graphite Media; a company that specialises in creating 3D animations and recently launched a project - a subscription-based service, providing 3D multimedia content on current news, mainly hi-tech to TV channels, and the external links section contains their link twice. The article was created by a single-purpose account. Masaruemoto 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Masaruemoto. Seems like the company is just trying to coin a term to boost their product line. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Consider a speedy as spam. DarkAudit 20:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Clever spam; The worst sort. --mordicai. 21:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was it appears the nom has withdrawn the nomination by voting keep. Non-admin closure. Whs itc hy 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar (song)[edit]

As stated in the "article" - this is rumor. I can find no source about any future release as a single. Looks like WP:CRYSTAL to me and based on the creator's User Talk Page there is a history of article creations that have been deleted for non-notability and lack of sources. - eo 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article definitly fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rumor and not fact does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTALPlm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snow delete and break its strings~~ Keep ~~even the album is redlinked.~~ Proof of existence shown. Whs itc hy 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Decoratrix 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with all due haste.!!! —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ^^^ [url]http://www.prince.org[/url] look at the Guitar arcticle, theres even been a video filmed - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumandraisin (talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 May 2007
- Comment That is a fan site, not the official site, so it is not a valid source. Whs itc hy 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see WP:CRYSTAL. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment www.3121.com (Princes OFFICIAL SITE) states it to be the first single — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumandraisin (talk • contribs) 06:47, June 1, 2007
- Comment Please sign next time with ~~~~. Changing vote per new evidence. Whs itc hy 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least in its current state, it doesn't make any unverified predictions; the two sources cited seem official enough (i.e. not fansite speculation), and as for notability, Prince is certainly notable enough that any release of his is notable. If this gets deleted, it will just be re-created in a few months, with someone having to take the trouble of entering tedious infobox information again. Rigadoun (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep - as long as proper sources are shown and the "rumored to be a single" language is removed from the article, this should stay. I see the article heading in that direction and this is a good thing. - eo 19:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is officially the first single to be released soon. Andrew Eng 20:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to already being out in some form. Zeality 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pow La Don[edit]

Contested prod. It is my contention that this page is a hoax. Evidence: the "official site" linked is in fact the official site of Jim Jones, the Dipset website linked has no evidence of this person's existence, and the "official Myspace" is a private profile. All Google hits I could find appeared to be Wikipedia or Myspace-related. JavaTenor 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is claimed to be an upcoming album by this artist:

Delete, if real utterly unnotable despite claims. And you meant Jim Jones (rapper), surely. --Dhartung | Talk 16:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. :) Fixed! JavaTenor 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete album as well. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have him as a friend on myspace. i will try & message him.71.54.29.33 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - could be that he is on the same label as Jim Jones and he is mentioned somewhere in the site even though I could not find anything. Also, check Miami's Best (album)|this page]] in conjunction with the rapper. Perhaps we should wait for more people to weigh in. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added the album to this nomination as well. I would note that the google results are not especially promising. JavaTenor 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on Google, and the fact that his own purported label doesn't have any mention of him on their page from what I can find, fits the very definition of lack of notability (WP:Bio). Maintainerzero 20:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I know who is signed and who isn't. This is a punk kid, just pranking or trying to be cool. He has nothing to do with DipSet and his page and his album should be deleted. He doesn't exist, his official site is to Jim Jones' and his MySpace is a random Akon song. DELETE THIS PLEASE (WP:Bio).harlempiff 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. If not a hoax (not likely, but still...), he's not notable yet and the page can be re-created. Closenplay 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is it just me, or is every single article in Category:Bloods chock-full of unverifiable and potentially libellous material? RFerreira 09:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson DUI incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I can't believe people still believe it is alright to have an article on a mishap of a famous celebrity, who has no significances other than Hollywood actor.The way I see it, this article is either deleted or we create an article on the Michael Richards incident, the time Britney spears shaved her head, etc, because this article is not notable at all. Rodrigue 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meh, but he's one of the top movie stars in the world and this is widely perceived to have affected his career at some level. It's exceptionally well sourced. I don't know that it needs to be as detailed as it is but it's too much to merge back into Mel Gibson. Note that it wasn't the "mishap" but the "didn't-hafta-hap" part that was controversial. In H'wood these days a DUI per se is a rite of passage. --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Keeping for non valid argument, and it is sort of notable. Whs itc hy 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major incident not because it's a DUI of a major actor, or even the cursing: the anti-Semitism makes it notable. Multiple reliable sources, too big to merge-- I'd say this is the perfect example of something that should be split off. Ab e g92contribs 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is kind of notable. The size of the incident is in a sense what makes it notable. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning is spurious, and an anti-Semitic episode from a person with a history of such behavior/attitudes is indeed notable enough to warrant its own article. This thing went way beyond a "mishap". Tarc 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is so notable it needs its own article rather than putting an WP:UNDUE amount by merging all this with Mel Gibson. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Mel Gibson- The nominator, User:Rodrigue, had previously nominated Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy for deletion for pretty much the same rationale. That article was kept and the various rationales given for keeping that article can be applied to keeping this one. (Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy for details.) (Note: I am NOT invoking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS here. I'm comparing two similar nominations where the same "keep" arguments apply.) Basically, this Mel Gibson incident may not be particularly important or historical and certainly doesn't have global ramifications, but it is notable and so it ought to be either kept or, perhaps, merged in with the main article on Mel Gibson. (Also, based on the several AfD nominations the nominator has done on articles similar to this, each time using the same rationale, I respectfully suggest that he look back over Wikipedia's policy on notability, specifically how "notability" is not the same thing as "importance.") --Hnsampat 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well since you just compared this with another nomination I did, then you should know I also started the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anna Nicole Smith page, and the Death of Anna Nicole Smith article was deleted for exactly the reasons I'm saying this should be deleted, so forget about your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and don't use a persons history to prove your point. Rodrigue 19:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not take offense at what I was saying. I was merely noting the similarity of a previous deletion discussion with this one, and the similiarities of the nomination rationales thereof. I do believe that the arguments put forth in the previous discussion are relevant to this one. Also, my humble suggestion that you look back over WP:N was merely meant as a friendly gesture, based on my observation that you have nominated two articles for deletion in a short period of time based on this same notability rationale and that both discussions either were or are shaping up to be snowball keeps. Certainly, the consensus favored your rationale in the case of the Death of Anna Nicole Smith article, but the consensus opposed your rationale for the article mentioned above and appears to oppose your rationale here. I would not have made the suggestion had I known you would take offense at it. Please assume good faith on my part. --Hnsampat 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still notable, and the nominator's claim that Gibson's notability is only as an actor is a bit of a WP:POV judgement call if I may say so. Regardless, this was an event that continues to have fallout months later and continues to be invoked whenever similar incidents (such as Michael Richard's tirade) occur. Therefore it has transcended from being a single event to being an archetype. As such it is notable enough for its own article in the same way the Super Bowl article should exist. The fact this incident was cited by the media frequently during the Richards and Spears incidents cited by the nominator support the fact that it has moved into a higher echelon of notability. 23skidoo 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, Gibson is famous, notable and influencial for good or ill. His actions garnered international media attention and the attention of governments both foreign and domestic as well as various prominent NGOs. (RookZERO 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep clearly notable. JJL 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well if this event is notable, then I guess noone would object to an article on the michael richards incident being created, which is actually more notable.Unlike this event, it was referenced in popular culture (in the south park episode With apologies to Jesse Jackson), and it had a direct long term effect (the laugh factory banned the use of the n word afer the incident), and it had just as much, if not more of a media frenzy surrouding it. Rodrigue 23:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this event can and should be covered in the Mel Gibson article, it does not merit an article of its own. If it is kept, I hope that someone eventually will be bold enough to merge. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable to me. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a huge story and his anti-semetic ranting made it notable far beyond the drunken driving felony. This was discussed in depth all over the world in pretty much every newspaper and there's no way it can be shunted down the memory hole here. Nick mallory 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely covered. Merging to Mel Gibson would either give it undue weight in the parent article, or require removing sourced information in order to fit it there. cab 01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of sounding obvious: moving the Undue Weight elsewhere doesn't get rid of the Undue Weight, it just moves it elsewhere. It doesn't matter where we go in altogether excessive detail. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject" --- i.e. the Mel Gibson article should not give undue weight to this specific incident. However, this is an article about the incident. If you think we should not have an article about the incident at all (e.g. for WP:BLP concerns or another reason), then say so, but avoiding undue weight doesn't mean we should shorten standalone articles in order that their length is proportional to other stuff. I don't see a particular problem with "excessive detail" where said details are well-sourced, either. cab 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see merger as being more of a clutter problem than an undue weight problem, but basically I agree with cab's rationale. JamesMLane t c 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, clutter is more of an editing/consensus issue, but undue weight is policy. --Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I don't understand is why do peope suddenly support the article so much, wasn't the previous AFD result No consensus? I don't know if people just changed there minds or because time has past, but what is with the sudden agreement. Rodrigue 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drunkdrivercruft. We're not a news portal. Excessively detailed article of something that people will forget completely in a few years tops. The possible merge-worthy material is just about covered in, oh, the first sentence of the article (and it's already covered to that extent in the main article). This is exactly why we're going to hell if all we demand is "sources" and we don't consider "notability" or, good heavens, "why would anyone write a separate article about this in the first place". Please, we're allowed to use common sense in determining what kind of topics are appropriate for the article, not just the fact that the sources exist and we can write an article. We're supposed to look at the big picture. Main article does. This article doesn't. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And if kept, please keep it on the condition that it's turned into a Featured Article over the next few months. You know, to tell the world of our... direction. =) (Seriously, though, can you imagine this as a FA?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the other keep votes, but to specifically refute what wwwwolf has just said, I think it's interesting to note that what is neat about wikipedia, and unique as an encyclopedia, is that we are able to have GOOD VERIFIABLE and SOURCED articles in an encyclopedia format that are not constricted. What I mean is, a traditional print encyclopedia could never keep something like this and many other articles we keep just because of the restrictions of cost/paper/size of a traditional print encyclopedia. However, in ten years, this, because of the anti-semitism and the notability of the person in it, will still be in public memory, and some people will want to look this up with verifiable sources and see "what happened." Things like "the time brittany shaved her head," as someone pointed out earlier, more than likely will not be in the public memory in ten years, or even two. That is what seperates this article as something that is notable and keepable, and something that is 'tabloid-esque' or 'a news feed.' As wwwwolf says, we are "allowed to use common sense." Given that, my common sense tells me that this is something that, as stands with proper sources, should definitely be kept. Barsportsunlimited 00:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point. The point is this: In 10 years, what do people want to hear about this incident? They probably don't want to hear anything at all apart of what's already in the main article: A few really concise, inconvenient but sourced and verified details. That's all that really matters in the end, and that's the common sense part. I'm not disputing the fact that concise details can be there; I'm just saying this level of detail is altogether too excessive. Also, what is more likely: In ten years, when people discuss anti-semitism and it's influence, they bring up a) one popular (at the time) German politician who apparently did something very nasty to Jews in early 1940s while reportedly practising abstinence from alcohol apart of a few reported celebratory occasions, or b) some American actor (popularity highly debated, though generally firmly on positive side) who got a bit drunk in mid-2000s - okay, according to the main article, not really just in an isolated case? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is permanent. We don't judge the suitability of a subject for inclusion based on speculation about how it might be regarded in the future; only past and present matter. Anyway, logically, if people in the future don't care, they don't have to read it, but we can assume at least a few people will find it interesting no matter how much time passes, and they will be informed about it thanks to our present efforts. The argument is like "I don't care--leave the book on the shelf" vs. "I don't care--throw the book in the fire". There are bits of history from centuries and millennia ago that would be considered utterly unimportant to the vast majority of people, but to some people with a specific interest in the subject the stuff is invaluable historical detail. That's a much bigger picture than "ten years down the road nobody will care". Everyking 10:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The big issue isn't "why would anyone care about this in 10 years", but "why would anyone care about this in this level of detail at any point of time, let alone in 10 years when everyone's probably forgotten this". I'm not saying "throw the book in the fire". I'm saying "it's already in the book, so why discuss it further - there's better books for that thing". I'm not saying the topic isn't worth discussing, I'm just saying this isn't worth an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wwwwolf, I'm afraid you're doing the same thing that the nominator did, which is confuse "notability" with "importance." This incident may not be important in the long run, but it's certainly notable. (The "Chappaquiddick incident" involving Ted Kennedy is not particularly important today, but it's still notable. Certainly, Chappaquiddick is a bit more notable because it involved someone's death, but you see my point, no?) --Hnsampat 11:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And people confuse my delete !vote with "No, you may not discuss it anywhere at all, period", which isn't my intention at all. I see the point, and have seen it previously - but I still don't think this warrants an article. Like I implied, notability is not in question; it definitely warrants a mention in the main article. Yet, there's the plain fact that no one has made a convincing case on why this warrants an article of its own and why such extended discussion is warranted at all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the incident may be notable (or perhaps notorious) incident in the life of Mel Gibson, but is is encyclopaedic? I think not; the material should certainly be covered in the main article on him (and I think it is). It is possible there is material in this that ought to be merged to the main article, but that is long enough already, and merely pasting in this article would unbalance it. On the whole, I think it should be deleted. If retained the abbreviation in the title should be expanded, as DUI is meaningless east of the Atlantic, where we talk of drunken drivers. Peterkingiron 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the event is still notable and erasure reasons sound too much like wp:dontlikeit yuckfoo 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zsa Zsa Riordan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

2 prior AFDs, but oddly enough both were kept due to keep votes almost exclusively from sockpuppets of the same person (see [12] for proof of sockpuppetry). Looking into this article, there really doesn't seem to be much towards notability here... a few passing mentions here and there [13]. Really needs to be reviewed without influence of sockpuppets this time. --W.marsh 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Third place in junior nationals, even if done twice, is not enough to create notability. Whether Polish or US is irrelevant, though seemed an odd source of bias in prior debates. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough, too bad the socks weren't discovered before the previous one closed.AKRadecki 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not really notable. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Alabamaboy 17:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the other afds. She isn't notable. Kolindigo 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not that notable. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gaff. --Lmblackjack21 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in previous AfD discussions. She has never competed in a notable competition and has no other credentials to establish notability. Dr.frog 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio; found copyvio after initial listing here for spam. AKRadecki 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of STMicroelectronics microcontrollers[edit]

List of products manufactured by STMicroelectronics. Creator is User:stmicro. No assertion of notability of these products. No refs other than the corporate website. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Smacks of spam, but I thought it'd be better for others' input rather than speedy under the spam provisions. For my part, Delete, as we don't need a listing of every electronic device created by man. AKRadecki 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Akradecki on this one. The article seems like someone from the company copied a promotional catalog and put it on wikipedia. ie) ideal for smart controllers. Sounds like something I would hear from a salesman not a Wikipedia article. Consider speedy deletion as per spam. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as recreated article (which I was not aware of previously) and then redirect to Desperate Housewives. --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle State[edit]

This fictional location doesn't warrant an article of its own, and it contains no information that is not already in Desperate Housewives. Delete then redirect to Desperate Housewives. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Comment - I agree with the nomination to redirect to Desperate Housewives. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. It's the obvious improvement. YechielMan 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do we really need the redirect? Only the main DH article links to it. Most of the entries in List of fictional U.S. states aren't even links.

