< May 3	May 5 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 06:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call 'em spies If ya like![edit]

Probable hoax - I can't find anything on this elsewhere on the internet. h2g2bob (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As hoax, unless reliable information can be cited. Via IMDB and a simple search engine test, nothing was found. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, no results on google, and no referances. Also no information provided for the movie. Elfin341 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Note, article's creator appears to be an SPA and also seems to have vandalized Frank Sinatra Jr. Sock, anybody? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please - obvious hoax I think.Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, crystalball etc. Daniel 5127 05:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has all the appearances of a hoax, no sourcing, no evidence of truth. JodyB_talk 10:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but a cast list, Hoax, Crystal, no refs, list goes on and on and on....... DBZROCKS 12:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Think outside the box 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost certainly a hoax, would expect at least one Google hit for a cast list like that. No sources cited. Hut 8.5 14:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per nominee. Nousernamesleft 15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is DELETED! (I've always wanted to delete like that!) Booksworm Talk to me! Sapere Aude! 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --Pupster21 Talk To Me my RfA 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references whatsoever, none can be found on Google. Crystalballing at best, hoax more likely. J0lt C0la 19:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, or possible crystal ball, but it's unlikely that Johnny Depp would be cast as a generic "Spy #1". Neil916 (Talk) 20:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, got no references and can't get any (no googles).--John Lake 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- just in case everyone here had lost their mind, checked Google, IMDb and all the like. Definite hoax. David Füchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-verifiable hoax. Burntsauce 23:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - per nom. ~I'm anonymous

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

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

The result was Keep/Nomination Withdrawn. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure, own nom)[reply]

Glenn Dunnaway[edit]

Lots of text, a few incidental refs, but is this minor racing driver actually notable? The one reference even says "Only a few drivers in that first race left a recognizable footprint on NASCAR. They included the Flock brothers, Byron, Lee Petty, Curtis Turner, Buck Baker, Jack Smith, Jim Paschal and Herb Thomas". But not Dunnaway. I would've expected more than 171 unique Ghits [1]EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not even a NASCAR fan, but I can't imagine denying the notability of whoever won the first ever NBA game or NFL game or Major League Baseball game OR NHL game, and especially not if there were the additional angle of their win being disqualified for cheating. That's basically who this guy is in his sport's history. That's gotta be notable. Mwelch 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Auto-racing is a sport, NASCAR is a professional league within it. He competed in it. Meets the criteria. FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep He may be a footnote, but he still meets WP:BIO. [2] --W.marsh 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Seems no further discussion is needed. Sancho (Review me) 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. No point in snowing this one, I got it wrong, mea culpa ;) EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Alright (song)[edit]

Delete. This article is clearly crystalballery. It's a one-sentence statement for a forthcoming and rumored single that offers no citatin for its sources. Rhythmnation2004 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source, and unconfirmed crystal-ball information. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's still no fourth album that I see, let alone knowledge of the first single. JodyB_talk 11:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, Auf Wiedersehen Booksworm Talk to me! Sapere Aude! 17:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crystalballery. --YFB ¿ 18:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--There is no afd notice on the page only a prod tag [3], since when do we vote on a prod?--John Lake 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above commentary. Burntsauce 23:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of the missing afd1 this is something made up in school one day--John Lake 00:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.Carlosguitar 10:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag per CRYSTAL nothing besides one line anyhow, no big loss. David Füchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 17:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to relisting The new version is utterly different from the old. If anyone still wants it deleted (and I think that's unlikely), then a fresh debate is needed as many of the comments here are talking about an entirely different article.-Doc^g 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trains of the Holocaust[edit]

~~No references. Possibly original research. Written in a non-encyclopedic tone. Contested prod. —dgies^t_c 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am withdrawing my nomination as the article has been completely rewritten by Trident13. Any AfD closer may still weigh the comments of others but note that those prior to 11:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC) likely refer to the previous version. —dgies^t_c 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless extensively rewritten and sourced. Whilst it may well be fundamentally accurate, it's original research and fails WP:NPOV and WP:TONE amongst many other guidelines. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rhythmnation2004 00:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- same reason as EliminatorJr. Fails WP:NPOV and WP:TONE, must be rewritten to become useful information. Also nothing links to the page and I dobut it will ever be searched.
Delete reads like nonsense, delete unless rewritten. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:OR--Sefringle 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely original research and doesn't appear very neutral. --Nehrams2020 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one link on the page is to a commercial website not linked with the article that I can see. It smacks of WP:OR aand a lack of WP:V —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Well, that was... not what I expected. It definitely looks like someone decided to publish an essay on Wikipedia (WP:NOT#OR. (I went ahead and afd-warned the original editor who may or may not want to save and/or rehost his essay.) -- Seed 2.0 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and breaks many WP guidelines. Nousernamesleft 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is a disastrous mess Booksworm Talk to me! 17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual, essays like this are neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi ^Talk 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or "translate into English and remove all the OR"...well, I guess those are the same thing, so, ya, nuke it. Tom e r ^talk 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. Burntsauce 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag - yeah, appears to be an essay, not a encyclopedic article. Usually I would say weak keep if it could be saved, but I doubt it in this case. David Füchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. IZAK 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:WIKIFY as it's facts appear ok. IZAK 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and stubbify. Notable topic, inappropriate article. --Shirahadasha 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified, uncited, OR -Doc^g 08:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:WIKIFY. This link seems to suggest this is an ongoing controversy. I'm happy to take on the task of re-writing something better. Rgds, --Trident13 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was only wikification this needed, I wouldn't have listed it here. This needs a total rewrite, plus sources. Are you volunteering? —dgies^t_c 17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - see my stub page. The Hungarian story is the most horrific so far, in the role the train played in the Holocaust. Rgds, --Trident13 21:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, impressive, OK, no objection to replacing with new version. —dgies^t_c 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, now replaced in its entirety. What are your thoughts? Rgds --Trident13 11:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recommend relisting the AfD per Trident's additions to the article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep of the current version, whgich is drastically different from the version originally nominated. it is now well sourced -- I have seen FA canddiates less well sourced -- and well written. Closer, please consider relaisting if significant nubers of those who expressed an opnion before the rewrite have not changed or reconfirmed their views after the rewrite. DES ^(talk) 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 00:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Simpson[edit]