--Dhartung | Talk 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You are correct. I now support outright deletion. YechielMan 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because it'll give folks a direct link to somewhere, and that's usually preferable to nothing. BTW, there was an AFD directly on this subject before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle (fictional U.S. state). FrozenPurpleCube 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full House chronology[edit]

Delete - if I'm reading this right, it's an article about a chronology of the series maintained online. If that's the case then this fails WP:WEB as there appear to be no independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of the website. Google turns up blogs and mirrors. Otto4711 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definately fails WP:WEB. The page just discusses the services offered by another webpage Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WB:WEB. Propaniac 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a fan project. JJL 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. --JayJasper 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Full House. Idea is basically the same as the show's main article--and I say this as a former fan of this show.Blueboy 96 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man from Hell[edit]

No refs except a brief deleted entry on IMdB (accessed via archive.org) indicating that there ever was a movie project by this title. As for the supposed rename, The Man in the Movie, there is evidence on a personal webpage of a known minor actor/filmmaker (Has IMdB entry but no Wikipedia article) that there is such a project, but no independent verifcation and no indication that it is linked in any way to Man from Hell. Delete without prejudice to creating an article about The Man in the Movie if that project becomes notable and/or verifiable enough to warrant an article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no assertation of notability -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , seeing as the IMdB page was deleted and the only other source is a geocities page. We're talking obvious nn here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator has said it all. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JJL 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Article about The Man in the Movie could be created later. --Paul Erik 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Moon Cocktail[edit]

Irish Guy prod'd it for a second time so I am just going by Wiki Rules and AFD'ing it for him. I think he said his reasons for the prod is "Wiki is not a recipe guide" Postcard Cathy 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:NFT (swap pub for school). Some drinks recipes are notable e.g. a Bloody Mary, some are not. I don't believe this is a notable mix/receipe yet. (I've never heard of it before). -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rehnn83. GlassFET 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Sounds tasty, but is there any third party reference available? no. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom...writing it down to try though:-P. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (hic) nom, definitely a WP:NFT (hic). (I don't really drink. Honest. I can't even handle Jolt Cola.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gouranga Powered Band[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion as it makes no assertation as to the subjects notability or importance. There are no references. It appears to me to be a fan site extension. I did consider using the speedy delete ((db-band)) However I thought it best to put it up for discussion. Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable. The choice to bring it to AFD was wise because it is well formatted, but don't judge a book by its cover. YechielMan 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND, not asserting any notability. Now if i could only send them to AfD when they try and harangue me into buying CDs on the street. tomasz. 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND by a long shot. Borderline speedy, so it was a good call to AfD. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Lots of vague wording, no references. They do have some gorgeous guitars for sale on their website, though. Closenplay 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27th May,the Ahmadiyya khilafat day[edit]

the Ahmadiyya khilafat day|27th May,the Ahmadiyya khilafat day||

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/27th May,the Ahmadiyya khilafat day

))

Seems like a sermon written to commemorate the holiday - it was written on the 26th - I guess to get people to see it in time for the holiday. Postcard Cathy 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unencyclopedic, almost spam. YechielMan 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a spammed religious tract. DarkAudit 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - An unencyclopedic Spam -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sermon spam. Nick mallory 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trunker[edit]

Non notable open source software, no reliable independent sources, no claims to be notable at all. Article is over a year old and is still orphaned and unreferenced (except the homepage). Fram 14:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The first ten of the 2000 Google hits are unimpressive. YechielMan 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a poorly referenced (apparently d/t lack of existence of sources) and non-notable and per all of the above. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: Article was cleaned up into a suitable stub by Nick mallory and nom was withdrawn.. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Kudo[edit]

Article is a rough, incomprehensible machine translation of japanese page. It has been this way for over 8 months with no appreciable clean up, despite being posted to aplicable wikiprojects. As it stands it's complete gibberish and has been so for almost a year. Dubious notability to English audiances. I have been unable to find English sources to use in cleaning up the article as well. Lendorien 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I boldly slashed the article down to its core. She's a young Japanese actress who's been in three films and a TV series. Nick mallory 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support keeping the article now as it stands with the mishmash cut out. Given the massive pileup of messy, junky and incomprehensible articles on wikipedia that are quickly becoming a unmanageable curse, I felt 8 months was more than enough time for something to have been done to fix it and to do somethign about it. I didn't feel quite as bold as Nick above, but I support his solution. --Lendorien 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of institutes by region[edit]

Undefined, rather incomplete and hard to maintain list of institutes, most of which identified by having 'institute' in their name, so it doesn't even seem to be worth splitting by country. Tikiwont 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and preserve the information in category form. Any institute without an article should not be listed anyway. YechielMan 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate directory of loosely associated topics, united only by having the word "institute" in the name. Otto4711 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having the word "institute" in the title does not mean there are any similarities between any of the items contained (or not contained) in the list. For instance, what has the "Women's Institute" - not listed but surely the best known "institute" in the UK, to do with the "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology"? Not even worth a category. - fchd 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting idea but much too broad and vague. JJL 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles are already categorized, having a single list of "Institutes" of all kinds serves no real function. Pax:Vobiscum 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research institute[edit]

Because of the incredibly diverse nature of research institutes (ranging from science to international relations to the arts), an article called "Research institute" can't do much beyond simply defining what a research institute is. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has been around for almost 2 years and has never grown beyond stub status and I say that that's because there's not much more one can say about "research institutes" in general. Hnsampat 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article has about 70 incoming links, so deleting it will affect readability elsewhere in my opinion, unless you assume that "everyone knows" what a research institute is. I agree that it's not much more than a dictionary entry. YechielMan 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I don't think a fear of red links is a good reason for keeping an article that should not be here. --Hnsampat 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's not a good article as it is, but I think there is potential for a decent one. I'm swayed by the number of incoming links, because it makes sense to me to wikilink the phrase "research institute" in an article, so it follows that I think there should be an article about research institutes at the end of the link. Propaniac 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless, by the end of the AFD, there are significant sourced additions to the article discussing such things as the history of research institutes, the roles they play within their research disciplines, etc. This is a dictionary definition as it stands. I am unpersuaded by the incoming links. Otto4711 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many generic articles not yet started or developed on wikipedia. Dont quash this just because its only a dictionary definition at this point. That s how many articles start. Decoratrix 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I agree that articles should not be "quashed" simply for being stubs. However, I don't think this article has much hope of ever becoming more than just a stub. Once you've defined what a research institute is, what do you do next? This article, as it stands, tries to expand on the concept of "research institutes" by citing a few examples of "famous" institutes. However, there are many many MANY famous institutes and there's no way we can list some here without injecting some kind of bias (i.e. primarily listing American or European institues or primarily listing science or medical institutes, etc.). In short, I've nominated this article for deletion because I don't think it has any hope of ever becoming more than just a definition. --Hnsampat 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful, but needs expansion. JJL 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 00:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Looks like a job for WP:HISTINFO, and perhaps other WikiProjects. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs immense expansion, and we will probably need articles on a good many individual ones as we go. DGG 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not address the policy objection raised by the nomination. Otto4711 00:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom. said, First, that there is too much diversity for an article--I don't see that, we have articles of broad topics like school and college, we can manage this. Second, not a dictionary, the article begins to discuss the subject, and gives examples--almost all topical articles start off with a definition. Third, that it had been a stub for 2 years: that's reason to expand it, not delete it. Being a stub doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedia worthy--there are thousands that we just haven't gotten to yet. I dont like to comment adversely on peoples nominations, just on the article. DGG 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as A7, G11. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Hunter Theron[edit]

Googling the show's name shows a bunch of uploads to video-sharing sites, but no reliable sources. Half-tempted to speedy per WP:WEB. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A web site is in the process of being made and will be up with in two to three weeks, the director is working on the page himself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moon Hunter (talk • contribs).

- No, we need sources not made by anybody affiliated with Monster Hunter Theron or their family; we need sources that are free of conflicts of interest. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest getting that done, I would like to see this page to keep on running.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moon Hunter (talk • contribs).

- Google, probably, since this is a web-based series. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ and indent your replies by adding a * to the beginning of them. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok, sorry for the unpropper reply format, are you suggesting that i site google as a source? Moon Hunter
    - No, I'm suggesting that you use Google to look for sources and cite those. And signing your comment involves typing four tildes; that's shift and `. The ` key is located right above the tab key (at least on my keyboard). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I search google for citations, put them n the page, and it's good? If you look into my soul you'll see a wol flooking back into yours. 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As long as they're reliable sources and they don't just talk about it for one sentence. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, how long do I have untill the page is deleted? 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        Until 00:01 on April 5, GMT time. That's about 4 days, 8 hours from now. If other people think that you have no chance of finding those sources, it might get deleted faster. On the other hand, debates aren't closed right at that time, so it might be longer. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Selby[edit]

I just don't see anything in the current article that makes this individual worthy of a Wikipedia entry. It doesn't have inline sources and I do not agree that members of state legislature alone qualify for inclusion. Fresh 13:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unfortunately, WP:BIO disagrees with you: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." RGTraynor 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per the above, he would have needed to be a member of a statewide office. As he only represents one small portion of the state, in the state (as opposed to nationally for a member of the House), I am not sure this policy applies. Per WP:BIO, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability."--Fresh 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO as a past member of a state legislature. DarkAudit 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would class a state government as local goverment (as opposed to national goverment). Apart from BLD (Birth, Life & Death), what has he done of note to warrant his own article. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Classify it however you please, but being a member of a state legislature is an explicit prima facie pass on WP:BIO. I agree that automatic notability of state reps from a state three-quarters the population of the city of Boston is a bit Grand Fenwickian, but this isn't the place to debate the validity of WP:BIO. RGTraynor 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, explicitly passes WP:BIO. Fresh, if you don't agree with the guideline, head on over to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and enjoy yourself to the utmost. But here we generally go by what the guidelines already say, because they represent a wide consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't sure if a state position was considered notable.--Fresh 19:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a former member of a state legislature as per WP:BIO. Davewild 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO, easy one. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a life of humiliating bondage in the bit bucket. Krimpet (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snake play[edit]

This is original research, novel documentation of a previously undocumented concept, contrary to our Wikipedia:No original research policy.

The article was created by Taxwoman (talk · contribs), since determined to be a sockpuppet of Runcorn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who stated that xe copied xyr "own material" from "a respected site". In fact, that "respected site" is a wiki, and the article was indeed written on that wiki, with no fact checking or peer review process, by an editor whose account name was also the pseudonym "Taxwoman". On that account's user page on that wiki, xe states that xe has contributed content to Wikipedia and then copied it to the other wiki. Clearly, this is not a reliable source, but is a single person contributing to two wikis, and on each using the other wiki as the claim to authority.

So I went looking for sources.

I put various keywords and combinations of keywords into Google Books and Google Scholar, but couldn't find anything at all related to this subject. So I resorted to Google Web. Unfortunately, this is where things get messy. As well as Wikipedia mirrors of this article the other wiki mentioned above has also been mirrored in several places, such as here for example. There's also the fact that the text written by "Taxwoman" has been copied and pasted wholesale, again with no evidence of fact checking or peer review, by other people into additional places, such as this person who incorporated it into xyr own wiki (violating the GFDL, by the way). I finally excluded everything that was a copy or a mirror, and it turns out that there was nothing left.

This concept has zero documentation anywhere, other than that written by the person who submitted the article to Wikipedia and elsewhere; and that latter has not been through a process of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 13:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; unlike that of the article, his research looks comprehensive. RGTraynor 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and because, disappointingly, no real snakes are used which is a real let down. Nick mallory 13:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom—not much more to say about it. And concur with RGTraynor on another fine bit of research from Uncle G...if only editors who are so good at research and writing didn't also have to expend those efforts in AfD-world. DMacks 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Heh, I'm just a strong partisan of the notion that before an editor nominates an article for deletion, he had damn well better take just five minutes out of his life to gauge whether a casual examination of the evidence supports the action. If editors can't be bothered to do that much, they ought not be filing AfDs. I don't always agree with Uncle G, but when he says he's done some legwork, I trust that. RGTraynor 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate the trust. But please do your own legwork, too. The more layers of Swiss Cheese here, the better. Uncle G 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GlassFET 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be unverifiable. If deleted this should be removed from ((BDSM)) --W.marsh 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nom says it all. Mr Stephen 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW and per comments. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes and Degenerative Diseases[edit]

Original research. Borderline nonsense. -- RHaworth 13:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it the boot Original research and chronic lack of good sources. This page is meant as a joke I think, I hope so anyway. Does the writer really think that shoes cause multiple sclerosis? Good luck on proving that one. 'At this time no real scientific investigation has been done' says it all really. Nick mallory 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is not only orignial research, it is almost insulting. As a member of the Mid Atlantic SIDS Board of Directors, to see SIDS ties to wearing shoes is disgusting.--Fresh 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be close to the heart of original research to me: not only unsupported by reliable sources, but also seems to have an axe to grind. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just drivel. BTLizard 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN! Oh, wait... :) Speedy delete G1. YechielMan 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you look at the web page under external links, it states that it is all original research and nothing has been varified. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly written and original research. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. GlassFET 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense/hoax/joke. Creator's only contribution, which is never a good sign in these situations. Consider speedy. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete orignal research per the text of the article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a case of WP:NOR...though I admit I got a good laugh out of the article. Maintainerzero 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:NOR consensus. --mordicai. 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay about basic principles found in podiatry. This would constitute WP:OR, methinks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAFT and delete. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and lack of pirates is causing global warming too. -- Mithent 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced speculation. The only external link points to a site which more or less says "don't believe a word of this, guv" as a disclaimer on its homepage. There's no sign that this was written with any input from podiatric medicine, meaning that podiatrists or degenerative disease specialists aren't actually saying this, or that the article would need writing from scratch anyways. QuagmireDog 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indestructible ink[edit]

This is basically just a recipe. I prodded this on 5/24 with reason: "Archaic cookbook info. Back when this was put up for deletion in 2004, all the keep votes seem to boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, which I can only guess was an acceptable argument back then, but it isn't now. The article's content is virtually identical to what it was back then." The old VFD discussion is archived on the article's Talk page (and in fairness, there are some comments for keeping it that go beyond "I like it," but the rationale still seems weak enough that a re-discussion seems worthwhile). Prod was removed on 5/31 with comment that since this survived VFD previously, it shouldn't be deleted by prod. I stumbled upon this article on the list of articles that have had the Wikify tag since November 06. Propaniac 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a how-to guide if nothing else. The lack of strong support for keeping makes me say delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the prod on procedural grounds, but I agree that this is a how-to guide and has no place on Wikipedia (it may perhaps be good for Wikisource though, I don't know their criteria). Fram 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everything said above. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is sourced. Perhaps it needs rewriting to be an article about indestructible ink and its history and uses, beyond just the material from its single source. But it should be sent to cleanup, not deleted. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic, shouldn't every recipe from any published cookbook have its own article? Propaniac 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say any recipe from such an old cookbook, with such a long history, probably should have an article about it (not just the recipe itself). I suspect sources for its history can be found in cleanup. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO #4. Deor 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how-to guide Avalon 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of research institutes[edit]

Vaguely defined, rather incomplete and hard to maintain list. Its purpose is better served by the richer categories or more specific lists. Tikiwont 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This works better as a category. There are far too many "research institutes" in this world to list them all on one page. --Hnsampat 13:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use categories per above. YechielMan 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JJL 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use the category Keep and arrange by subject--any objection to my replacing it with a list of research institutes by subject? Eventually it can be divided into smaller articles. DGG 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Category:Research_institutes there are already hundreds of entries and some sub-categories by subject (and nation). I would be very difficult to include them into this list where entries have been entered rather casually, not to mention overlaps and hierarchies of subjects. So I would rather contribute myself to sorting articles better into the category scheme and improving it where necessary. --Tikiwont 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at that category, and you are right that it is a higher priority. I certainly see no need to list institutes not having WP articles. DGG 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too wide inclusion criteria, the list would be enormous. There is already a category structure in place that would do the job (I don't always prefer categories to lists, but I think a category works much better in this case). Pax:Vobiscum 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, potentially huge, sorted in the worst possible way - alphabetically. Pavel Vozenilek 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. IronGargoyle 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attal: Lords of Doom[edit]

Article does not explain how the game is notable (WP:N), or provide any independent references (WP:V). Prod was contested in January by an anonymous user with the reasoning: If someone has no interest for video games, fine. But these video games reviews here are useful for me and others. 'Being useful' is not a valid keep reason, nor is Wikipedia a video game review site. Marasmusine 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Zero verifiable sources. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Sounds like the usual attempt at documenting every single game in existence on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 08:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Simpson's Third Album[edit]

Predicted album by Ashlee Simpson. Contested prod. Nominated by User:Woohookitty with the reason "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Way too speculative for an article. And it's all OR besides" I ((prod2))'d the nomination, with the added justification that there were no provided sources.

The prod was removed by User:Everyking with the justification that the sources are all in the main Ashlee Simpson article. However, I still believe that the article is speculation. There are no concrete facts, and the only reporting that has been done is rumours and regurgitated snippets from Simpson's PR people (at least that's what I think they are, no sources have been presented).

Let it be known that I have no qualms to the retention or recreation of this article, if and only if information such as the album name, tracklist, and specific release date can be sourced from reliable publications/websites independant of Ms Simpson, or the people or organisations directly linked to the album. -- saberwyn 11:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL at the moment, without even a title available. Also, the idea of her collaborating with Robert Smith is terrifying. Lankiveil 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The fact that Ashlee's made it to three albums is also terrifying... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely a WP:CRYSTALballification here. The article's creator needs to WP:CHILL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Beloved freak 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and I wouldn't want to see an article like this kept as a precedent to justify the creation of Ashlee Simpson's Fourth Album, Ashlee Simpson's Fifth Album, etc. --Kyoko 16:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have no objection to her making future albums, but in the absence of independent, verifiable information, an article like this is premature. --Kyoko 03:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Personally I would like her stricken from existence, but it's not up to me unfortunately...sigh. Thank god for the mute button. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete WP:CRYSTAL Whs itc hy 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, major upcoming album; WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable as this is merely reporting things people have said in the past. Everyking 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Say wha? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The album does not exist yet, so this coverage is speculative or just a conglomeration of news bits. This could be covered on the article for Ashlee Simpson under upcoming work or whatever, if anywhere, until the album is actually made. Aside from that, the article is made up of promotional material by people directly connected to the subject. It's not notable until it gets independent coverage. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To take one example, Ashlee has said her next album will be more soulful. She said that in the past; the article is not predicting that she will say it in the future. There is nothing speculative about it. The whole article runs along those lines: it all reports things said by people in the past. Where's the speculation? Everyking 03:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A title for the album is not yet available.--SuperHotWiki 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fundamentally an arbitrary distinction. Is an upcoming album by someone whose last two albums debuted at number one and went platinum a notable topic? Multiple, independent, non-trivial sources say yes. Who cares if it has a title yet or not? Everyking 03:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Simpson sent out a message", "Simpson said", "Simpson revealed", and "Simpson was quoted to say" are not independent sources. They are Simpson talking about Simpson. Independent sources would be other people talking about the purported album. Uncle G 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there's something actually verifiable (as opposed to "Showbiz Gossip Magazine X says that the album will have Quality Y"). A title - even just a working one - would be handy, but it's probably not entirely essential here. That a popular musician with a track record of success is working on a new album is hardly a remarkable fact, and that's really all we have here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Regarding Everyking's comments, there is no difference between "it will be soulful" and "Ashlee said it will be soulful" when it comes to verifiability. ShadowHalo 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep because she's notable and nobody wants to delete the article. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 14:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birgit Großhennig[edit]

I just created this article, knowing that this long jumper never competed in any high-level athletics championships, thus technically failing WP:BIO. However, athletics is an accurately measureable sport, and she has verifiably achieved a distinction in athletics history with her good result. I personally think this is enough to meet our inclusion demands, does the community agree with me? Punkmorten 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am incredibly confused. The first edit, I say again, the first edit of the article, as performed by the nominator, included the AfD tag; no prods, no nothing. A quick squiz at the deletion log does not reveal that this article has been previously deleted (although I will admit that I have minimal skill in using the deletion logs). What the gods is going on here? -- saberwyn 11:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Punkmorten created the article but wasn't sure it met notability guidelines so immediately put it up for AfD to see if it would fly..ChrisTheDude 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This may be the start of a new Wikipedia policy -- "Don't second-guess a subject's notability". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ChrisTheDude got it entirely right here. Thanks for keeping it anyway :) Punkmorten 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, maybe got "Save Page" and "Preview" mixed up? Lankiveil 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - top 50 all time in women's long jump. - fchd 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's sourced and referenced and Birgit Großhennig does appear on the IAAF all time women's long jump record list. She's clearly a notable athlete, even though she didn't compete much as a senior. What's the problem? Nick mallory 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a definite pass of WP:BIO and one hell of a bizarre AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No question in my mind she meets. JodyB_talk 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and notable as a track and field athlete. I've seen editors put ((hangon)) in their first edit of an article before, but this takes the cake. Almost an anti-WP:OWN. Certainly made me smile. :) DarkAudit 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steadfast[edit]

Non-notable organisation; minimal ghits BTLizard 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn organisation. Lankiveil 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as non-notable, no RS to support. JodyB_talk 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and as spam for the racist term Ethnic English, also being assessed for deletion. --Gavin Collins 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakenham Secondary College[edit]

Meritless article, seems like a compilation of vandelism.

Delete. Started life as a stub, has been heavily vandalised in the last few hours. Since the article has been around since January with no significant content there can't be much to say. BTLizard 10:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vandalism removed and a tiny bit of information added. The school itself is relatively notable with a 2nd in the Rock Eisteddfod Challenge, which is more than what can be said of Galvin Park Secondary College, Erinbank Secondary College, Blackburn High School, just to name a few. The fact that an article has been a stub since January is no reason for deletion, less we delete thousands of other articles for the same reason. Vandalism is better dealt with by semi protection (all of it coming from anonymous editors) than deletion Guycalledryan 11:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its a school article. Its gonna be anon-vandalised. That's what school articles are for. oh, and luring new editors to the project by giving them shiny pages on their school to play with -- saberwyn 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meh, vandalism aside, this school doesn't look all that notable. Lankiveil 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To be fair, most of the schools in List of schools in Victoria aren't notable Guycalledryan 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~on the basis of every other school article out there existing~~ Article has several references on different topics about the school :: maelgwn :: talk 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Lankiveil 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Have added some references. ~~Will add some more later.~~ Assize 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Have added some more information. Has been in the news more often than other schools and organisations for that matter. Assize 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The references I see all require a payment to get the article which is a no-no. I suspect the school may be notable based on athletics but we need multiple, non-trivial sources. JodyB_talk 12:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand the argument about non-trivial sources, although I would argue there are three separate articles about the school directly in a major community newspaper (rather than a casual reference to the school). I don't understand the argument why paid articles are a no-no. I can't find a wiki-policy about that? Thanks. Assize 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - whether you need to pay to see a reference is wholly irrelevant. Whether its a subscription site or a book you have to buy it's the reference that counts and the fact that obtaining it might be expensive or inconvenient is of no moment. TerriersFan 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per nom as Aquinascruft (Yes, it's my favourite deletion essay because it encoumpasses so many of the policy issues with School-related articles). Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough in the article to make them notable enough to be kept. Better than the usual school articles. Davewild 17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the article is sourced and of a reasonable standard. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant high school with enough to be said to justify an encyclopaedia article together with the necessary multiple sources to meet WP:N. I have also added a new section. TerriersFan 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced and fulfils notability criteria. Recurring dreams
Keep Maybe there's vandalism but there are sufficient secondary sources to establish notability.Ga rr ie 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the school is notable with many sources vandalism happens to many articles we do not erase them yuckfoo 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School is notable, can be independently sourced (although with the usual precautions on content to avoid cruft-creep) and is the major government secondary school for an entire region of outer Melbourne. There may well be a book in the State Library or the Shire of Cardinia library system which could help. Orderinchaos 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orderinchaos. John Vandenberg 08:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article content while sourced and well written seems to trivial in nature. Despite the seeming consensus about keeping High Schools, I don't think this quite gets there as an encyclopaedic article. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup[edit]

Clearly, this article is crystal ball. The article contents give "to be determined", also 3 teams mention is unverifiable, just base on history, also consider crystal ball. Aleen f1 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious WP:CRYSTAL violation. Hut 8.5 09:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL permits articles on events which are certain to occur, AFAIK, and whilst it's pretty much certain this event will take place even the official CONCACAF website has no content on it, so I'd say delete until some official information is released.... ChrisTheDude 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Nothing can be said about it yet but I won't oppose recreation the moment any concrete information about it appears. Qwghlm 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing is known. Punkmorten 09:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is going too far ahead. Govvy 09:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ballism until such a time as the information can be Reliably Sourced, not just presumed. -- saberwyn 11:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, as per all above. Lankiveil 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, 2009 is way too far for the article to be anything but crystal ball-based predictions. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, just not enough verifiable information available yet. Davewild 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but with no objection to recreation at a later date when real info is available. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's too early to be creating this article. Nothing is even know about this tournament. Azuran 11:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Violates WP:CRYSTAL. *Cremepuff 222* "As cool as grapes..." 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five Grand Palaces of Joseon-Dynasty Seoul[edit]

Violates WP:NOT#LINK #2 by just listing the palaces. Clarityfiend 08:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template does the job, and I can't find a good redirect target at the moment. YechielMan 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seoul#Culture (or a dedicated anchor therein), which already has the same list.--Tikiwont 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. IronGargoyle 20:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lirico Chamber Singers[edit]

Non notable university based music ensemble. Does not meet any of WP:BAND. Performances have mainly been at small functions, and claim to fame seems to be having performed once with Anúna. Have released some albums, although from images on their website they appear to be mainly through the university and have not received any critical review, similarly tours have been university backed and gigs performed likewise non notable. Only google hits are of the choir's site, competition results from small, high school based choir competitions and from myspace. Speedy deletion tag deleted twice by author of page. Guycalledryan 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a high school (not University) choral ensemble. They may be good, but they fails WP:BAND per nom. Zero Google hits for press coverage. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 08:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no obvious means to pass WP:BAND. Although Invited guest for the Mannheim Steamroller Concert at Spokane Arena does leave me breathless. --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (should redirect anyway due to Beach chic W.marsh 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Chic[edit]

Contested prod. Clearly unencyclopedic combination of a dicdef neologism and an announcement of attire for an upcoming wedding! Humourous, but ain't for Wikipedia. I didn't think any of the speedy categories fit, although perhaps patent nonsense? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to twist CSD several ways, too, but regardless this fails WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:OR. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic in the least.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopdic. GlassFET 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who contested it, idiots who want their wedding announced with this piece of crap? I'm guessing it's a smash each others' faces into cake affair, if anyone even makes it to the alter. How incredibly low life. KP Botany 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Comment Wikipedia has a paragraph, referenced, imaged, on beach chic in its article on chic (style). I have copied this text and replaced the crap with that. The crap cannot stay just because this guy can't afford to place a wedding advertisement in the local paper or is too cheap to spring for invitations. It can and still should be deleted because this information is already covered in another article. KP Botany 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but then we could also redirect there, no? --Tikiwont 20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No, we should redirect Beach chic (red linked because it is not even title correctly) to Chic:_A-L#Beach_chic, where it was already before this nonsense came up--it's not enough of an article to have its own as is, even if the el cheapo groom does get married in beach chic and it makes the times. KP Botany 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, i certainly agree that there is nothing that warrants a separate article, and the target that I mentioned above is the same, nor would the capital 'C' exclude a redirect, which could be done for both variants.--Tikiwont 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that would be useful. Oh, I think when the article title is proper, "Beach chic," without the capital c, this will cover the variation with the capital letter. KP Botany 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as hoax per author request --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon McDonnell[edit]

Non-notable sportsperson/ Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Recurring dreams 07:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is for a school project where I had to make up a fictional character in Drama Class. Please do not delete it as I need it. I will remove it when the assignment has been viewed and marked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nappa90 (talk • contribs) 15:46, May 31, 2007.

Comment Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to prepare or publish school assignments. I'd strongly suggest copying the information into a word processor program and using that to write your assignment. As for the article, delete as an admission of a fictional character with no independant sources. -- saberwyn 07:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I at least have the page up for 24 hours? After 24 hours i will remove it and it'll never be posted back up again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nappa90 (talk • contribs) 15:53, May 31, 2007.

Non-admin users don't have the facility to remove pages from Wikipedia as and when they see fit (or at all, for that matter)..... ChrisTheDude 08:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As WP:HOAX. If you want to keep the content, then move it into something like User:Nappa90/Sandbox. Thewinchester ^(talk) 08:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a webspace provider -- Mattinbgn/^talk 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G2 (test page). WP:HOAX and WP:NOT are explicitly excluded as valid speedy criteria. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure about G2, but maybe G7? Regardless, fails WP:V, WP:N, and so forth. Wikipedia is not for publishing homework assignments, and if your teacher assigned you to write a Wikipedia article that doesn't fit the project, please pass on that we would rather such things be done within the scope of Wikipedia school projects. Thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From the author’s own admission the article falls under WP:HOAX. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 08:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is mostly just the song, which is likely still copyrighted. Merging the entire song doesn't seem particularly like fair use either. IronGargoyle 21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Marshall[edit]

Non-notable group that contains no encyclopedic information. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, "Sons of Marshall" is, indeed, the Marshall University fight song, and could probably be mentioned there. It's also not a "group" - it's a term, referring to students at Marshall. However, such a term is not notable, since "Sons of X" is a common English expression, and I cannot find any sources which make this formulation special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemo (talk • contribs)

Merge with Marshall University entry. Bradybd 07:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a mention in the uni article with no prejudice against someone attempting to write a better article on the fight song in the future. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with... that other school. The Mountaineer in me would like to see the whole thing shredded, burned, shredded again, and buried in 10 feet of concrete. But that's just me. (In the interest of full disclosure, both of my parents graduated from Marshall... and both then went on to get graduate degrees from WVU) DarkAudit 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Perry[edit]

Non-notable person, where the information seems to be coming straight from his resume. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:PROF. A fine educator no doubt, but not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 08:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, fails WP:PROF, even after looking for his book online. Maintainerzero 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. Seems to be a consensus for keeping content but merging to a new article (effectively changing the scope). So editors interested in this topic should probably go ahead and do that, it seems to be supported by consensus. W.marsh 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Manners[edit]

This article is about the victim of a well-publicized recent murder at C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute in Toronto. Murder victims are generally not considered notable unless they were already notable prior to their murder. That is not the case here. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep I am the nominator and have changed my opinion about this article. Murder victims are generally not notable unless notable for reasons other than their death. However, as has been suggested below, Jordan Manners was the first person to be killed at a Toronto school, so I'd argue that the article is needed on that basis only. The case has attracted a huge amount of media attention. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This is more appropriate for Wikinews, given the recency of the murder. However, murder victims can indeed be notable even if they were completely non-notable before their deaths: Ronald Goldman, Leslie Mahaffy, and Kristen French, have long-term notability in that many people in their home countries would recognize their names 10 years or more after their deaths. --Charlene 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at the Jane Creba article, nobody knew who she was, until she got shot. If you look at the 'Canadian murder victims' category, you will notice that barely any of the victims were notable prior to their killing. School shootings that attract major media attention ARE notable, and this article needs expansion. Blackjays1 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't disagree with the above sentiment more. Delete per Charlene. Eusebeus 09:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why? Because it's a Canadian victim? I have NO doubt in my mind that if this were an American victim, nobody would dispute it. NorthernThunder 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is more appropriately handled with an article about the incident than with one about Jordan. Bearcat 07:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regrettably, murder is not necessarily notable. Note that AfD tag had been removed. Restored it. BTLizard 11:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Murder isn't necessarily notable? If a 15 year old kid gets shot at his high school, which goes into lockdown and attracts not only major media attention, but attention from the provincial government (who is pushing for the federal government to ban handguns in Canada after this incident), then you would HAVE to consider this notable! Blackjays1 13:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per BlackJays. Scientz 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One would have to have access to the Toronto media to know, but the fact that there is an article on Jane Creba with no nomination for deletion is a big deal. The Toronto media has been claiming that there is racism inherent in the asymmetrical and disproportionate interest paid to death of Jane, a 15 year old white girl, as opposed to the death of Jordan, a 15 year old black boy. I tend to agree. Both are notable, and both should be treated the same way. Either propose Jane's article for deletion as well, or keep this article. Scientz 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has since been removed 2 more times by another anomonous user (the same one both times). Some level of protection may be needed. --70.48.111.55 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into proper article about the shootings (first shooting in Toronto after all) Guycalledryan 08:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there was only one person shot, with only one bullet fired. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Guycalledryan. NorthernThunder 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as apropriate Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The incident merits an article. The victim doesn't. Merge into an article about the shooting. Bearcat 07:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a lot of talk about a merge into an article about the shooting. Which article would that be? The notion is absurd. There is not, and will not be an article about the incident. Do any of you people even know what you're voting about here? Scientz 03:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There was previously an article about the incident. That article became an article about the school C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute. So the options left are: 1) To keep this article. 2) To merge it with the school's article. 3) To delete it, which seems unlikely at this point. Blackjays1 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I mean no disrespect to the dead, but I don't see this article is needed. I am Canadian myself, but what is to be done about murder victims, should they all recieve an article and wikipedia basically become an obituary? 64.231.248.87 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The way I see it, 'merge to the article on the shooting' should count as an opinion to merge with the school's article, since the article on the shooting was merged with the school's article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and you can close the debate(s) now in my opinion. In a ridiculous sequence of events, Wikipedia has had articles on the shooting, the school, the boy killed at the school and even the notable person who the school was named after were each targeted for deletion on specious grounds (eg 'wasn't on Wikipedia current events home page therefore not notable'). I don't think this particular AfD was part of the vexatious series but the article in question was created and then suffered due to the lack of content (the other AfDs weren't properly listed and the best article got "Userfied"). I've taken the best material from the Bio and the Shooting and merged it with the School article. Perhaps the Bio and the Shooting will again re-emerge as stand-alone articles. But why don't we focus on the 1 merged article and stop going in embarassing circles. Canuckle 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, I have to respectfully disagree. The school isn't notable, the young man who was murdered there is. The young man was also the only victim, which is why the article should be about him and nothing else. This is not just a murder victim. This is the first young person to be killed within a Toronto school. That alone should merit a wiki article and makes him a notable figure. In my opinion, there should be an article for Jordan but not an article for the school or the incident. Scientz 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I doubt that this article will remain. After looking at the C.W. Jefferys AfD, it appears that this article will merge with the school's. I have to disagree with you about the school's notability, because the truth is that Jordan Manners, C.W. Jefferys high school, and the incident are all notable now. The incident's article and this article should have been the ones to remain, but somehow it seems that we will be left with an article about the school - which is actually an article about the incident! This is what should happen: Jordan Manners' article remains, and the school's article is renamed to reflect that of the shooting incident. Otherwise, we will be left with a "school" article which is essentially an article about the shooting, the victim, and the suspects. IF that happens, it would be pretty embarassing. Blackjays1 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator due to overwhelming keep votes. Non-admin closure --Longing.... 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character)[edit]

Original AFD

The page has made little improvement in quality since its original nomination, and after a month of tagging it, no one has made an attempt to improve it. Any significant aspects of the character are already noted on the Stephen Colbert and The Colbert Report pages. The article reads like a list of gags and off-hand remarks about Colbert's supposed past on the show with little in the way of actual sources or organization. The article could be re-written to be an actual biography, but it would not be notable due to the fact that most of the info Colbert has reveal about the character is just made for a joke, ie, the backpacking around Europe, etc.