Cites no references and does not have enough notability -- Mentality 01:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:BIO as having competed at the highest levels of amateur sports. Otto4711 03:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether the Albert Cup program qualifies as playing at the highest amateur level may be subjective, but their website says players are chosen from among 1,000 and then qualify for one of 8 teams which he did. Assuming that is correct the article must be properly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC). arrrrgh... beat by the bot! JodyB_talk 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does need a bit of cleanup, and possibly referencing, but Simpson is playing at the highest level of amateur sports. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 11:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since tagging for speedy deletion (as was first done) and tagging for AfD, the article has improved somewhat, to a stub level (although needs cleaning up). I've informed the author about WP:MoS and hopefully that'll be rectified. I still question how a person who is in 22nd place on a junior ice hockey league qualifies as "highest level of amateur sports", but as JodyB said that's subjective. Thus, I guess the article should be kept. Whoo! Mentality 12:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he is not noteworthy, yet. He is only starting out in the WHL now. He still has to prove his talent. Clerks. 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It looks like it has potential but the subject is not all that notable... Booksworm Talk to me! 17:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a quick search for independent sources on Google returned 2 articles in The Herald (Everett) (independent source #1), a minor mention in list of player transactions in a The News Tribune article, a lot of message-board discussion and some articles on WHL sites. That's not enough to meet notability standards yet. Also, he hasn't actually played a game for, or been included in the regular roster of the team, as he's only just been drafted. ColtsScore 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added note The WHL does churn out great goalies though, so there is promise for the future : ) Congrats to Kent! ColtsScore 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The referencing is weak, but salvageable enough that this warrants improvement over deletion. Burntsauce 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the AfD results in a keep, or no concensus, which results in keeping the article, I will personally try to reference and cleanup the article. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as initial concerns by the nominator appear to have been addressed, it looks like this article is headed in the right direction now. RFerreira 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played at the highest level in his sport. Hockey is not primarily an amateur sport.

Primarily. But the league that Simpson plays in is, in fact, the highest level in the amateur part of the sport. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ferver[edit]

A disputed speedy for some reason. From where I stand, there is no notability asserted in this article, about a mere extra in a couple of TV shows. JuJube 02:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Otto4711 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a new page which is being developed. An attempt to speedy failed because the creator properly tagged it and asked for time to develop it. Further more, the article is sourced (not footnoted but sourced nonethless). Let's slow down here. JodyB_talk 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is a problem and I don't really see what this article adds beyond what's already on IMDB (and more importantly, I don't really see what could be added to it to establish notability). Even after applying some Google-fu, it seems that most of the sources are either trivial or only mention him in passing. I'm afraid the Starburst commercial alone isn't enough. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early for this actor as no WP:RS sources yet exist to attribute the article. MURGH ^disc. 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even see anything on Google that says he actually was the "Berries and Cream" lad (not that that's the sort of thing most people would lie about, but still). Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it, I dont fucking care, it seems fruitless to try to create an article or yet add onto it. Granted there is hardly any information I understand, but whatever, I tried. Anigra 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete' no sources and not notable--Sefringle 05:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, who present much stronger arguments when related to policy. Daniel Bryant 08:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1990s wrestling boom[edit]