Before giving your support, please read this policy. Keep in mind that little improvements have been made since the original nomination and I don't see anyone making an effort to clean-up the article. Also observe that the two above articles already discuss the important aspects of the character. Unless someone is willing to do a total re-write of the article, due to the fact that it is a fictional character, I don't see any reason to keep it.

Also, I apologize if I used the improper protocol for a page's 2nd nomination, but this is the first time I've done it and I had difficulty understanding the policy page's advice for such. The Clawed One 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on protocol only. An admin needs to do the moves, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character) (the page I'm editing) needs to move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character) (2nd nomination) (which you've apparently created as a redirect. Then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character)/Archive 1 should be moved back here to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert (character). Finally the AFD log and page need to point to the (2nd nomination) address. There are some wonky AFD pages out there but doing it this way makes it easier to find them when there are multiples -- which I expect will be the case. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a separate article for Jerry Seinfeld and his character, and for the most part, they're fairly similar people. The Stephen Colbert character is so completely and totally different than the actual Stephen Colbert that it certainly warrants its own article (probably even more than the article on Jerry Seinfeld). ShadowMan1od 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the character page in question is also in-universe and poorly sourced, bad example. Also, see this policy before you make such a comparison. The Clawed One 06:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: The Pokémon test is not a policy, and not even a guideline. Punkmorten 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a gag character so of course its sources are in-universe and content will include a list of gags. Wl219 08:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that doesn't mean it's alright. The Clawed One 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as I said in the last AFD, the obsessive level of detail is completely unnecessary and can be adequately covered in Colbert's own article. Otto4711 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- well referenced article. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jerry Seinfeld character has his own article. Plus, this one is sourced. And to the clawed one, all of these so-called policies you mention are actually essays. Pats Sox Princess 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays, policies, same difference. And the Seinfeld comparison is a poor example, as it too is poorly sourced and in-universe. Now, the style and structure of the article is what would be preferred for the Colbert one, but no one has made any attempt to make that happen. The Clawed One 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, essays aren't the same thing as policies or guidelines. An essay is simply an opinion piece written by one or several users. Referring to an essay as a policy is quite disingenuous. Pats Sox Princess 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, referring to an essay as a policy is somewhat like referring to a a police officer's morals as a law --Longing.... 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a particularly good article? Absolutely not. However, it is an article about the main character on a popular, Emmy-nominated, hundreds-of-episodes-deep television series; the character is distinctly different from the person who plays him; and there have been many third-prty mentions of the character himself. I suggest strong trimming and clean-up, but I have no doubt of the validity of an article about the character as a whole, and there's enough salvageable content that starting over from scratch is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed to an extent, the article could be salvaged, but no one has made even the slightest attempt to do so in two or three months. Thus, I have reason to believe that no one will, hence the nomination. If the article is cleaned up I would gladly withdraw my AFD, but that doesn't seem likely. The Clawed One 17:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Last I checked, "Nobody wants to clean it up" isn't a deletion criteria...
Keep, because oddly enough the character is probably more notable than the actor. If he had named it "the Smith John Review", and used Smith John, his own name would be far less notable than it is nowadays. The character is significantly different from the person, putting the article for his character on his page would be like putting the article for Peter Griffin on Seth MacFarlane's page, it would be highly out of place. Just because they share a name does not make them the same person. There have been no actual reasons for deletion brought up, and the subject clearly passes WP:N and WP:V --Longing.... 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason? It's poorly written, poorly sourced, in-universe, unstructured, and no one has made any attempt to fix it after several months. The Clawed One 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it, everyone wants the article to stay, no one wants to fix the problems or even acknowledge they exist. I withdraw the AFD. The Clawed One 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thrillville (theater event)[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))

Non-notable theatre event, just monthly themed film nights Steve _(Stephen)^talk 06:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My gut tells me it's not notable, but the "Press" section cites three articles from three different newspapers. When in doubt, don't delete. YechielMan 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very notable for those of us in the Bay Area trying to preserve the history of trash and B cinema. Thrillville is one of the many icons of cinema culture in the Bay Area. The Parkway (and thus Thrillville) does tend to get much less press being in Oakland and not San Francisco (the Roxie in San Francisco gets much more press for similar program items). Raitosan 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice. I deleted the article (pre-move) because at that time, it read like ad copy, and the key editor had only edited on this subject. Now, it reads like an encyclopedia article (which is why I didn't speedily delete it again), and an experienced editor (User:Migp) is working at bringing it into compliance. I'm willing to give it a little more time to mature and for information to be gathered to corroborate some of what's asserted on its talk page. I can't agree to delete the article at this time; if the sources don't turn up after a couple of months, I can be swayed, but keep it for now. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Full disclosure: I've worked on extensively editing the page to add references and to bring it in line with encyclopedic tone, etc.) I do agree that a "themed movie night" per se is not notable; however, this one is, given the fact that it incorporates live theater, has had a 10-year run, and that Viharo and his show are well respected in the cult movie community. I do grant that "well respected in the cult movie community" is difficult to explain per Wikipedia:Notability, so I (and hopefully others) will work on 3rd party references and citations, which this event does have. Migp 18:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I know it's chicken-and-egg since the show is a major claim to fame for him, but is Viharo the more notable entity than the show? At least one external link seemed to focus more on him than Thrillville. Right now, I'm thinking between the two of them, one good article can be supported. The question is whose. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I do see validity in your question. Based on my familiarity with the topic, I think that the program (Thrillville) is the article to be supported, with Viharo (the person) as a component of the article. Incidentally, although this is a slight deviation to this discussion, I do think that Viharo's father is noteworthy enough [14] for creation of an article ("Robert Viharo") but I lack familiarity with the subject matter enough to create it. Migp 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thrillville is an authentic nexus of the San Francisco Bay Area's renowned creative community. It regularly exposes emerging Northern California musical and performance artists to new audiences. It gives a second life to overlooked or lost films. It feeds content to, and provides a live venue for, an extremely creative regional television program. And Thrillville has been instrumental in preserving one, and restoring another, traditional single-screen movie theater through conversion to an innovative "cabaret" format -- with real food and drink, and special screenings for new parents (bring your infants and let them all wail away). Like WikiPedia itself...(ahem) Thrillville is a center of innovation and a unique public service. Any conflicts with other Wiki "Thrillville" entries can be readily accommodated through the current disambiguation notices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minirvana (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
— Minirvana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; article was rewritten and substantially improved. Krimpet (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stray voltage[edit]

Two attempts to speedy and one to prod removed. Article is nonsense, POV pushing, NN, OR, spam for a group. Vegaswikian 05:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - ~~No Original Research~~ -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new version. Way better now. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant OR. How did this survive a speedy? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even the comment on the talk page requesting contest of the speedy is littered with POV pushing! -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rewrite~~ Delete if not rewritten by the end of the discussion seems like some sort of notable myth about electricity running amok and attacking farm animals, lots of gbooks hits; even has a whole book devoted to debunking it from a technical publisher: Seevers, O.C. (January 1989). Ground Currents and the Myth of Stray Voltage. Pennwell Books. ISBN 0878146369. Layman's introduction here [15]. Obviously the present version of the page needs to be rewritten to address the POV issues about the evil big utilities oppressing the proud independent farmers. cab 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would need a complete rewrite as an article about the subject of Stray voltage, not one on the topic of Stray voltage. Looking at what I see there, it would need a fresh start anyway. I still feel this version of the article should follow process and be smitten as OR. No reason a replacement can't crop up if its encyclopedic enough. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this assessment and that of Dontdoit below, so changed my vote accordingly. Good subject, bad article. cab 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or delete. The article certainly does have POV issues, reeks of original research, and has a number of other problems. On the other hand, it appears to be a legitimate entry, although the current article is unencyclopedic as written. If an editor is able and willing to rewrite this article and address the numerous issues in it, that would obviously be the better option. However, deleting the article and restarting from scratch is also an equally valid solution. Cheers, Afluent Rider 06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten, and I have no further concerns regarding it. Keep. Cheers, Afluent Rider 11:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that there's any useful material in this article. It would need a total rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Dontdoit 06:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been rewritten from a more objective point of view. Nick mallory 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory's rewrite. Although the old version was heavily POV and OR-ridden, the topic is definitely notable whether or not you believe the claims. Living in a dairy state, as I do, this comes up again and again. There are reports and conferences for major universities and discussion at the legislative/regulatory level as well. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added cited discussion of a Wisconsin court case and state bill on the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done to Nick mallory for finding sources. There are plenty more. Try ISBN 0824792378 (which has an excellent diagram on page 314) and ISBN 013365446X, for examples. Multiple non-trivial published works from reliable and independent sources exist. Keep. Uncle G 09:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite, article is much better now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perennial issue in farm states; sources have been added, and the article takes a more reasonable tone. If Jonny Quest fought a monster made from escaped electricity, it must be scientific, right? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing remotely mythical about it.The original article was impermissibly POV and lacked references satisfying WP:A but the rewritten article is ok, but still needs work. Electric utilities in dairy areas have endless headaches and spend a lot of money trying to remediate it,even though it is often due to the customer's equipment. It causes economic problems for dairy farmers. Even a volt or two of potential difference between the grounded or "earthed" neutral and the actual floor of a milking parlor can interfere with milk production. The normal editing process is the venue for removing any myths or pseudoscience which people might seek to add. In a hospital operating room similar concerns led to remarkable precautions to prevent differences of potential from supposedly grounded equipment.A good article can be written from reliable sources such as US Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 67, "Effects of Electrical Voltage/Current on Farm Animals. There is also "Ground Currents and the Myth of Stray Voltage" by O.C. Seevers, P.E. There was an article on this in Electrical World magazine in the early 1990's which would be found in college libraries. Far more than a dictionary definition. The present article may have gone too far in removing material about the earth current sent into the ground by utility ground rods having an effect on dairy herds, but that's an editing issue. To the other extreme, some farmers have irrationally attributed their own every ache and pain to "stray voltage." Stick to evidence from reliable sources.Edison 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like a nice rewrite, and kudos to Nick mallory for it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IronGargoyle 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer register[edit]

Dicdef, sub-stub, pointless. (I say this as a programmer.) Quuxplusone 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator's vote). This might even be speedyable, but better safe than sorry. --Quuxplusone 05:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability. --Charlene 05:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason for deletion at AFD. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 09:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to processor register, which describes something that sounds very similar as an "address register". There's an obvious joke to be made here, but I'll refrain. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed synonymous with address register. Redirect this duplicate article per Zetawoof. Uncle G 09:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Processor register per Zetawoof. No content worth merging. I'm also a programmer. PrimeHunter 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was made a redirect and text was merged to City of Blue Mountains. This is per WP:BOLD, WP:IAR and my decision to not waste any more editors time debating this. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountains Youth Council[edit]

~~Speedy delete~~ Redirect: see my comments below. A noble cause, but relatively small potatoes, not meeting WP:ORG, not notable, does not need to be in an encyclopedia. That being said, bet of luck in your endeavors. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here because there was an obviously disruptive/edit/vandal battle going on the page and I realized CSD tags would be promptly deleted. My apologies if I have stepped on toes by placing it here. —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ Redirect below On principle. While I've devoted almost 4 hours to helping these kids, and it's not the most notable page, and though there are lots of youth involvement pages that are just as notable, if they keep it up, I will change my vote. --Milton 05:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is fine. --Milton 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as it has been sabotged by white cane who is a roge youth councilor Blinddantt 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as we have found out exatly who has practicly destoryed any hope of us staying it is miss april roy and action will be taken Blinddantt 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple votes would somewhat defeat the purpose of voting at all. --Milton 05:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well im trying my very best Blinddantt 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC) i dont get all of this it is giving my head sore so can some one explaine it to me Blinddantt 05:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable organization. Only a handful of attendees for their meetings in 2004. Their website doesn't even register on alexa. There are 24 unique google hits. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability and not likely to find sources asserting notability. Youth councils, while certainly meritorious, are in effect council sponsored youth groups. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom, as it does not meet WP:ORG. This should not have needed the AfD process. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and from above discussion it seems the article is liable to being hijacked. Recurring dreams 07:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organisation. No third party sources cited. Hut 8.5 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, organisation is not notable, as far as I can see. Lankiveil 10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to a heading under City of Blue Mountains. Content as it stands seems OK, just organisation does not meet WP:N and therefore shouldn't have an article. Orderinchaos 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Per Orderinchaos, I have merged the text in to City of Blue Mountains. I now vote that we redirect Blue Mountains Youth Council to City of Blue Mountains, close this AfD discussion, and go get coffee.—Gaff ^ταλκ 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second. --Milton 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Light Knights[edit]

Likely hoax - not to be confused with unrelated genuine works titled The Light Knights. Created by an one-day editor. No sources found, and considering it has an all-American cast there should be at least one reference to it somewhere, even under a different title, but there isn't. Pufnstuf 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Judging from this source, I don't think it's a hoax, but I didn't find any third-party reliable sources with my Google search. Most results ended up being guilds for online games, actually. I could be convinced that it deserves an article if someone comes up with a reliable source, but it looks like it fails WP:V right now. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how the characters mentioned inside the article would match those of above film or how the actors could be the mentioned ones according to their imdb entries. --Tikiwont 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Hiroshima Mission[edit]

Article is about one of the 344 missions of the LDS Church. General article Mission (LDS Church) exists, but there is no reason to believe that an individual mission is distinct enough to meet the WP notability guidelines. See WP:ORG —SESmith 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches do not reveal third-party references for this one mission. Do not redirect to Mission (LDS Church), as there are numerous Christian missions in Hiroshima. --Charlene 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reliable sources cited in the article, and a quick Google search revealed only 215 hits. Fails WP:V. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very little info on the Internet. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be multiple reliable sources. Individual missions could definitely meet the notability guidelines, in the same way that High Schools do, and probably an article should be considered for each of the missions. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, individual missions can possibly be notable somehow. This one isn't. Clarityfiend 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment. Agree with comment immediately above. An LDS mission could potentially meet the notability guidelines, especially on historical grounds, but this one clearly doesn't. From the information in the article it has existed for less than a decade (vs. ~175 years for LDS movement) and no notable events involving it are mentioned. -SESmith 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 06:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. Wickethewok 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scifipedia[edit]

Article fails to meet WP:WEB for notability. Article does not assert any notability. Article has few or no verifiable sources. Speedy delete was contested, so moving to AfD. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn website. YechielMan 04:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:WEB. Perhaps someday it will achieve the notability of Memory Alpha, but it's not there yet. --Charlene 05:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources include Locus Magazine (issue 545, June 2006, page 11), in addition to the two sources listed in the article. Yes, the first of those two sounds like it isn't going to be particularly in-depth, but with three sources in a variety of publications I think this is notable. Why it's been primarily discussed in print media and not online is an interesting question, but that does appear to be the case... JulesH 07:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, but is it a real source? Or just another mention (text is not available online)? Considering the site was launched at the end of April, I have a difficult time believing these sources from less than a month after its release (one prior to release, another had to go to print first) do anything more than advertise it's launch. Maybe the site just needs more time to gain notability? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC

Comment. Article has two sources, which is unusually many for a stub. What about these sources makes them unverifiable? JulesH 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The first source listed is a blog in the SacBee. Fortunately, I happen to live in the area and know of the source. However, the blog is on Mondays, and the date cited is a Tuesday. Even so, using web.archive.org I located that Monday's blog and there's no mention of Scifipedia. I haven't tried tackling the second source yet (they're difficult to verify as they don't provide an online link to replicate the research). -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 07:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second source was easier to track, as the content was in their archives [16]. Just looks like another press release to me. It hardly qualifies notability. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locus don't generally run press releases or stuff like that; they'll have written about this because they think it's interesting. That said, I'm really not sure how in-depth the article is. I've sent a request to my local library to see if they have a copy, and I'll try to get time to look at it in the next couple of days if they do. JulesH 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sci Fi Channel (United States)#SciFi.com This is just something they added to make their website "sticky". They barely bother to promote it, so it's no surprise it only has 5000 articles. Just not notable.--Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. Completely agree with Dhartung. I find it odd that SciFi.com is redirected, and then their little Wiki is not? Is there any chance that this article will expand beyond a few sentences? Otherwise covering it within SciFi.com makes perfect sense. --Merzul 22:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with a merge and redirect, the one sentence in the context as a subproject of SciFi.com would be reasonably sourced by even a press release. If JulesH is ok with that, my nom can be effectively changed to that resolution w/o process as far as I'm concerned. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It seems reasonable to me. Do it. JulesH 17:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Scifi.com. JJL 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly Merged and Redirected to Sci_Fi_Channel_(United_States)#SciFi.com. Didn't merge the unreferenced sources, but they are available in the Scifipedia edit history if someone would like to include them (since we're not deleting). Feel free to close this discussion. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have been arrested for DUI[edit]

Looks like yet another potentially unmanageable list. My gut says delete, but I'm curious about others' opinions on where this falls, so officially I'm neutral. --Finngall ^talk 03:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable, the definition of "celebrity" is POV, possible BLP issues, no context, no scope. Resolute 03:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a strong precedent to delete lists of celebrities where "celebrity" is left undefined. There are many others who have been arrested, and though I don't condone DUI, it's not a big deal either. YechielMan 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, pointless, and unmanageable. just for humor's sake, it should be "people who are notable to be listed on Wikipedia who have been arrested for DUI" (If I see that page created, I'll beat you with my shoe (aka CSD tags)). --Whs itc hy 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May also have WP:BLP concerns, since some of the individuals on the list have yet to be (or were not) convicted of any offense. --Charlene 04:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ugly cruft. Also, Wikipedia is not a tool to name and shame. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from anything else, if it were to become anywhere near complete I suspect there would be an implied thesis that "celebrities" are arrested for this offence more often than non-celebrities, which would be OR by synthesis. JulesH 07:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potentially huge list with little actual usefulness, also possible BLP violation Hut 8.5 09:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DUI - Delete Useless Information (like this article). Kill it before it spreads -- so many concerns here, such as whether or not so-forth-and-so-on is a celebrity or not, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 12:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the reasons above, let's add being excessively Americocentric (unless we are also getting a link to List of celebrities who have been arrested for DEA - that's Driving with Excess Alcohol in the UK). Delete Excessive Article. Emeraude 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable, and being arrested for DUI is not particularly notable in any event (it's only what people do during said arrests - see Mel Gibson - that become notable. Also I agree that this is a WP:BLP minefield since it would be so easy for vandals to add names without attribution, which would result in innocent parties being linked on search engines forever with DUI. I'd prefer to see a speedy delete on this on BLP grounds. 23skidoo 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - the subject isn't really notable. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article seems to be pointless for several reasons:

How can we be sure the article is correct historically?
How can we define celebrity?
Who cares? (non notable)

Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we shouldn't have "celebrities" categories, and "arrested for" doesn't mean "guilty". Carlossuarez46 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't add anything new to this discussion, but just wanted to vote. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Smith[edit]

A reality TV show contestant? How can she possibly be notable? If she had won, maybe...but, no, she's just a participant on yet another reality TV show. vLaDsINgEr 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Come back if you win. MTV has practically become a reality show network, completely devaluing the notability of reality show contestants. That's almost a good thing. DarkAudit 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game show contestants are not inherently notable, no assertion of notability.. Resolute 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO; this isn't even a particularly notable reality show. The article could probably just be speedy'd. 05:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, but would not be adverse to a line or two added to the "Contestants" section of the reality shows she appeared in. -- saberwyn 11:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definatley fails WP:BIO since she was just another contestant and brings no true impact on anything. Consider a line in the show's page as per saberwyn. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts Over Rome[edit]

I speedily deleted this before and it's back, now with a little more info and footnotes. Still, the band has only one album which was never released, it was signed to a label (apparently) but that label never produced anything by the band. See WP:MUSIC for the relevant guidelines. Chick Bowen 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary source is MySpace. A single album does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. DarkAudit 02:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short lived band with little/no career whatsoever. Article is badly written too. vLaDsINgEr 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. They don't even have their own website anymore; are they a now defunct band or something? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. GlassFET 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok well the bands mets all these items off the WP:BAND page.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries2 except for the following:
  - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
  - Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
  - An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
- Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources.
- Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

and they did release an album through Undecided Records. please see. regaurding their website, Wayback machine is an acceptable way to veiw their site which has since been deleted. and with the way the music industry is going a 3 year career is not a short run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xedgexbikerx (talk • contribs) 16:46, 31 May 2007

Delete fails WP:BAND, despite above claim. One review on a non-notable online review site is the only "published work" referenced. All the other references are show listings, an online store, the band's (defunct) website, and a MySpace page. There's no national tour reported in a reliable source. As for "the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city", for some reason when I think of Florida metal, Hearts Over Rome is not one of the first bands that come to mind. The label that put out their album does actually have some notable releases but that's a pretty weak claim to notability. Closenplay 20:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Improvements to the article were only superficial, the weight of consensus, WP:RS and WP:BAND still stand against it. IronGargoyle 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alastor (band)[edit]

requests for speedy and prod have failed but this article shows no notability. It may have three albums but the article does not say if they tanked or went to the top of the charts. There are other items missing along those lines that would let us know how notable or not notable this band is. Author has had numerous opportunities to know this article is lacking but has not improved it. To me, at least as is, it is not wiki worthy. Postcard Cathy 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another non-notable band.KeNNy 02:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:JNN. I believe that an argument needs to be provided as to why the band is not notable. Fimbulwintr 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What a wonderful way to start the morning - a good chuckle. Fimbul, you can't be serious. Wiki by definition should only have articles on notable subjects. I think we agree on that. But this article doesn't give us any information to determine whether or not it is notable. It is hard to debate the subject when there is only a list of members and three albums that only those interested in Polish music will have heard of. Even then, Polish music lovers may not have heard of the band. ANd that is my point. The article says nothing. Postcard Cathy 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must have misunderstood me. I have nothing against people wanting to delete non-notable articles. But there must be a justification provided as to why its not notable. You already stated in the nomination why you think its not notable. Echoing "not-notable" doesn't add anything to the discussion. These deletion discussions are just that, discussions, not votes. I don't speak Polish or know anything about Polish music, so I'll leave it to those who do to decide whether or the article is notable. (Not trying to start a fight or anything here, just giving my interpretations of the AFDs.) Fimbulwintr 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable; band members don't have articles. --ROASTYTOAST 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:JNN. Saying not-notable is not an argument by itself. Also, why does the fact that band members not having articles mean that the whole band should be deleted? Fimbulwintr 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I don't mind people using WP:JNN to seek clarification. But it is 'NOT Policy!!!! As it states: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors.So, frankly, if User:Roastytoast wished to say the subject is in his/her view just not notable, that would be perfectly reasonable. Eusebeus 09:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. A rationale that the subject is not notable, with zero further explanation, gives the closing administrator nothing to go on. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD where this is explained. Learn from the prior RFCs and from experience. Don't encourage editors to repeat the same mistakes. Uncle G 10:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Besides, WP:Music guidelines do not state that band members have to have articles for the band to be notable. Cricket02 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple albums released over a period of years and the listing in an encyclopedia of Polish rock music demonstrate notability. The band continues to perform; see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3oTNf4ZaJk for a performance at Hunter Fest in 2006. --Eastmain 02:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is an article on the band in the Polish Wikipedia. See pl:Alastor (grupa muzyczna) Does anyone have access to a database of Polish music charts to see whether the band had a charted song? --Eastmain 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My guess is the author is not a native English-speaker and does not understand what these processes are; hence, no improvements made. Maybe keep and list at Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board for translation of the Polish article? Cricket02 02:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is expanded as per Cricket02's suggestion vLaDsINgEr 03:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. Unless someone can show that the band fills one of the criteria there, it should go as non-notable. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, meets the criteria of having multiple released albums, but english-language sources are extremely sparse. I want too give it the benefit of the doubt, but the only thing about the band I've found is this review: [17] If someone can translate the polish article/sources then we'd be good. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate that criteria. I could record myself, burn 3 CDS here on my computer, and hand them out to the 200 or so people that live in my apartment complex. If I then post an article about myself calling myself a singer and list those 3 CDs, you can ASSUME that the CDs were sold in stores, at concerts, etc. and have no idea that only 600 were made. That is why I want to know how well they sold, did they win any awards or honors, and so on. That makes the difference between my example, which I believe to be of a non notable singer, and a truly notable one. Postcard Cathy 13:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't do that back in 1980's Poland, I mean, burn couple records and so on. You should squeeze all your savings just to record this on tape on high quality equipment, hand ready to print tape to studio officials bribing them to take it, and you got only 30 thousand singles which never paid off the initial investment. But all 30 thousand were sold in strores in less than three days. That I guarantee. greg park avenue 16:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the numbers sold, please put a citation to that. YOu know that from somewhere. Put it in the article. As to my initial comment, I meant it in general, not just to this group.Postcard Cathy 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:BAND. Eusebeus 09:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the band was established during Marshall Law when the rock music of this kind was the only form of protest which makes them distinguishable. From that era comes the best Polish rock music ever and the best bands were then formed, for example Lady Pank. They've got something to say, and that's what art is for. If an artist has nothing to pass on, he's not an artist. They played their own songs, they wrote their own lyrics and their own music, and they played their own instruments, unlike those state sponsored types who just were led by hand and sang what they were told by Jaruzelski's regime. I recommend to translate titles of the songs and albums, though. greg park avenue 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added a request for comment at Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board in hopes of gaining more insight from the Polish article on whether this band is notable. I'm concerned the Polish article may not have reliable sources either. Cricket02 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time this Polish article is reliable and sourced enough. With exception of the only one album from 1989/1990 in both Polish and English versions "Przeznaczenie" (The Destiny) which was recorded but never released, but Polish wiki states that. English one did not: someone named "Eastmain", probably trying to help had introduced this album into English wiki today but obviously he didn't understand the word "unreleased" in Polish, so he omitted it. I have corrected this mistake on the main page already. If it went unreleased back in 1980's, it only corroborates the thesis I wrote already about how good they really must be back then, however, today it's perhaps too late to recover this album, perhaps it's OK artistically but not technically, and after fiasco of "Syndroms of the City" rated only 5, they scrapped it and hit the road again. Or maybe it's still tabu in Poland again. Many articles me and others wrote exist in English wiki but were shredded in Polish wiki. The most typical example is a sad story about Anna Halman. greg park avenue 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In light of recent improvements and addition of an ISBN reference. [18] Cricket02 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attempt at improving the article but their own website is hardly a reliable source IMHO. Postcard Cathy 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I suspect that in real life this band probably meets notability, going by the article—which doesn't even claim notability—I have to come down against it. Were the Polish article to be translated, it would still need some reliable sources for me to change my mind. Closenplay 00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Postlethwaite 11:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartanszone[edit]

Lacking notability and encyclopedic value KeNNy 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't even a Conference team. These are a bunch of supporters of a Conference team. DarkAudit 02:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are yet to join a league and yet to adopt a home pitch. Let them do that first, and then we can discuss it again. YechielMan 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V. I performed a Google search and got a measly 5 results. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A club formed last month with lofty ambitions to join a small-town Sunday league? Seriously, they couldn't be less notable if they tried. Even if they do join a league they will still be a million miles away from notability. Possible speedy delete, in fact, as I can't really see any claim to notability in the article ChrisTheDude 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also this forum thread which makes it clear this is a blatant promotion/spam attempt and contains such gems as "someonw (sic) with no life reported it but i didn't knwo (sic) at the time so deleted the comments about the players but leave it a while and we can add them back" ChrisTheDude 11:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Schools Association Sports Champions[edit]

As Aquinascruft. Article is unencylopeadic, not placed into a reasonable context, and fails to demonstrate notability of the subject matter - in this case what is the results from a series of inter-school sporting events between private schools. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (question rather?) - like the oval - it may not stand alone - but perhaps it could be squeezed into a merge with something else? Formatting suggests the creator didnt know about columns. It would not take much for an experienced editor to (a) reformat (b) provide context (c) review its worth. removed comment. Satu Suro 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed deletion of Private School Sporting pages seems to be on the cards at the moment. The reason why this detail was hived off the main article was because of the size. yes, the formatting could be improved but there is no reason why it should be deleted, especially considering there is no where else on the www this information appears in this format. "Obviously nominator did not go to a private school" = interesting point! User:Steve Stefan 31 May 2007
Delete. This stuff should be somewhere, but not in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia. Thewinchester is spot on. What does "Obviously nominator did not go to a private school" have to do with anything? --Bduke 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - internal WA project humour crept in, now removed Satu Suro 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That private school remark was a low blow, a low blow indeed Satu :). And as for Steve Stefan - while a nice try to make that statement something more than it actually was, not assuming good faith and implying the nominator had a conflict of interest through a perceived bias was not a wise thing to do, not withstanding the specific comment by SatuSuro has no real bearing on the AfD's outcome. I would have to suggest that the worth/value of the content is the key question here, which goes to the core parts of the Aquinascruft essay. The content would not be here if it wasn't for the passion of the original content creators brought on by the school's history and rivalries that are carefully shaped and fostered within the school environment. They are essentially using Wikipedia as another forum for them to see who's the best in their respective sporting competitions, which doesn't in spirit meet the criteria of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It would be almost impossible IMHO for any editor to make significant enough improvements to bring this article into line with WP:MOS and other policies and procedures, let alone provide enough context and information to make the information valuable. This conversation is reminding me of the whole spoilers debate, which may actually still be in progress, and previous AfD's and other discussions relating to the amount of information included about each episode. The same principals apply with this article, as it would be near imposable for any editor to compile enough information for each of the listed events and annual competitions to provide significant context for it. Maybe i'm just sick of Aquinascruft-like articles over the last month, and it's got to the stage where i'd frankly wish they'd all just vanish into a massive AfD-like hole. It's not going to happen, and by deleting articles like this we can at least help direct the passions of these editors to better wiki improvement pursuits. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, difficulty (or impossibility) in sourcing this information outside the organisation's own records (see Steve Stefan's comments - thinking maybe the information should be on a website for the PSA, either fan-driven or from the organisation themselves?), and indeed what relevance the information has to a reader of an encyclopaedia. Has anyone checked to ensure the copyright status of this information, btw? Satu's idea is a reasonable compromise in which case I'd vote Merge as a second preference, but as a former private school student myself (insert appropriate wink) who is familiar with the whole interschool carnival thing, I don't think anything my most worthy peers did relevant unless they went on to make state or national level in their sport (which two or three in fact did). Orderinchaos 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it fails both WP:V primary sources only, WP:N non notable sporting competion between high school students. It does comply with WP:NOT indiscriminate collection requirements and would make a very nice feature for any walled garden. Gnan garra 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. They are school competitions of no importance to anyone other than current and past students. If there was evidence of reporting on the events in the major Perth newspapers or coverage by radio and television outlets I may think differently. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the information of participants in this AfD, User:Steve Stefan has been attempting to circumvent the AfD process by copying content from this article into Public Schools Association. This is a copy-paste move, which violates the GFDL License which requires Attribution to the original contributor. These changes have been reverted, the user warned, and the article is on watch to ensure this no longer continues. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that really matter if it's copied across - that sort of information is more appropriate there anyway. I think we take policy far too seriously - and I'm sure the person who wrote the information originally would give their blessing to it being moved. JRG 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Public Schools Association is definitely notable there is no need to have a page listing the champion school (not professional sporting club, not state/country team, but school) in every event for the past 100+ years. If such a thing is really needed, put a link to the list on an external site within the the main PSA's article Guycalledryan 09:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet more snobcruft. Get rid of it. Lankiveil 10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey - I agree the article is not notable, but that sort of comment is not really acceptable. Going to a private school or writing articles on them does not make someone a snob. Please bear in mind WP:CIVIL. JRG 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are not indicated and I doubt that there is third party sources for much of it. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - information is likely to be a copyvio of the PSA website or something like that; but having the whole list on Wikipedia is not really warranted - maybe a couple of sentences as to the sports competed in under the PSA would do in the main article, but every sport and every competition is unnecessary. If not delete, then definitely merge to the parent article. JRG 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full reliance on primary sources indicates this is not a notable topic. It would be refreshing to see some form of commentary on what all these tables of results mean: there is a huge gap between WP:OR and summarising which school can show a tradition of excelling. That is the type of material which belongs in an encyclopedia, with tables like the ones in this article rolled-up somewhere as a resource.Ga rr ie 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails even the "usefulness" test. Maybe the school should set up its own wiki for this type of thing. John Vandenberg 08:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Krimpet (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kos[edit]

Prod removed by creator. Claim to notability: subject lived 106 years and upon death was mentioned in local news. Doesn't seem to have done anything notable in his life. Wikipedia is not a memorial. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He became notable for living past 100, and this notability was recognized in Wikipedia's gold standard for notability: multiple independent reliable sources. If notability can be established, "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't apply. --Eastmain 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep He's covered by multiple (no less than 6) sources and was one of the last veterans of the First World War. I don't understand the disdain against 'local news' regarding his sources, which the nominator might notice actually covered him in life as well as in death. They seem to fit the necessary criteria. Nick mallory 02:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Veterans of the first World War are very rare and I don't believe that the argument "Wikipedia is not a memorial" applies here. Refer to Surviving veterans of World War I. Kos was the the 2nd to last WWI veteran from Poland. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory. Maxa megalon 2000 05:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BIO with flying colours. --Charlene 05:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject does not seem particularly notable to me, but it's hard to argue otherwise with six reliable news sources. He is probably relatively well-known in Poland, although he seems obscure to the English-speaking world. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the six sources are in fact 3: two Polish local newspapers and 1 local webpage.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're 6 separate pieces about him. Nick mallory 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Eastmain.PierceG 19:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Charlene. greg park avenue 20:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nom withdrawn for the band, and keep the albums. Sr 13 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mucc[edit]