Tricky one this. Firstly, the name seems to have been something that's completely made up. 1990s wrestling boom returns 21 unique hits ignoring Wikipedia and mirrors, and 3rd Golden Age of Wrestling allegedly ignoring Wikipedia and mirrors returns 3 unique hits, but 2 of those are actually mirrors and the other is a forum post. Searching for Third Golden Age of Wrestling returns equally few results as well. Secondly, we're not losing anything by deleting this article as everything seems to be reasonably well covered in History of professional wrestling and Monday Night Wars. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very OR, redundant with other articles and such, need to trim and ditch these redundant "history of wrestling" articles. Biggspowd 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pro Wrestling Illustrated was the magazine that named the "Golden Ages" and since they did not store most of their information online, that may be why there are so few hits about golden ages in wrestling. Also the supposed "OR" comes from other articles in Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep A very good look at the history behind the latest boom in wrestling. A very good article, also. Kris 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because you think it's a "good article" or "interesting" doesn't mean it should be kept. Biggspowd 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A very important time in wrestling history. Very notable and historic.--Unopeneddoor 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So it could easily be covered in the History of professional wrestling article then? That's one of the points of the nomination, there's (at least) three articles all covering a lot of the same ground. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So nominate it for merge instead MPJ-DK 11:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a nice article but it is original research. There are many resurgences but I don't believe they are all inclusive. the_undertow ^talk 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there are additional articles covering the same topic, shouldn't these articles be merged ? This topic is covered by numerous books and other sources. MadMax 08:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information not already covered in the History of professional wrestling then redirect. Considering the wording of the nomination that would have been the most logical, helpful, positive action to take instead of just requesting it's deletion. MPJ-DK 11:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some work and its possible a merge would be useful. But I don't think it merits deletion at present. JodyB_talk 11:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. It's a POV fork of history of professional wrestling. Mangoe 13:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if theres anything in this page that isnt in history of professional wrestling it should just be added —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Don.-.J (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, as per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge anything not redundant or POV into History of professional wrestling. If nothing can be salvaged, just delete and redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 17:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, should be covered by History of professional wrestling. --YFB ¿ 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even pretend to be sourced. Completely OR, and not even worth a merge into History of professional wrestling as it lacks sourcing. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, as bad OR, as crufty bad OR, as unsourced crufty bad OR, as ... you get the point. Sandstein 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Merge as per Yummifruitbat. --Pupster21 Talk To Me my RfA 19:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I think the basis for this article's nomination, particularly its claims that the phrase is "made up" or rarely used, is a bit overexaggerated and in the context given seems to be taken a bit too literally. While it's true a search by the exact title may bring limited results on search engines such as Google, however a same search without quotes brings 96,900 hits. The history of wrestling streaches over a century or more and eventually the History of professional wrestling, which is already fairly large, will have to be broken up eventually. Source material has been provided in the article, which include several high profile books and an article by the Journal Standard, not only supporting the basis that there was a "wrestling boom" during the 1990s but an in depth study on the topic itself. With the deletion of this article, then I assume 1980s wrestling boom would have to be merged along with Monday Night Wars (and as its already been pointed out) several other articles related to the history of professional wrestling not to mention the other historical periods. MadMax 22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You haven't provided sources, you've provided a long list of books. Sourcing doesn't work that way, you can't just add a list of books and claim the article is now sourced. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I provided books specificly written about the "wrestling boom" in the 1990s to illustrate that the topic is not original research as frequently claimed in this discussion. If you'll take note, they are under further reading and not directly referenced (in fact there was neither a ((reference)), ((verify)), ((original research)), etc. provided prior to its nomination). If I implied that I specificly provided cited references rather then relevent source material, then I apologize if you misunderstood. However, despite claims to the contrary, the amount of independent, non trival and reliable source material devoted to this period clearly shows the topics notability. I'm sure the members of WP:PW would be able to provide adequate cited references to your concerns of original research if you care to provide the approriate ((fact)) templates in the claims and statements in question. MadMax 23:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was no requirement for me to put any of those templates on the article prior to nominating it, as none of them cover the reasons for nomination. The fact remains that this subject is (or should be) adequately covered in the Monday Night Wars (which is a legitimate notable part of wrestling history) and/or History of professional wrestling. Proposing a merge would have been a waste of time, based on the number of wrestling fans who are !voting "Strong keep" in this very AfD which totally ignore why it's been nominated in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I never stated that you personally failed to add templates. My point was that templates had never been added to the article thus knowledgable editors, such as those in WP:PW, were unaware that the article was unreferenced, contained original research or any other concern which could have been adressed prior to its nomination. Monday Night Wars deals mainly with the RAW/Nitro competion of the WWF and WCW, however the "wrestling boom" of the 1990s began prior to the Monday Night Wars and doesn't cover nearly the scope as would 1990s wrestling boom. Neither does it address, for example, the rise of Extreme Championship Wrestling or the fall of the last of the regional territories such as Smokey Mountain Wrestling and the United States Wrestling Association which came as a result of the changing style of wrestling introduced by ECW. As for other editors votes, you did nominate this article because you claim the exact term 1990s wrestling boom brings up few Google hits so the term must be "completely made up" (whereas that same search of similar terms brings over 95,000 hits). Regardless of weither other editors are wrestling fans or not, nominating an article under these reasons might seem to other editors to be a bit of a stretch. This article does contain a lot more information then provided by History of professional wrestling, yet you propose its deletion because discussing merging this content would be a "waste of time". Please realize, I personally am neither accusing you of acting in bad faith or questioning your right to nominate this or any other wrestling-related article for deletion. However, considering how you go about it at times, its not unreasonable this might put editors on the defensive. MadMax 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, chock-full of synthesized original research. Burntsauce 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this article covers anything that doesn't already exist in other articles. The title itself seems kinda Original Research to me. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Bond[edit]

At best, a human interest story about a non-notable 6-year old dressed up as an article about a musician. At worst, a blatant violation of WP:NOT#SOAP. Rick Block (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't see the article as self-promotion, and there are eough referances to keep the article running. A little rewrite to make the article more neutral would be best for the article. Elfin341 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced and notable enough as a musician, no reason to delete. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources to meet WP:BIO --W.marsh 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet WP:BAND, article stipulates that she's not even signed to a label. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the first qualification of WP:BAND? "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". --W.marsh 13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meeting WP:BAND is not the only criteria. The article has multiple, non-trivial sources and does meet WP:BIO. JodyB_talk 11:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable, independent sources exist. This person is notable by that standard, and there are enough sources available to write the article. DickClarkMises 14:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commentary above. Burntsauce 23:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprisingly meets WP:BIO, decent RS attribution. MURGH ^disc. 23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you can't see that this passes relevant guidelines then you're obviously not paying attention. RFerreira 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:BAND- albeit in a rather strange fashion. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Maya Bond, born in Japan and based in Austin, TX, is a young musician signed with record label Ellahy Amen in 2004. Although she does not perform live often, Bond continues to receive radio play and press since her debut, and plans to continue making music. The references sited in this entry are credible and accurate; therefore this entry should not be deleted. diydanna 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was straight-out keep. Redirect proposals follow normal editoral method, as noted at WP:REDIRECT. Daniel Bryant 08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Corners, New York[edit]