~~Non-notable band without an allmusic entry or other reliable source, to my knowledge. Fails WP:BAND without a doubt. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing main nomination but keeping nomination of albums. Somehow or another, I didn't notice that they were signed to Universal. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Kuchiki no Tou, Houyoku, and Gokusai, their albums. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not familiar with it really, but from a google search seems to be a relatively popular indie J-Rock band.--Shadowdrak 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:BAND by releasing more than one album on a major label (Universal in this case), see here for example. Article does need expansion, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems notable to people who like this type of music. Have lasted a decade and released several albums. I'd give it a KEEP instead of a WEAK KEEP, if the article had reliable sources. Plus the current article is a horrible mess, so I wouldn't miss it too much if it were deleted. Black Harry (T|C) 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eliminator. Just because they may not be popular in ALL of America doesn't mean they're not notable at all. Same goes for the others you put up for deletion. ~EdBoy^[c] 01:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable band. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Has multiple albums on a major label, and therefore passes WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Keep the albums too -- if the band's notable, their albums are usually considered notable too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot believe this. One person not knowing of a band does not constitute "non-notable". Do your research before you put a deletion tag on a Wikipedia article, please. This article is simply in dire need of improvement. Same goes for the articles on their albums. --Mokkshaa 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, there are still no reliable sources cited about the band, and they don't even have an allmusic.com entry. I didn't notice that they were signed to Universal, but that's why I withdrew the nomination. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the albums, they still don't meet WP:V, seeing as there are no reliable sources about them cited. Just because the musical group may meet the notability guidelines does not mean that the albums do. I propose that they be redirected to the main article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, per WP:MUSIC .. "If the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.". EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But they still have to pass official policies like WP:V. Those article don't even have any sources cited. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are a lot of stubs that don't have sources. I thought it was policy to leave stubs like that in place unless they are not easily expandable in their current condition.--Shadowdrak 17:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are the articles on the albums really expandable, though? Do any reliable sources exist about them? All they serve as right now are track listings, and that's not really anything suitable for an encyclopedia. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please should be notabel for music guidelines really yuckfoo 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IronGargoyle 21:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La vache qui tache[edit]

This page about a party game got a ((Prod)) with may not be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, and a ((Prod-2)) by the AfD nominator. [19] Additionally it appears to fail Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information The prod was removed with this note left on User talk:65.123.195.130 I found article useful. Removed proposed deletion and fixed a spelling error. Jeepday (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncited, no assertion of notability. DMacks 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, made into a commercial board game, also quite a few google hits (albeit most in French) Guycalledryan 09:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Exactly when the game ends is a little ambiguous, but usually involves a lot of giggling and someone running away from the table to avoid getting spotted. Non-notable... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator voting Delete even with the addition of the single references the article would seem to fail WP:N. Jeepday (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is considerable notability regarding this game, especially since it was mentioned by various French and Belgian board game websites. And I think they may be like magazines of the sort.--Kylohk 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Dick[edit]

Contested prod. Does not establish notability. 650l2520 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater Fails WP:N and WP:V Jeepday (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with jeepday This article is not wiki worthy as a stand alone. Postcard Cathy 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-player character from one of the Tony Hawk games would probably be considered non-notable if they didn't represent an actual person; a player character like this one is eminently game-guide material. Private Carrera should probably be bundled with this article, as it's basically the same thing. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof. Maxa megalon 2000 05:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Isn't a major part of the game, should be incorporated into the main game article Guycalledryan 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aeternitas (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, no source. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search worded to eliminate noise related to Aeternitas (the coin) gives 800 hits. The top 10 are Myspace and directory-style websites; no reliable sources. YechielMan 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete So close, I think, but not quite notable. Closenplay 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinfo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Note the nominator forgot to transclude, so I transcluded it here. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable site with no known reliable outside sources. Delete for similar reason to why we deleted Encyclopedia Dramatica and the other wikis that are "unsourced" (although I am an ED sysop and do know sources for that site). Note I have a bit of an anti-Wikinfo bias, because I have been vicously trolled and harassed by Fred Bauder, the admin of the site. Riboflavinl0l 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Riboflavinl0l 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) — Riboflavinl0l (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I've visited Wikinfo, but most of their articles are crude outdated Wikipedia articles. Just go there and read their article on George W. Bush. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ITANNOYSME. This sounds like an "I don't like it" argument, that their articles are low-quality is not a deletion reason. Fimbulwintr 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable as functioning fork of Wikipedia, sources for assertions in article have been provided, we've been over this before. Nominator's honesty about his dispute with Fred Bauder is good, but doesn't justify deletion of article. Casey Abell 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone explain what new information has arisen since the last three nominations to merit a further discussion? YechielMan 03:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Casey Abell. I'm coming in completely new to this so have no bias I hope. I see sources. 209.121.47.38 03:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - looks like it has sufficient reliable sources for some kind of notability. I'm not pleased with them, though. --Haemo 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first source (courtesy web.archive.org) actually quotes Wikinfo on Wikipedia. It doesn't actually discuss Wikinfo beyond the mention its an SPOV fork of Wikipedia. The second source mentions Wikinfo in only one sentence, and that's to announce that its a fork from Wikipedia. The third source is German (I think?), so I can't really check it. (German article on an English fork of English Wikipedia?) It seems as though it only mentions it in a single paragraph about a larger subject as well. References 4-8 are self-references. Reference 9 is the software GetWiki mentioning that Wikinfo is running its software. These don't seem to qualify as Reliable Secondary Sources. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As per others, and simply because I found the article useful. My bias. : ) --R e m i 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to an appropriate article on Wikipedia's impact and relationship to other projects or delete. Passing mentions in 2 reliable sources is still all I see... everything else is referenced to unreliable sources or the site itself. If this was just some blog, we'd nuke it with a snarky deletion summary... keeping it around as a standalone article is pro-Wikipedia inclusion bias. --W.marsh 05:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It may someday become historically significant, (see previous AfD arguments), but it still lacks sources. Its very easy to look through the two pages of google results, and see that there's not much about it out there. Any sources listed on the References section do little more than mentioning Wikinfo. Miserably fails WP:WEB. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Haemo. semper fictilis 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wizzard2k. Hut 8.5 08:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Haemo. Not the best page, but a worthy one to pursue. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to references already listed in the article, additional reliable source discussion here: [20]. "About" 204,000 ghits. JulesH 09:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there are "exactly" 18 ghits. All I had to do was click next from your link (Google's estimates are notoriously bad, though sometimes fun. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I've clicked through the first 30 pages, so there are at least 300 when I look. Perhaps some of your google settings prevent it working correctly...?

There appear to be different search results when you search the web using www.google.co.uk and www.google.com . I'm not sure how I managed to only see the 18 results (which is now down to 16) and paste the link above to google.co.uk from the same source, but I'll check into it further. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also get this message: In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 16 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely a notable website, passes WP:RS. The nominator's statement of bias seems a bit dubious... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 10:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wizard Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 13:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment If there are no reliable sources, this still gets deleted. Besides, this site has no lulz. Riboflavinl0l 14:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH and others. -- DS1953 ^talk 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable functioning fork of WP. GlassFET 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no reliable outside sources, nothing but otdated crap copied from WP, etc. Have you noticed that when someone afds a non notable Wikipedia-approved website such as this, it always ends in keep, but when someone afds a non-notable site that criticises Wikipedia, like ED, it gets deleted? Obvious signs of bias...Drennleberrn 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disregarding the apparently bad-faith nom and ignoring the silly vendetta from Encyclopedia Dramatica users, there really is no reliable secondary sources demonstrating notability or allowing verifiability. As others have mentioned, the two or three secondary sources are just passing mentions in the context that it was forked from Wikipedia. Google News Archives only returns one result (one of the above passing mentions cited), LexisNexis returns none. The above sources verify enough information to maybe merit a short mention in History or Criticism of Wikipedia about how Wikinfo forked from Wikipedia and why, but not enough for a full verifiable article. Krimpet (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --Dezidor 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A possible solution is for those who may feel inclined and do not have connection with such sites as this to write publishable articles about them, as a study of information behaviour perhaps, and get them published in some reliable publication. If they are really not worth noticing, presumably no regular publication will take them. I have no immediate plans to do so myself.DGG 04:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's bias, candidly disclosed, is not a reason to oppose deletion, but Wikinfo has enough articles and enough longevity to be notable. JamesMLane t c 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparent bad faith nom plus this article has survived 2 previous noms with clean keeps. Ron Ritzman 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the site is notable not sure if this nomination is in bad faith or not yuckfoo 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For christ's sake, do people just love giving Wikitruth wiki-bashing fodder or do they actually think this article doesn't meet WP:Notability? Because it certainly does. VanTucky 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete If someone wants the content so they can add sources, I will make it available. W.marsh 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Pagès i Corella[edit]

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. Also a suspected autobiography. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable, and a blatant conflict of interest/autobiography. YechielMan 05:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bradybd 07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to WP:MUSIC, a musician can be notable if they've won or placed in competitions, as this one has. That's not to say that this article doesn't need improvement, and that these facts need to be sourced, but that's not a reason to delete. semper fictilis 07:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is substance here. I've seen far, far worse. Contributor should be given a chance to clean up the page. -- Kleinzach 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Ryan Postlethwaite. YechielMan 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bipul Kumar[edit]

Article does not explain why the game might be notable (WP:N), or provide any independent references (WP:V). Prod was contested in January by an anonymous user with the reason: Removed proposal for removal. If someone has no interest for video games, fine. But these video games reviews here are useful for me and others. Being "useful" is not a keep reason. Marasmusine 12:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? All I can see on the article is a link to an image on an external site (which doesn't work), and no other content. There's also no mention of video games on the page or in the edit history.... ChrisTheDude 12:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been deleted once today speedily (without the picture). I've tagged it once more. --Tikiwont 12:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton Hut[edit]

unnotable roundabout Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:LOCAL. YechielMan 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Srikeit 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Katz[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Nor is it a record of things that appeared briefly in the newspapers. Unless the is a record of ongoing noteworthiness, then please delete this. Abnn 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say merge to First Intifada - as he's notable only for being its first victim. However that article says it began in 1987, but this on says he died in 1983. Certainly merge to an article on the incident. The incident is notable as his death, but we've no information for a bio. Do not keep.--Doc^g 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Doc. If he really is the first casualty of the intifada, and we can source that claim, merge to that article. FCYTravis 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article can be better sourced (an article about the injustice of the trial of his killers?) and it can be established that his 1983 murder was somehow the first associated with the 1987 Intifada (?), in which case it should be merged per Doc. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to the appropriate intifada article, as this poor victim is not notable other than for the event. Document the event, not the person. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete NN. --Shuki 10:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lar. Number 5 7 21:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the notable bit, though the person fails WP:BIO. Tewfik^Talk 04:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is almost unreferenced; the claim that he was "considered the first victim of the Intifada" is completely unsourced, and it is hard to see how somebody murdered in 1983 can be considered a victim of events which started in 1987. The first victim of the Intifada was 17-year-old Hatem Abu Sisi of Jabalya Refugee Camp (I can provide several references if necessary). Also, I believe the article is factually wrong in claiming that five men were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1991. That seems to be the date of the retrial; I think the trial itself was in 1983, though I would have to check this. All in all, an unreferenced and misleading, probably mistaken, article about a non-notable person. Danny Katz should be mentioned in the appropriate articles, but not with a separate article, and not -- without much better justification -- in connection with the first Intifada. RolandR 19:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. IronGargoyle 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Facchin[edit]

Not played for first team yet WikiGull 10:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 10:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all All four appear to be considered members of the first team squad (they have squad numbers) and at a club of Milan's stature that's enough to satisfy WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 10:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep They appeared as unused subs. Matthew_hk t c 12:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are first-team squad members at one of the world's biggest clubs. ArtVandelay13 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they're not part of the first team at all. It is a common use by Italian teams to assign first name numbers to youth team players regardless of their actual presence in the first team. And, as you can see [21], they're not listed in the AC Milan first team squad page. --Angelo 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 3 of them have been unused subs in Serie A and/or the Coppa Italia. And the best and most objective reason of deciding whether someone is a first-team squad member is to see if they have a squad number (and it's a criteria usually used in these debates) - there must be a reason why these have been given numbers, while other youth players haven't. ArtVandelay13 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What happens should they leave Milan with no appearances and then not play any further games that would make them notable? Do they then retain notability on the grounds that they were once on the bench for a cup tie? WikiGull 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability can be a transient thing; at the moment they pass, but if they get released and don't find a pro club by the following season, they can be reconsidered. ArtVandelay13 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If they make the squad then in my mind notability is met. There's a slight problem with Italian football in that there's is no League Cup and hence, less of a chance for young players to get senior games. To say they made the squad for a league game would put them on a par as having played in a League Cup game in other European countries. Niall123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPod sharing[edit]

This is not encyclopedic at all and makes no sense. It is nothing noteworthy is is just something done by some people. It is not "IPod" specific. If anything it should be called "Music player sharing" or something like that. Indolences 03:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's common knowledge that people do this. So what? YechielMan 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic topic. GlassFET 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who needs it? Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an appropriate encyclopedic subject. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 17:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable garbage. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The wired article cited quotes a proponent: "It's not widespread at all, but it's the kind of thing that might take off at a campus or in a small community...". == NN? --Infrangible 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No strong consensus apparent about whether to keep as a standalone article or merge. W.marsh 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park IV[edit]

This film has not improved in notability since the last AFD, and like the article says, the film is in "development hell", and for all anyone knows it could stay like that for years to come.It seems that only because films always leave a door for a sequel, people always assume they will eventually happen, which they might.The fact is Hollywood officials likely talk about making sequels for most films, and this film has been talked about since 2001, but still hasn't started production. Stronger confirmation of possibility of creation is required before it can be considered to be true. Rodrigue 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Star Trek XI was created long before even an announcement. -- Cat ^chi? 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which discourages using another article's existence as the basis for this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay. Courts decide based on precedence and so should we. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but that "other stuff" was even in the same league as "this stuff". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - This should be a merge information proposal, not a delete information proposal. Cat, two wrongs don't make a right, and no two articles are the same. Star Trek XI has way more information than JP IV, and would not benefit from being on a Star Trek film series page, JPIV would. Just like with Spider-Man 4, there isn't enough going on right now to suggest that the film WILL be made, or in the least, that it warrants its own article. ST XI is more like Indiana Jones IV, it's in the process of being made; JP IV is on the backburner until after Indy IV. Best to put it on the Jurassic Park franchise page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect since there is no definite news of production. It's also misleading that an uncertain-to-be-made film would get its own article. I agree with what Bignole said above to place the information at Jurassic Park franchise. I would also take it a step further and recommend that article's style to be similar to Spider-Man film series. There is nothing wrong with the content; it just needs to be housed as a subtopic instead of a main topic, since this film has been kicking around in development hell for a long time now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure development hell is the right term.The fact is if they wanted to make a another film, it would have been released a few years after the last one.But a trilogy is usually a main film series ends, so from there they can just decide years later if they want to revive the series and make another film.The first 3 films were no more than a few years a part, and so far this one looks longer if it is going to happen.

Development hell is when a film is having trouble finding time to be produced.This film is just simply a lingering idea, because there is no real reason to continue a film past the usual 3. Rodrigue 12:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'there is no real reason to continue a film past the usual 3' rather brilliantly sums up everything that's wrong about Hollywood at the moment. Nick mallory 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles on Star Trek XI and Bond 22 cannot be used as justification for keeping this as those are films with verifiable and confirmed production status. Although there is a comment in this article citing a source stating back in 2006 that production was expected in 2007, there has since been no concrete evidence that such a production is imminent, just various "so-and-so is not in the film" comments. Delete it for now, but make sure there's a paragraph about it in the main article, and a full article can always be recreated if and when production is actually announced. Otherwise Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball applies. 23skidoo 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair, the film Star Trek XI was only verifiable since this February 2007 when a firm release date was announced. Before that the article could have easily been deleted for the same reasons like this one, it was only speculation.

Is it fair to say that articles on future films should usually only be created when an exact release date for the film has been announced?. Rodrigue 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, that or an exact production start date is announced have always been my feelings. Generally, you could count on your hand how many times a studio would fork over tens of millions and then simply say "eh, nevermind". In the least they'll throw it on DVD just to get their money back. This isn't to be confused with having to pay people because you didn't make the film. Anyway, that's a discussion for WikiProject Films. Right now, JP is best suited in a film series page, and not a page of its own. There has been a ton of speculation that has yet come to fruitation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the film is notable, but remove the upcoming films tag and write in past tense until they give a release date. The fact it's part of the Jurassic Park series makes it notable, and just because it's canceled (or seem to have stalled) doesn't mean it should be gone. Whsitchy 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information wouldn't be gone, just the page. That's why this AfD is probably the wrong step, because people associate it with deletion of information (which is its primary purpose really, but not in this case). Why does sharing a connection to something automatically make it notable? The information may be notable in and of itself, but not notable enough (or stable enough) to support an entire article all alone. By that definition, we should create an article for every husband or wife of every celebrity (who isn't a celebrity themselves). I mean, they're married to a Matt Damon, or some other famous person, that makes them notable, right? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Since the film is in "development hell," I say we put it in our own little "development hell" and merge it back with the main article. --Hnsampat 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The positive sources seem to be just a video games website. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator, you're pointing out how someone's arguing "this one article exists, so this here article should too", but didn't you initially say that because Terminator 4 lost in the AfD, that this should too? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was wrong to compare Jurassic Park IV to Star Trek XI because,although only since last february, that film had a confirmed release date.But Terminator 4 and Jurassic Park IV are currently prety much the same in terms of verification of when, if at all, they will even start being produced.I stand by my comments that they are comparable and therefore have the same AFD result. Rodrigue 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as this is not yet a film. JJL 23:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are sources stating this movie will be out, that along with the fact that many other movie's articles come out before release is more back up. 69.249.168.9

Comment: Please understand that there can be talk about a film that will never be made. Thus, it cannot be accepted that just because a studio talks about plans to make a film would mean that the film would actually result. There are many issues to be dealt with, such as the budget, the appropriate director, the proper cast, et cetera. Clearly, this article shows that there is still no sign of actual production, even with talk since 2002. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is why I nominated it, talk and even development of a film does not confirm production.It is natural for people to speculate on a sequel for a film,especially such a popular one, long before it is confirmed or denied if the film even is being made.That was the problem with Terminator 4, just because it was a popular film series it is natural to assume there will be another film, and even officials can ponder the thought for years as in that film and this one. Rodrigue 12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Change to Keep Because of the logic cited below. Articles should not be recommended for deletion repeatedly if a previous AfD discussion has resulted in clear consensus to the contrary. --Bishop2 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the logic below has nothing to do with having its own article. It should still be merged, the information should not be deleted (which is the purpose of AfD). A bunch of reliable sources saying the film is delayed doesn't mean "let's create an article about it". It should be with the series as a whole. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it matters, frankly. If the article's already reached "no consensus," no new discussion is allowed unles new information is present to discuss on the matter. And there's no new info to discuss since the last nomination. --Bishop2 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Over a dozen reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish that the film is in the works and is notable. No requirement exists that a release date be imminent. Given the clear consensus to Keep in an AfD held just a few months ago, I would also question if this AfD is not a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, which states "Once established, consensus is not immutable.... This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." as there seems to be no change in the status of the article that would justify revisiting the issue. Alansohn 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This movie has been confemed a million times. If you delete this why not delete all the other coming in 2008 movie articles! User:Microraptor Dude

Comment: Because 2008 stuff like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are already in production. This one has no signs of that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge covering the topic of an incomplete movie is fine, even if that movie is never released. -- Ned Scott 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for the renomination for deletion of this article, Wikipedia has no real policy on double jeopardy, or the renomination of an article for an AFD.Wikipedia:consensus simply highlights possible arguments for and against doing so, and generally an AFd can be argued again after a few months. Rodrigue 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Consensus is not merely a nice thing to try to do, but a bedrock foundation of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Consensus is marked as official policy. As the policy states, "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss." While the exact words are not used, this would be a rather clear ban on double jeopardy, placing a very strong burden of proof on a nominator seeking to take a second (or third, or fourth...) shot at deleting an article that was closed as a Keep in the past. WP:Notability (a mere guideline) states that "Notability requires objective evidence and does not expire.... If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time." Given that the previous AfD ended in a clear consensus to keep and given that no new information has been provided to undermine that consensus, it would seem that this AfD is a rather clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Alansohn 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. You don't see court cases holding a retrail for someone that was found not guilty in a murder trial, just because they have something else to talk about. They may prosecute for something else entirely, but not the same thing. Also, the first AfD occurred in February, it is not June. I'm still not saying "delete", because I think a proposed merger should have been done on the article page, but it doesn't fall into Rod trying to get a desired outcome, especially when Rod didn't even vote in the last AfD, let alone nominate the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really. The desired outcome of the previous AfD (which stands for "Articles for Deletion") was to delete the article. The stated goal of this current exercise is to take a second try at deleting the article. In the U.S. Court system, double jeopardy applies only to the specific crime; you can charge the same person for different crimes or different occurrences of the same crime and seek the same penalty. In Wikipedia, the clear statement at WP:Consensus is that double jeopardy applies to the intended result. You simply cannot take repeated stabs at deleting an article, the intended goal of an AfD. The fact that the nominator (or prosecutor, from your analogy) is different, or that the participants (members of the jury) are nor the same as in the first AfD does not make this effort any more legitimate, nor does the passage of several weeks make the previous AfD old news. When the nominator realized that a previous AfD had existed and had been closed as a Keep, a rather strong burden was imposed to demonstrate why the previous consensus should be disregarded. Despite this responsibility, the nomination makes no mention of why the consensus should be overturned, merely stating that "This film has not improved in notability since the last AfD". That simply is not good enough. The obligation on the nominator, all participants and the entire Wikipedia community is to respect settled areas of discussion. This AfD shoves its thumb firmly in the eye of consensus. Alansohn 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But it doesn't say that an article cannot be renominated for an AfD, it just says don't continually do it just to get the outcome you desire. Rod didn't nominate it last time, he didn't even partake in the discussion, so saying that he is trying to supercede something that he may or may not have known anything about is bogus. Also, it isn't uncommon for actuals to have a "second nomination". Different people see AfDs at different times. By the time it was made clear there was a previous AfD, this one had already been underway and it's clear that many people think the information should, in the least, be moved to a more relevant area. If you think there is such a disregard for consensus, then go report it. You keep citing WP:Consensus, but what you need to pay attention to is Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change. You pulled this:This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome, However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss and It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing. New people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. The point is that nothing has happened with this film since it's last AfD, when everyone is like "it's going to happen". A future film's notability can change, because it isn't established in notability. It isn't like creating a page for a past event and then having someone say "this is no longer notable". What Rod is saying is that this was never notable, and the film has not even gone into production (or given clues as to when it will), thus it's notability is still questionable. The "consensus" of notability would depend on the group of editors discussing. Maybe the vast majority of them were fanboys that didn't want to see their beloved page deleted on the grounds that there wasn't clear information the film would be made. It isn't hard to have a small group of people vote in one direction for a film that most people could care less about. Right now, people aren't even talking about it. The AfD may have been the wrong choice of procedures, as I'm sure Rod was more or less saying the page should be deleted but the information should stay. Regardless, it's clear that Rod isn't violating concensus, he's asking for a reiteration of it based on the lack of relevant information on the film's notability. Just being part of a film franchise doesn't make it notable. There are half a dozen Hellraiser films, and the last 3 or 4 were direct to DVD. Talk of a film doesn't make it anymore notable either. What if the film comes out and doesn't perform well? It doesn't bomb horribly, but it doesn't do anything spectacular? It's the fourth film in the series, who is actually expecting it to do anything? What did the last one do? See, it doesn't automatically get notability enough for its own article, just because it's part of something on a large scale. Minor characters of films are not notable, even if the films themselves are. The little Kitner boy that was killed in Jaws doesn't deserve his own article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:Consensus makes it clear that consensus, while not set in stone, must be respected. The restriction on multiple AfDs applies collectively to all editors; each editor is not entitled to one stab at deleting an article, merely because he or she hadn't nominated (or voted to delete) the article previously. The claim that the nominator didn't know there was a previous AfD seems rather specious, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurassic Park IV already existed and it takes additional effort to set up a 2nd nomination. Nor is ignorance of policy or precedent justification to ignore consensus. I appreciate your attempt to argue the previous AfD, but the matter was settled as Keep. I couldn't care less that you don't feel that the film will be ever be made or will make any money as the fourth in the series. I got tired after number two. Actually, I was bored about a third of the way through Jurassic Park II. I have read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, which follows the sentences you quoted with the rather clear statements I pulled out that precedent is a rather strong trump over attempts to change consensus, and maps out a rather well-defined protocol to follow to try to undo established consensus, none of which was followed. Notability was established by virtue of the fact that the Wikipedia community came to a consensus that the dozen-plus reliable and verifiable sources supported the claim. Nothing has happened since then that would justify what seems to be a rather flagrant violation of WP:Consensus. Please review the full text of Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change and tell me which part of the following justifies creation of another AfD: "Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss. An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree. No one editor can unilaterally declare that consensus has changed." Alansohn 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, I did create the article of Jurassic Park franchise, and given the state of the film I think the footnote on the possibility of the film is enough, and is already covered in that article. Rodrigue 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said he went about it the best way, but your words are acting as if Rod maliciously intended to supercede the previous AfD, when from his discussion it's apparent that he merely felt that it wasn't an accurate consensus. Consensus can be challenged, and it isn't like he turned (or anyone else) turned around 15 days later. It was months later, after no new information had become available to satisfy, in his mind, a consensus about the notability of a film that may or may not be made. It's clear from this AfD that keep is not as strong an opinion as it was 4 months ago. My argument with you is not over whether Rod made the best decision in regards to the article (as my opinion on what should have been done is clearly at the top), but how you are addressing Rod's actions as being intentionally disruptive to the consensus. That may not have been your intention, but it is how it was presented. Instead of say simply "consensus was reached several months ago" (which obviously, many disagree with... which is not a crime), but how you accused him of trying to sidestep the consensus by coming here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue is not with the individual who started this second AfD. My issue is that a second AfD exists in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. I have never stated that the AfD was created deliberately to spite consensus, only that its existence is improper. My only reference that could be read as blaming the nominator is a statement that it's rather hard to create a second nomination without knowing that a prior one existed, which was aimed not at the nominator, but in response to your statement that the knowledge of the existence of a previous AfD is something "he may or may not have known anything about". I have no reason to believe, nor have I ever stated that the nominator intended to be disruptive. It is the nomination itself, which could well have been created with all of the good faith in the world, that is disruptive. Now that the violation has been raised, the good faith proper step would seem to be for the nominator to withdraw the nomination, and then follow the procedures specified at WP:CONSENSUS for uprooting previous consensus. Alansohn 17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say it was your intention, I said that your presentation was the problem. You could have simply stated that a consensus was reached in February over the existence of this article. "Violation" of consensus is more serious than a simple "reassessment". The same with "disruptive". He isn't being disruptive. I don't see half a dozen 2nd Nominations of AfDs with his name on them. After 4 months, this isn't disruptive. It may be ill timed, and the wrong procedure, but it wasn't disruptive. Rod apparently feels that it needed to be reassessed, and obviously several editors felt the same. Rod cannot close an AfD once it is in progress, only an Admin can close it. Rod can withdraw his nomination, but only an Admin can stop and say "these other editors votes have no bearing, so I'm going to close this AfD based on the withdrawal of the nominator". If say there was a first AfD, which was clearly "keep", and a second that became overwhelmingly "delete"... the fact that a nominator withdraws his nomination would be irrelevant to the new consensus. Obviously, there isn't a clear one way or the other here, so if he chooses to withdraw the nomination it shouldn't be a problem. But that is his choice, and calling him disruptive (which, if you call his actions disruptive, then you are calling him that) is probably not going to help the situation. Look at us now, you and I are arguing over whether or not he's being disruptive, this AfD is being disruptive or if he was simply trying to reassess a future film's article consensus on notability (which he has the right to do, though his timing may be off). This right here, between you and I is disruptive to this page. I'm not trying to be rude, but I think maybe we should just end it here so that we both do not bog the page down any further. You've explained why you think this is a violation of consensus, and I've explained why I believe that it isn't (in that regard) a violation of anything. Everything's been said, and we are going to exacerbate the situation by reiterating everything we've already "iterated" multiple times already. Rod has a choice, he can withdraw his nomination if he chooses. If he doesn't, it won't be the end of Wikipedia. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My original "presentation" of the issue when I first participated in this Afd was "Given the clear consensus to Keep in an AfD held just a few months ago, I would also question if this AfD is not a violation of WP:CONSENSUS..." Not only could I "have simply stated that a consensus was reached in February", I did say exactly that (except for the February part), and did so in the most passively worded manner I could find. I did not use the word "disruptive", I took it from your statement that I was "addressing Rod's actions as being intentionally disruptive to the consensus..." and I called the nomination disruptive, and specifically stated that I did not think the nominator was. While I have made it clear from my first comment here that this entire AfD is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, I have never stated that this was a deliberate effort on the nominator to circumvent Wikipedia policy. I am more than willing to grant that the violation was unintentional. I have never seen a circumstance where an AfD was not closed based on a withdrawn nomination regardless of where consensus seemed to swing at that point in time. If the bedrock WP:CONSENSUS official policy has any value, this AfD should be withdrawn. If it is withdrawn, it won't be the end of Wikipedia, but it might show that Wikipedia official policy does have some meaning and value. Alansohn 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree that the AfD should be withdrawn. Many Keep votes from the previous AfD were placed in contrast to the initial Delete votes. The issue at hand was keeping the contest intact. If the article was deleted, none of the development information would have been kept in the Wikipedia article mainspace. I think that with the availability of Jurassic Park franchise, the Merge option has surfaced as a more realistic possibility. Generally, films that lag in production will constantly be undeveloped as their own articles. The content is more appropriate in a broader article, like a film series article, until key determinants of production (director, cast, production start date, sometimes release date) surface to warrant the revival of its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that User:Bignole's opinion on the matter is one he only shares, because to him it was wrong to renominate a page for deletion several months since the last nomination, even though people don't seem to be coming to the keep consensus that they did in the other AFD. Rodrigue 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I didn't participate in the previous AfD; I merely pointed out that this entire AfD is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, even if it was created inadvertantly. Again, the proper way to address the issue is to withdraw the nomination and follow the procedures laid out in WP:CONSENSUS for overturning established consensus. No valid reason has been provided for refusing to follow Wikipedia official policy. Alansohn 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's not an explicit violation. The nominator's reasoning was that time had passed since February, and there was still no evidence of actual production, even with a new paragraph of information about intentions. In addition, like I said above, Merge was a vote that wasn't proposed in the past AfD, and especially with the existence of Jurassic Park franchise, this vote is particularly reasonable. The content is still kept; nothing will be lost. It's just relocated elsewhere, and if the film reaches actual production, great, we can revive the article. If not, the sparse information can be housed at the franchise article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CONSENSUS states that "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." The nominator sought to delete the article and never mentioned merge as an option. WP:CONSENSUS lays out that "An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree." Not a single element of this procedure has been followed. Alansohn 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "May ask." It's not required. It's not an explicit violation. And for some reason, you're bolding the sentence that the nominator was re-nominating this for AfD. I think it's been covered that he wasn't involved with that AfD. In either case, the content is being kept, just relocated elsewhere. So the consensus isn't being reversed; it's definitely not the opposite of the previous AfD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're acting like he was supposed to know. He's only been here for about a year, and in that time he's only contributed 570 times (half of that in May alone). That right there says that he probably wasn't aware of every little policy and guideline on Wikipedia. I've been here for over 2 years, with over 16000 edits and I can say that I still learn new things. Anyone that says they know it all is full of it, not even you, with 35000 edits can say you honestly know everything on Wikipedia. The point being, stop acting like he was supposed to know this. You are making this so personal. Let it go. The AfD has already been started, it's going to end with a "no consensus" anyway. Get over it and let's move on. This is becoming extremely tiresome. You are bogging down the page (even after I asked you to let it go earlier) with the same argument, and the same bolded quotes over and over and over again. THAT is disruptive. We get it, you think he violated consensus, you think he did the wrong thing. Nothing else needs to be said. You've expressed your point. Reiterating it over and over isn't going to change anything. If you think he was so wrong, then bring it up in some abritration, or consult an Admin, but leave it off of here. It's been stated half a dozen times already. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Jurassic Park articles would not be complete without a JP4 page. It will have to be completely re-written once the film is released. --Cuddly Panda 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see no reason to delete. The truthiness of an article is not what determines if it has an article. Even if JP4 does not come to fruition, the story of it's development can be notable like Duke Nukem Forever. Cburnett 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But not notable enough for its own article. There are size requirements, and if articles cannot support themselves then they should be merged. Last time I checked, 3 paragraphs worth of information (which may or may not need summarizing themselves was not enough to warrant an entire article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be a good argument to say that this film is like Duke Nukem Forever in that it develops over a long period of time,but thats not the case.