I pass through this intersection enough and it's just not notable. The deli may have the name, but it's not the local ZIP Code or fire district and there's just a pizzeria and an Italian restaurant, plus the only traffic light between Montgomery and Middletown on 211. I think anyone who lives in the vicinity would say they live in Scotchtown, if anywhere. At the most it can be merged back into Wallkill, Orange County, New York Daniel Case 04:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC) As per below I withdraw the nomination and will convert the article into a redirect. Daniel Case 00:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only "per below" you can be referring to is your own remarks, not those of editors who have looked into the article in question. "Per below" the community may be verging on inconsequential today, but WP:PAPER pretty clearly comes into play in such an argument. Historically the community was apparently far more consequential than it is today. There are ghost towns littering the landscape of America, and while not all of them are necessarily worthy of independent articles, none of them should be subsumed in articles about political entities that developed long after they disappeared... in this case, however, the community, miniscule as it is, is still there. If it's subsumed into an article it should not be into either Wallkill, Orange County, New York or Scotchtown, New York, but into (and only into) Unincorporated communities in Orange County, New York. Tom e r ^talk 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not only looked into the article; I happened to pass through there again yesterday. I haven't changed my mind. This place has no fire district, no school, no ZIP Code and no phone exchange. No one in the area uses the name; I doubt many would even know which intersection you're talking about.

I'm open to putting it into "unincorporated communities"; however, that usage suggests it is a place people live in and identify as their home. There is a huge difference between Michigan Corners and Pine Bush ... you'd never guess that has never been incorporated as it's almost as big, if not bigger, than some of our incorporated villages. Plus, it has its own ZIP Code, phone exchange, school district and fire district.

The article is unlikely to ever hold enough notable information to be more than a stub, in any event (and maybe less, given that I'd like to see a reliable source for that story) Daniel Case 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested to know that the Michigan Corners Deli is actually now known as Scotchtown Deli & Catering. I can provide a picture if you like. Daniel Case 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historically the community was apparently far more consequential than it is today. Based on what source do you make that claim? We delete that sort of phrasing from articles, you know, or at least tag it properly. Daniel Case 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your arguments center around your own personal experience. WP:NOT#BLOG. My assertion that "historically the community was apparently far more consequential than it is today" I have to source to one User:Daniel Case, who asserts that the place is not notable. I didn't add it to the article, so it doesn't require a ((fact)) tag. Thanks anyways tho, for offering to do a run-by tagging of your own statement. Tom e r ^talk 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any better arguments than belittling mine, you'd be using them. No, my personal experience and knowledge of the history of the area I've lived in for the last decade or so aren't controlling, and not the exclusive criterion for keep or delete, but neither should they be totally dismissed. Daniel Case 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belittling? Hello pot, meet kettle. You said my assertion would require citation, I cited you, since you were the source of my statement! If that's belittling you, it's not me doing the belittling. In case you haven't figured it out, I'm not really that attached to keeping the article itself. You're in a better position to know than I am...if the community, such as it is, is within Scotchtown, then it's appropriate to include it in Scotchtown. If it's not, then it's inappropriate to do so. My understanding is that it is not. Just because that's where the closest PO is doesn't make it the most appropriate place to cover Michigan Corners. I still think it should be in Unincorporated communities in Orange County, New York. I'll address the redlink thing down lower where you bring it up... Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The locals don't even think its notable as they have no sign marking it. 'nuff said. JodyB_talk 11:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Signs marking places are usually made by the municipal, town, county or state highway departments, not by "the locals". Tom e r ^talk 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And while the New York State Department of Transportation marks any number of small intersections around the state as "X Corners", it chose not to mark this one so. Why, I wonder? Daniel Case 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  When I get a job working for the NYDoT, I'll be sure to check into that, right after orientation. Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete if you want. I only included because it's mentioned on the Middletown page, and there's a cute story behind the name. (Of course, Danny seems to have it in for me, but never mind...) RMc 12:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser... Tom e r ^talk 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See below for explanation. Daniel Case 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cute story, but NY is full of cute stories. Clerks. 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The US Board of Geographic Names calls it a "populated place" but I can't dredge up any information about it. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of the area could merge any pertinent information to a parent article ... Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hamlets and other settlements are automatically notable, even if they are tiny. Google Maps shows it at http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.466944,-74.347778&spn=0.3,0.3&q=41.466944,-74.347778 See also http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=151:3:17345019660109350776::NO::P3_FID:957068 Remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "exciting". I added appropriate categories and coordinates, so the article is now an acceptable stub. --Eastmain 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Towns, villages, etc. are inherently notable regardless of size. --Oakshade 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a town or a village, or a municipality in any sense. It is not even a particularly large place ... just an intersection with some stores. It is not in local use.^{[citation needed]} Daniel Case 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorporation is not part of inherent notability. A place doesn't automatically become notable because it incorporates. If it does, I'm gonna legally become a place and incorporate. Then I'll warrant a WP article of my own! :-D Oh, and I added an appropriate ((fact)) to your uncited assertion above. Tomer^talk 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Putting ((fact)) tags on other people's arguments is not something I've ever seen people do in deletion discussions, and I've been in many. I consider it rather declassé and churlish. In the old days simply requesting the other person put up or shut up was enough.
      But fine. You want proof it's not in local use? Googling on the website of our local daily newspaper, the Times-Herald Record, produces nothing, no stories that ever used it (I prefer google because their own search engine is a bit difficult to use, but the results there got a lot of obits of people who died in Michigan.). And this local history site says, and I quote, "The name survives on maps of the area to this day although it is rarely used by locals in conversation."
      While that last source does provide us with a reliable one (I think) for the origin of the name, and could certainly be condensed to a short graf in the Scotchtown or Town of Wallkill articles, it does not justify a separate article on the place. Daniel Case 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      
      Meh. It was fun to slap a fact tag in there. Let's concentrate on the fact, however, that your statement demanded citation, instead of on spluttering about your views of my placement of fact tags. Your citation demonstrates that the placename, while "rarely used by locals in conversation" is apparently still used. I'm beginning to wonder perhaps if we aren't talking past each other simply because you're mad because I'm so obstinately opposing your AfD nom. I propose that we take most of the future of this discussion to one of our talkpages, or perhaps to Talk:Michigan Corners, New York, probably more preferably even to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York#Michigan Corners, New York, just so the increasingly inane exchange here ends. Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm obstinate because, usually, when I make an AfD nom I mean it. We're supposed to be bold, aren't we?
        I don't believe we should use the talk page of an article that I think ought to be turned into a redirect ... I hate keeping talk pages around for articles that have been merged into others.
        "Rarely used by locals in conversation" but still used by cartographers says to me: redirect. Daniel Case 06:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. WP is a collection of cute stories. :-) Tomer^talk 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, WP:ILIKEIT. Not a reason to keep. Daniel Case 00:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not attempt to paraphrase or cast aspersions upon my comments when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. My remark was a jocular comment based on User:Clerks' !votenote, which you clearly did not read. Tomer^talk 02:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies. You should have made your humor clearer. I would not use jocular arguments to support a serious vote. Daniel Case 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a !vote, not a vote. You don't use jocular arguments to support a serious vote. I occasionally make jocular remarks when !voting on AfDs. I guess it's true what they say—no two people really are alike. Tom e r ^talk 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commentary above. Burntsauce 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and redirect to Scotchtown, New York. Nobody, and I mean nobody, locally uses this name save the deli. There are a lot of toponyms all over USGS maps that are no longer in local use. Notable isn't necessary exciting, but used on the map isn't necessarily notable either. If we ran articles on all of them, we'd be full of geocruft. Daniel Case 00:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't open an AfD and then, just because you don't like how it's going, withdraw the nomination and opt to unilaterally obliterate the article in favor of a redirect to an article that barely mentions the subject of the article you objected to from the outset. Tom e r ^talk 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's for a closing admin to decide, and usually they abide by the nominator's wishes (if someone else thinks it should have been deleted, they are perfectly free to renominate — that happened to me once.). In any event, all that Wikipedia needs to have about this is in this article and it can be merged into Scotchtown, which is where everyone there tells you they live in. Daniel Case 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  And I, of course, am an unfair admin, since I think you've acted improperly. What everyone there tells you when you ask them where they live is OR. If you put it into an article, it will require a ((fact))... Tom e r ^talk 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above re sourcing.
    In every previous instance where I have withdrawn a nom (not many) it has been closed almost immediately. I did this because of that wonderful quality called further reflection. It told me that I was perhaps a bit hasty in nominating this for deletion. I was a bit taken aback that the creator, User:RMc above, had exploded into a rage of personal attacks, a situation I've already reported since he has been blocked for similar behavior before, and put it on me to create the article about the undeniably notable South Blooming Grove, New York (a recently incorporated village) when I suggested he take a few minutes to do so to avert a developing revert war — yet it didn't seem to be such a problem to him to create an article on a far less notable toponym. So I hit the afd template.
    I am withdrawing this nom because now it seems to me that I should have just made it a redirect to begin with and avoided this whole thing. We have a little info that is sourced that we can add to the Scotchtown article, and that's all we need. Daniel Case 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I think I've made pretty clear already why I think covering it (as anything more than a link to an appropriate Orange County or Wallkill article) in the Scotchtown article is, in my view, not the preferable course of action. As for the conflict you're having with RMc, I hope it's settled down a bit, and think it quite unfortunate that not only did the conflict cause this AfD, but also got dragged into the heat of it. This, after all, is not RfC. Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, hamlets and similar settlements are inherently notable. RFerreira 06:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call this place a settlement. Once it was, perhaps. Not now. Daniel Case 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once upon a time the Songhai, Mali and Munhumutapa Empires were among the largest empires in Africa; Tuva and Adiabene were once countries. The Avars, Sarmatians, and Scythians were once among the most powerful peoples in eastern Europe. None of these any longer exist. Should they be erased from Wikipedia too? There's no primary source evidence that Atlantis ever existed. Surely it can't warrant an article...after all, Daniel Case has never been there! Obviously this crossroads in rural NY was never a large empire or home to a powerful people, nor yet the subject of Plato's writings, but the point is made that today's notability is not a rational basis for declaring the place to be unwikipædic. Tomer^talk 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response. The sound of straws being clutched at, and apples and oranges being compared, as you yourself tacitly concede concede. I see nothing in the intersection's past history that suggests that, even if it doesn't exist today as a going community, it should be included. Just a cute local joke the meaning of which resides in history. This is otherwise too indiscriminate and crufty to merit a separate article. If we ever had a wiki devoted to Orange County, New York, yes, I'd give it a separate article there. But it's really just notable to local historians. Daniel Case 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we've covered this already, elsewhere in the discussion. Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Other references to Michigan Corners include http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crorange.html and http://www.placenames.com/us/p957068/ --Eastmain 06:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Our main source for notability on places has been the U.S. Census Bureau names. They know which ones are real places where people live and which ones the USGS just keeps on its maps. Why don't you create Seager, New York, then, based on this? It was a small hamlet that vanished when tanning in the Catskills ended in the late 19th century. Today there is nothing there save one house and a hiking trailhead (I have been there enough to know). There are almost no records on it that would be conducive to the writing of a quality encylopedic article. It never existed as an independent political entity (much like Michigan Corners). It is properly dealt with on Wikipedia as a mention in Hardenburgh, New York. But I suppose it turns up in maps and on the other websites, so we should have an article about it, right? Daniel Case 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're using your own life experience as an argument concerning notability. That is WP:OR of the worst kind. Definitely, Seager should be mentioned; as I said above, in an appropriate article. If not in Seager, New York, then in Former communities of the Catskills or Former communities of Ulster County, New York. Tomer^talk 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does the fact that those articles are redlinked tell you something? I didn't mean for you to actually do this ... that's either WP:BEANS on me or WP:POINT on you. Or both.
      In any event, I would consider lists of such communities needlessly redundant, when they and what can be told of their histories can be easily dealt with in articles about the towns (in NY, anyway) or townships most of them are/were located in, or the towns' histories as daughter articles.
      In any event, I'll make the Seager article a redirect before someone else nominates it.
      Also, one's own life experience, nor indeed any assertion in an article, is not OR if you back it up with photographs to make your point. Daniel Case 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      
      Yes. Redlinks to me mean an article needs to be written yet. I wasn't proposing a list of such communities, I was proposing an article that would cover them. Wait... were you the one grasping at straws? ;-) Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Why did it fall to me to Google and find that Scotchtown Highlander snippet? I would think that people arguing for inclusion would have found it long ago, instead of just looking for websites that merely mentioned the name.