The video game you were referring to was actually being created and produced during that time, but Jurassic Park IV has not even begun filming yet,so its not like they were keep on changing their minds, they just haven't started yet. Rodrigue 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Definitely adequately referenced to plenty of reputable citations. And I just get a kick out of Cburnett (talk · contribs) comments which reference "truthiness" and Duke Nukem Forever. Just wanted to mention that. Thanks for the laughs! Smee 09:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Well referenced, some movies have a longer written history when they are not made. Read Terry Gilliam or Orson Wells. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (with many - about half - suggestions to merge)

List of Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School episodes[edit]

This page has information already listed on the main page. There is no reason why there should be two pages with the exact same information. Admc2006 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom - redundant. YechielMan 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect - Per the fact that it is redundant. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete the episode section from the main page, which looks far too cluttered with the info included. Tarc 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no need to delete it now, I've already merged the episodes from the main page to this one.Thx2005 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - See the format of I Love New York (TV series). Format should be based upon that. Miranda 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect. I think that using the I Love New York (TV series) format is the right way to go. --mordicai. 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarkDonnaKeepThis page gives much detail on the shows recap!
Keep overly detailed but otherwise in line with what's done for other series. JJL 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of articles solely about episodes of a TV show. —The Real One Returns 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. The article used to be merged, and I don't see why that changed. The summaries could be cut down, it's true, but they were fine where they were. And for the record, you guys are referring to I Love New York (Season 1) when you talk about formatting issues. ryright 04:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see nothing wrong with having a sub article for the detailing of TV series episodes. It stops the main article from becoming…((toobig)) DtownG 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Buddhist Priory[edit]

This article does not specifiy the notablity of this place of religious worship/instruction. The article does not cite any sources whatsoever, althhough the lone external link may serve that purpose in the intentions of the original author.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per above ^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Rickard[edit]

An unfortunate child who got murdered. Obviously reported in the newspapers at the time, but not a subject for a wikipedia biography. Please delete. -Doc^g 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as once again i have to use the horrible phrase "non-notable murder victim". r.i.p. tomasz. 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a tragic murder victim with no continuing notability. Google search reveals no relevant recent results. Davewild 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT for memorialising. Eddie.willers 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Kilstein[edit]

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability, no refs and reads like self-bigging-up. tomasz. 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you do a Google search and read some of the third party information on him, you'll find that he arguably meets the standards for having an article. On the other hand, this puff piece is not a worthy article and unless someone rewrites it to assert notability, it is no great loss. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly written puff-piece for a non-notable person, with no reliable reference included. Turgidson 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Srikeit 09:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Downes[edit]

Murdered child - it was reported in the newspapers - no evidence of any notability besides. If there is, then write an article on the murder, not a biography of the victim. Please delete. -Doc^g 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing paticuarly notable - unless there was an uproar over the girl getting served in food. Definitely not worthy of a bio, perhaps if someone wanted to write something on the the murder and surrounding events. Viridae ^Talk 23:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT for memorialising. Eddie.willers 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This site, while not reliable in itself, has references to a large number of useful reliable sources talking about this case, and also about allegations that there was more to this case than a simple murder and that involved a ring of child prostitution. The case has also been used as propoganda by the British National Party. Definitely a notable murder case. JulesH 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see what the nominator's concern is, by the way. This is clearly an article on the murder, not a bio of the victim, as it contains no information about the victim beyond her date of birth (her age is relevant, as the perpetrator allegedly had sex with her despite her being under the age of consent). The rest of the information is all directly relevant to the murder. The article definitely does not involve itself in anything that could be described as "memorialising". JulesH 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand The nominator seems to be getting confused with biographical articles and murder articles this is clearly and murder article and as such need keeping and expanding. The article did cause a lot of local and national concern about an number of issues and caused widespread disgust when the BNP ran with the story.Lucy-marie17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, expand away and post5 the diffs before and after the expansion so people can evaluate. Viridae ^Talk 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall expand after this AfD has closed.--Lucy-marie 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article and the others in the series, all written in order to promote a BNP campaign and to advance racial hatred, should (I nearly said will) be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People are murdered every day, other than the soapboxing by a far right party which doesn't prove notability. there's no evidence of the significance of this one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCurrently the trial of the accudsed murderers is going on and the details of how she was allegedly murdered make the crime naotable.

Comment See WP:NOT#IINFO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get what you want me to look for as it dose not fall under memorialising or any of the other sections.--Lucy-marie 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Number 10 - News reports. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of work and when the trial has finished enough information will be out there and more will come to light on the circumstances and more information making notability even more prevelant than it is now should come to light so at the moment It may or may not be affected by point ten but after the trial it should not be affected by that point.--Lucy-marie 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic coatrack article. Delete as not notable, we are not the newspaper and we are not a memorial site, and this article does a disservice to her living relatives. If you MUST, update the article on the BNP to include mention of this but that's it. To Lucy-Marie: An AfD is the time to expand an article to address concerns raised if you can. Vague promises of expansion after the AfD typically hold no truck with anyone. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a WikiNews story, not an encycloapedia article. The case has no known lasting cultural or historical significance. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a coatrack article it is being covered by major news corporations such as the BBC. Cultural significance etc this does not need that as the event is verifiable from independant secondary sources.--Lucy-marie 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this news item not even pretending to be a biography of an encyclopedic person. Jkelly 01:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coment not a news item it is a murder article.--Lucy-marie 09:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT and I'd agree with the coatrack article remark. --Fredrick day 10:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand This is not a coatrack, nor, although it is currently in the news because of the trial, is it simply a passing news item. I have some sympathy with the view that the article might be better titled 'The Murder of Charlene Downes' for that is what makes her life of significance to the wider encyclopaedic audience. And it is potentially very significant since it is a particularly casual racist murder involving inadvertent cannibalism by third parties. The case is potentially explosive in current British society and may be well mark a turning point in UK race relations. The fact that the likes of the BNP may benefit from the backlash is no reason for suppressing the article. Edwin Greenwood 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great if it is potentially explosive and "may be well mark a turning point in UK race relations", you'll be able to supply multiple independent sources to that effect. --Fredrick day 14:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: classic coatrack article which is hardly "potentially explosive in current British society" given that hardly anyone outside Lancashire seems to have even heard of her. —Phil | Talk 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody outside Lancashire has heard of her because, apart from one article in the Manchester edition of Metro, the mainstream media have studiously ignored the case. It is only now that the matter has come to trial that a limited amount of national attention has been generated. Edwin Greenwood 10:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so that's "I have no sources that provide notability or cultural impact but I do have a crystalball?" --Fredrick day 10:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The murder case is not terribly notable; the victim is not notable (or encyclopaedic) at all. ElinorD (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand Notable as a paedophilic rape and murder a a young school girl. The main suspect currently on trail has been accused of dispossing of the body through cannibalism. On all counts this is more 'horrific' and notable than the Anthony Walker murder which has a long wikipedia entry.Tottenhamlad 09:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT a memorial. Kusma (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times this is not a biography or a memorial--Lucy-marie 09:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Srikeit 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Leanne Tiernan[edit]

Muderered schoolkid. Hit the newspapers at the time. No evidence of notability beyond that. Not encyclopedic -Doc^g 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not worthy of a bio, maybe a piece on the murder itself if someone thought it was worth it. People get murdered all the time (admittedly most of them aren't school kids) we don't need a bio on all of them. Viridae^Talk 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about the murder. JulesH 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT for memorialising. Eddie.willers 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of "memorialising". JulesH 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly meets the guidelines at WP:N. Whether this means the guidelines are broken or not, I'm not sure. But I think it's better to keep an article of marginal notability like this than to delete a well-sourced article without being certain it shouldn't be included. WP:NOT#PAPER applies. There's enough information out there for the article to exist, so why shouldn't wikipedia have such an article? JulesH 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being expanded This article forms part of the Wikiproject on British crime and has had another aticle mergeed into it the article is currently in the process of being expanded by myslef and given a few weeks the article will be fleshed out with more information. I say that deletion should be held off until expansion of the artticle has occured and not delted. In the article I have been very careful not to memorialise about the victim and the arrticle entry is not a biography it is an account of the murder. This link here shows why the article entry is important [22] as it was a high volume of pioneering forensic science which was used in the investigation.--Lucy-marie 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of why this is anything other than your typical murder case, hundreds of wich happen each and every day. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coment abduction, murder and high pioneeering forensics is not normally found in a typical murder investigation case.--Lucy-marie 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could be construed as insensitive, and in any case the events aren't particularly notable. Martinp23 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject being a minor doesn't make the murder a particularly notable one. Yonatan ^talk 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, not again Look, this is not a biography. There probably never will be a biography of this girl. Nor is it an especially notable case. Encyclopaedic cases are those with lasting cultural or historical importance - sadly this does not have any such distinction. It's a news story. It belongs in a news aggregator. If it belongs on Wiki[pedia at all - which I doubt - it would be in an article on the events of that year in Britain, or a list of murders or something. But actually unless it is included in books of notable murder cases I am unpersauded that it has any place in Wikipedia, any more than we have articles on the Beckhams' shopping trips or Elton John's flowers - if there is sustained coverage we can include it in another article, but it is not in and of itself encyclopaedically notable. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment A in Channel Five show was made of the murder showing the high levels of forensics that were used in the case so I think that does make the case a notable case. Also your comments on the beckhams when comparing to this are derogatory towards other editors and I think that poeple like you should try and do constructive things with wiki rather than going aorund trying to get articles deleted.--Lucy-marie 18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The case is discussed (albeit briefly) in Forensic Human Identification: An Introduction by Sue M. Black and Timothy J. U. Thompson (CRC Press, 2006). JulesH 10:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the forensic innovations on the appropriate article relating to police procedures, remove all identifying details (the picture, especially) and redirect this name there. The murder itself is not inherently notable under encyclopedic standards. Delete or merge and redirect but do not leave as is. To enforce the merge, delete until the information is present in the appropriate forensic article. The principles of WP:BLP require no less, as to do otherwise is insensitive to the victim and family. Also, claims of planned expansion should not stave off deleteion. Articles can be expanded (and evaluated in their expanded state) during AfD. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is used to illustrate the victim as the vitcim is dead. So this cannot be covered under a LIVING person biography as the person is dead. THis article is being deleted under the wrobng criteria as the article is not a biography and ther case indipendatly verifiable information in the pubil domain whihc is factual so is liablous in any way.--Lucy-marie 09:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is not NEEDED for an article on forensic advances, and the principles of BLP apply even to the dead, as the dead have families. ++Lar: t/c 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lar: you're suggesting censoring the article to avoid offending the victim's family. WP:NOT#CENSORED applies to this reasoning. JulesH 10:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am suggesting that we apply the principles of WP:BLP and WP:DIGNITY and capture the material that is important. That something is not libelous is not sufficient reason to keep it in a form that causes hurt. This is not censorship, it is making sure that WP is WP:NOT EVIL. ++Lar: t/c 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dignity is just an essay and is in no way policy and cannot be applied to an account of a murder.--Lucy-marie 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ONIH. --Fredrick day 10:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment ONIH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 June 2007
- One Night in Hackney. Please don't forget to sign your post, and also please indent your comments to show who you are replying to.. many of your comments right now are not indented. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to some suitable article on forensic analysis or DNA profiling—oh, look, both of those are available—as a case-study. —Phil | Talk 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Martinp23 and JzG. ElinorD (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to follow up on what others have said. Given that forensic science is constantly evolving and improving, I really don't think we need articles on every single case where new techniques have been used. Some cases do merit an article, eg Colin Pitchfork, but others should be covered in the articles recommended above if at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ethical ideas about the way we treat people (living or dead.) FloNight 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is going over the top with this whole dignity treatin g the dead and living. If the account ios truthful and accurate then it does not infringe anything. Just because the truth may be offencive it doesn't mean it is disallowed.

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

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

The result was Delete. Srikeit 10:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Adams[edit]

Murder victim. Hit the newspapers and someone who turned up to a march afterwards happened to be murdered himself = trivial. Simply no evidence this is encyclopaedic. -Doc^g 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not worthy of a bio, maybe a piece on the murder itself if someone thought it was worth it. People get murdered all the time (admittedly most of them aren't school kids) we don't need a bio on all of them. Viridae^Talk 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not a bio, it is about the murder case. It contains no information about Adams that is not directly relevant to his murder. JulesH 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So rename it as such. Viridae^Talk 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - S/he has already expressed the intention of doing do after the AfD closure. tomasz. 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; being murdered, while certainly unfortunate, does not make one notable. -- Mithent 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. However being discussed in multiple reliable sources does, which did happen in this case. JulesH 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT for memorialising. Eddie.willers 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of memorialising. JulesH 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small article that does not have the scope to improve or be merged elsewhere. violet/riga (t) 08:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote while new evidence is considered. violet/riga (t) 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep to give JulesH (and any others) the chance to turn this into a decent article. violet/riga (t) 21:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – long ago, no developments, unlikely to be encyclopedic. And the memorial thing. r.i.p. tomasz. 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JulesH's demonstration & violet/riga's reasoning above. (And rename to something like Murder of Rolan Adams to reflect his proper name). tomasz. 20:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a historically important murder that immediately lead to a period of strong racial tensions in London. Article doesn't read at all like a memorial to me, although it really needs expanding. This radio programme and the book White Backlash and the Politics of Multiculturalism by Roger Hewitt (Cambridge University Press, 2005) which contains a 5 page summary of the case could be helpful. The case was mentioned in parliament twice. Note that the article's title is wrong: the victim's name was "Rolan Adams". See also [23] [24] and [25]. JulesH 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional sources: [26] JulesH 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It seems the case was used as an illustration in a wider debate on British racism and while attitudes. That's still not a reason to have any information presented as a biography of the victim. Could we merge this somewhere, where that context can be presented? Any thoughts?--Doc^g 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an article about Racism in the United Kingdom or such-like we should consider including this case there. However, as it stands right now the article currently has very little content that could be useful. violet/riga (t) 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to rename the article Murder of Rolan Adams and restructure accordingly. I'd be willing to start the process once this AFD is closed, having done at least part of the necessary research. JulesH 08:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, individual is not notable, notability of the event unverified. Deiz talk 10:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's only claim to fame is that he was one of thousands of murder victims. Not encyclopaedic. ElinorD (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Appleyard[edit]

nn bio (hints of WP:VAIN) of a figure who clearly fails the guidelines set out at WP:PROF Eusebeus 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this bio stub appears to have nothing encyclopedic in the material provided. There has been ample opportunity for improvement and expansion but nothing substantive has been produced. --Stormbay 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cuz there's no assertion of notability & no passing of WP:PROF. tomasz. 10:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I DONT think it should be deleted because after some modification, the article appears to be unbiased. Also, as far as improving/ expanding is concerned, there's only a limited amount of info thats available which is already in there. This person IS qualified as a professor and has brought remarkable innovation in the style of teaching at his respective workplace. Truly a pioneer in the use of certain pedagogical devices. I strongly disagree that it should be removed from the wikipedia; Although I do welcome any suggestions/ improvements to the article. Thanks.--Hinasultan 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He may well be qualified as a professor but he needs to meet the guidelines of notability for academics and the article needs verifiable sources to back this up; at the moment it doesn't seem to have either. tomasz. 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I appreciate Hinasultan's comments but they hold true for thousands of teachers at various levels who are trying to make a difference. It comes back to the comment above and producing verifiable sources that raise the subjects efforts to the notability guidelines of wiki. --Stormbay 17:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN - only an M.Sc., which implies he has not done any notable research; can't find much publihsed by him in Google Scholar; merely another mfairly junior lecturer. Peterkingiron 17:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lackawanna Trail High School[edit]

A non-notable school that's only claim to notability is they managed to graduate a future Senator. However, whilst some High Schools are certainly notable, that derring-do, being its only apparent claim to distinction, fails the standard set out at, inter alia WP:N. For further detail about general notability as it pertains to High Schools specifically, interested editors can consult (and weigh in on) the extensive back and forth archived at the (stalled) debate at WP:SCHOOL Eusebeus 23:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- Eastmain 01:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes references, albeit unexciting ones. --Eastmain 01:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State sports championship, plus two distinguished congressional representatives, all backed up with reliable and verifiable sources, establishes notability per WP:N and even per the WP:SCHOOLS standard. Alansohn 02:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant high school with the necessary multiple sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are enough sports, and enough divisions for schools of different sizes, in enough time all schools will become notable. DGG 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes several parts of the school debate, as well as WP:N.--Wizardman 13:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles such as this raise the bigger question of all the school articles. They are harmless as keepers, I suppose, but often amount amount to little more than vanity pieces. The notable alumni can have their own article. This particular article began as a "Db" style article and was improved by some good research. This is an exception rather than the rule and leaves vanity pieces that editors are reluctant to try and remove. --Stormbay 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This article is typical of most high schools and their articles; There are ample sources available to demonstrate notability, but the individuals -- often students -- who create most of these articles have no idea what an acceptable Wikipedia article entails. I hate having to do this under the gun, but an overwhelming percentage of stub articles for high schools have been successfully expanded with relative ease to demonstrate notability using ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, most high schools are notable. Alansohn 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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