Speaking of which, the other Google hits do not argue well for notability: the Middletown and Scotchtown pages and their mirrors, sites with lists of place names, a NYSDEC permit application that is now a dead link, automated pages at search sites generated from GIS searches on the coordinates ... you get the point. Nothing that really argues for broader notability. Daniel Case 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It fell on you because you're the one who seems most interested in the subject. :-) Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm the one who wanted to delete the article. Not a great argument for notability. Daniel Case 06:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if for no other reason that the whole thing is driving Danny insane. RMc 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason to keep :-) Also, you can't vote twice without at least striking through your other vote and noting there that you've changed your mind. Daniel Case 13:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed. I see he's stricken his earlier !vote tho, so that at least is mootified for now. :-) Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why are we even having this discussion here anyway? Since I've changed my mind about outright deleting the article, there is no deletion remaining to discuss. The issue now is whether to make it a redirect or keep it as a separate article, which should be discussed on the article's talk page. Are our admins that busy that they can't close deletion debates that have clearly achieved some sort of consensus not to delete? Daniel Case 13:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have closed it already, but by the time you withdrew it, I was already an involved party, so my closing it would have (rightly so) been regarded as "improper"...that said, any uninvolved editor can close this AfD...it doesn't have to be an admin, since there's clearly no consensus to delete (something only admins can do). I think the best place to take this up, however, as I mentioned above, would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York#Michigan Corners, New York, since the editors there are probably much more capable of making a determination on this subject...a determination that will probably have ramifications far wider than the outcome of this AfD on one little stub has... Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any discussion at the NY project talk page yet. I have sort of been advised to just let it go with RMc, so I have. Any further discussion that I am interested in can be undertaken at Talk:Scotchtown, New York. Daniel Case 06:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Monkeys[edit]

This book is not well known or notable. It is enough for it to be listed under the author, Joanne Horniman. Theredhouse7 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since changed somewhat, and has been tagged for WikiProject Novels "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia."Fh1 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed, the book is not well known outside of Australia, but in Australia, it was listed as a 'notable book' by the Australian Children's Book Council.[4] It was also listed on the South Australian Premier's Reading Challenge List for some time, until it was deleted from the list in 2005 [5]. It is important that Wikipedia provides coverage of literature from outside of the US and Britain. This book is an early novel by an Australian Author who has won many awards for her works[6] Fh1(main contributer) 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete because it misses the mark on notability and attribution. However, it does no harm to have articles like this, so the inclusionist side of me says to leave it alone. YechielMan 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all attribution is from the book itself. 21 relevant ghits, none of which seem to be in a notable publication. Feeeshboy 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book's date of publication (1992) was before the internet became widely used in public circles (for book reviews etc), - and also being an Australian rather than a US book, fewer Google hits would be expected. Print mention in SATA Vol 98 (1998) (Gale Research, Farmington Hills MI) p.64f. and in Viewpoint (University of Melbourne) Vol 5,2 (Winter 1997) p. 39-40 Also, the article has been expanded in some areas since your last posting - there are now attributions from outside of the book itself.Fh1 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per YechielMan ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge; although the sources that are currently on the article are not solely about the book, they do cover the book sufficiently to ensure that the article is not solely OR. Also, as the author is notable and critical reviews for her later books have been written (mentioned on the SATA bio provided by Answers), her other works will in time have their own article. As a result, I am quite certain that this work will also have been covered in more detail in sources that wont be readily found (esp. not by people outside Australia). Keeping a trimmed and tagged version of the article encourages others to expand with sources that they have access to. (I'm willing to attempt the trimming if others agree a with my reasoning). John Vandenberg 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just did some trimming of synopsis - very difficult to trim any further.Fh1 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FH1 and JVanden. I'd like to chime in that google-testing is singularly misguided for this particular subject. Orphic 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the key assertion of notability is the award from the Children's council. That coupled with the notability of the author seems sufficient to keep. JodyB_talk 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability in Australia Think outside the box 12:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written and referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - per Clerks. --YFB ¿ 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dogma. Tom e r ^talk 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidently won awards, and has the sources to back these up. Never heard of it, but that's no benchmark. David Füchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just remember when googling for Australian books, there's unfortunately limited content available on the web, in particular for books published pre-2000. Recurring dreams 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book has been recognised as notable children's book by independent authorities and article is well sourced. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all above. Lankiveil 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yirmumah[edit]

No reliable sources, notability not asserted. bogdan 09:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yirmumah's so fat...anyway, it's a nonnotable webcomic. YechielMan 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment YechielMan, That was exquisite. --Infrangible 02:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After thinking about it some, I don't see any evidence that Yirmumah specifically passes WP:WEB (which seems to be what WP:WEBCOMIC is suggesting as a notability guideline for webcomics), although one of Coffman's other projects, "Hero by Night", might just barely be worthy of an article due to passing reference in the New York Times. But notability is not contagious and Yirmumah doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable in its own right. Heather 14:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears not to pass WP:WEB, nothing to attribute from WP:RS. MURGH ^disc. 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kano Mixtape (Mixtape)[edit]

Yet-to-be-released album. Crystal-ballism. Nekohakase 09:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As of this writing, it has been released, but it fails the WP:MUSIC guideline. For that matter, Kano's previous two albums also fall short, so unless they all get nominated along with about a thousand other album pages, I'll say keep. YechielMan 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. While I agree there are many, many other articles on non-notable albums, there's no point in polluting just a little more. -- Satori Son 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would require references to prove noteworthiness. Clerks. 17:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable subject matter. Burntsauce 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, mix tapes are generally not notable anyhow. RFerreira 06:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Kean[edit]

Contested prod, non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perennial minor-leaguer. In disagreement with the unsourced article statement he achieved his greatest exposure as Hillbilly Jim's "cousin" in the mid-'80s. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could this be merged to the main Moondogs article ? MadMax 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say yes, the "non-notable" Moondogs could be profiled in the general "Moondogs" article, on their own they're not notable but a short career history of the moondogs that don't warrant a full article would work IMO, because there the notability of the individual hinges on the notability of the group IMO. MPJ-DK 09:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the above proposal. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO Google search reveals only Wikipedia results. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mergers remain possible as an editorial decision. Sandstein 12:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-epistemology[edit]

This article was nominated for AfD without giving any explanation. I slightly suspect this may be original research (no source has been given), but don't know for sure. Tizio 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with epistemology unless it's proven to be a hoax. YechielMan 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, things are deleted unless proven to be true, not the other way around. Tizio 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources. --C56C 19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources, although it's such an abstruse subject there aren't very many of them. For example "Epistemology Futures" published by Oxford University Press contains a chapter with the delightful title of "What's epistemology for? The case for neopragmatism in normative metaepistemology" [7]. andy 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate area of philosophical study. Could stand a complete rewrite, though, and should be tagged as such if kept. Heather 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so you two confirm that what's written in this article is not original research, don't you? Tizio 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely (btw I read Philosophy at Cambridge). It's just a clumsily written definition of the subject. andy 16:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. (And I studied Philosophy at Purdue.) Heather 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per YechielMan, and per Merge tag on article. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This type of list was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (second nomination), and this particular list is even worse. A recreation must be of a wholly different quality to even warrant consideration. Punkmorten 07:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetarian celebrities[edit]

Useless list at best should be cat. Know pedia 04:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to say keep based on the idea that a good list can have extra information that a category can't. Then I saw the list, it's a mess and has no sources. Something like this can be difficult to reliably source unless the people are on record as saying they're vegetarian. Crazysuit 05:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 08:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code-of-the-West Sayings and Puns[edit]

fancruft trivia fork, a bunch of bumper quotes and such for barely notable cartoon series. Biggspowd 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic content per WP:NOT. Someguy1221 08:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter trivia. Mangoe 13:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles which only consist of a trivia section. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an article, dubious copyright status (basically a trivial dump of copyright material). --YFB ¿ 18:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT and WP:LISTCRUFT. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Don't people have blogs for this kind of thing? WikiFishy 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Rowan[edit]

This article violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:COI (Self Promotion) Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the Washington Post saves her from CSD A7. She has done nothing special yet. YechielMan 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rest of the sources are credible, if perhaps not among the most largely circulated newspapers in the world.

Keep

CSD A7 says "article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the importance of the subject," but this article does assert the importance, mentioning that she was the "Youngest female" and that there are few women in the field, which makes her an anomaly and worthy of inclusion.
Wiki says (under the 'Not a soapbox' warning), that "One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." Rowan seems to have enough publicity and following to warrant the article.

Keep Keep in mind COI is a guideline, and exists because self-promotion is a decent sign that actual article requirements w/r/t notability, verifiability, NPOV etc. will be violated. Doesn't seem to be the case here (aside from one sentence that I've gone ahead and removed). Actual tone of the article is sufficiently NPOV to be consistent with NOT#SOAP. None of which is to repudiate the general principle of avoiding self-promotion, but it's executed with enough detachment here to be acceptable as an encyclopedia entry. Orphic 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, assertion of notability and non-trivial coverage. --YFB ¿ 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, youngest female WSOP entrant is notable enough. Washington Post writeup is more like a gathering of friends, but still notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Ref. 1 is the newsletter for the event. #2 is a blog. #3 is a paragraph in a local online newspaper from an article mainly about her brother, #4 is a major paper with a human interest story-- but about a game in her living room, not the tournament claimed for notability, #5 is an incidental inclusion in a database. This is borderline documentation.DGG 00:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Her achievement (Youngest female in the World Series of Poker) is notable. Her external links include distinguished news sources (Washington Post) and credible specialized sources of the poker world (CardPlayer). The article is written in a professional voice with no grammatical, spelling, or formatting errors. The level of importance/notability in the article and the professionalism used in constructing it contribute to upholding the standards of Wikipedia rather than interfering with its integrity as so many of the unworthy biographical articles do. This article is not the intended target of Wikipedia's efforts to preclude self-promotion. WikiFishy 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) In addition, I just reviewed the standards for biographies of living persons and found this to meet all criteria listed (i.e. NPOV, verifiable and not original research). WikiFishy 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is not in violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX or WP:NOT#INFO. The page more than "asserts" notability by proving it, providing ample support from well-known sources, all of which cross-check flawlessly with the information given. AlbertX 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable and does not meet criteria for deletion. Yoopie 08:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting and worthy. RubbaDubDuck 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crappy article, though. Someone please help it. KP Botany 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per low cut blouse. RFerreira 05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive utilization theory[edit]

Not a single secondary source given. Reads more like a manifest than an encyclopedia article. --Pjacobi 20:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social cycle theory (Sarkar) --Pjacobi 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that one. Few hundred google hits ([8]) but more importantly, few dozen Google Print hits ([9]). This can stay as a separate article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The deletion recommendation is not supported by good reasoning. If there is a POV issue it is handled by a specific procedure devoted to that issue. Budfin 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. Fully agree with the above statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuckskin (talk • contribs) — Bhuckskin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP! The article should be marked as "needs work," not deletion!! This is a very important topic that needs to be covered, and we can use the present article as an excellent basis. It's already the sixth or seventh hit in google. Aschoeff 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bad Wikipedia article on the first ranks in Google is something bad not something good. --Pjacobi 07:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but by that logic, most if not all of wikipedia would have been deleted in the early days. I think you're setting the initial bar too high for a fledgling article. I had no idea of what prout was until today, which signifies the importance of the article existing in the first place, so that it can gain more exposure and begin to evolve and be improved upon. Perhaps you would like to do a comprehensive re-write? Aschoeff 08:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unreferenced- seems like an origional theory.--Sefringle 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The long list of websites at the bottom of the page is where they must be drawing their source material from. I say do not delete, and I volunteer to look into this and edit the article to give some references. Give me a few days as I have a big church event this Sunday I'm preparing for. Aschoeff 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This is a tough case, but googling for Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar reveals that he isn't an economist. He's yet another Indian spiritual leader type, involved in politics, and this theory is barely mentioned on his bio page. I think it would be more appropriate to put this on his bio page and summarize it there. Mangoe 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect per Mangoe. And Papayae. Tom e r ^talk 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested. It is absolutely not a valid WP article on its own--a essay on a personal concept of spiritualized human affairs dressed up to sound like social science. It i not a fledgling article capable of expansion from sources, its a non-notable essay based on non-independent websites affiliated with the same guru.DGG 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Googling the names and terms yields contradictory information. If anything, this "theory" should be summarized under the person its attributed to.WikiFishy 00:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've spent a couple hours looking around on the web, and I am convinced that there are no reasonable grounds for either deletion or merging. My argument follows below, and I apologize for the irritating list, but paragraph form would have taken too long.

There exists a global following for this theory, which is ~fifty years old and has been written about and expanded upon by many more people than just the original author.
There exists active study and practical implementation of this theory, for instance in Venezuela: [10].
A strong association to Sarkar is not sufficient grounds for merging, in fact that is how science works, by naming conjectures and theories after whoever came up with them. That isn't even the case here, as his name isn't nominally associated with the title "Progressive Utilization Theory." See for instance the Renner-Teller effect.
Saying he is not an economist implies a requirement of academic review, which is absolutely not required on wikipedia (and is kind of the whole point). If someone comes up with some theory about something, and a numerically and socially relevant number of people decide to study, follow, and expand upon it, that is sufficient grounds to recognize it as a kind of neologism.
Even if Point 4 is a consideration, I quickly found two books explicitly on the subject on Amazon, which implies some sort of review, if only economic on the part of the publisher(s). Sarkar was not mentioned in either of the titles.
My first reaction when looking at the websites about "prout" was to also be turned off by the new-age-y culture-vulture-y Indian-guru-y John-Lennon-gone-wild method of its presentation and association. But at least within me this is mostly an inherently racist and elitist reaction that I personally believe is wrong and invalid.
I believe Point 6 is relevant in considering if the theory can be eluted from its new-age-y associations. Wikipedia is the ideal place to do that by the likes of us skeptics, is it not?
The criticism of the current article reading like a manifest is more of a stylistic concern, which means the article needs to be marked as needing revision, rewriting, and sourcing. As such that does not speak to the validity of it being a separate article on wikipedia, the argument for which I believe is sufficiently addressed in points 1-7.

Best regards, Aschoeff 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. US economist Dr. Ravi Batra has written several books on Prout, including Prout and Economic Reform in India and the Third World as well as devoting space to it in many other books and refereed journal articles. This theory includes ideas on a quadri-divisional economic structure, moving focus of economic activity away from investment to consumption and how to make the economic process involving humanity sustainable from an environmental perspective as well as the eradication of poverty in order to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of all. The original discourses by Sarkar on Prout number 21 volumes. The core of these ideas have been published in a compendium volume Proutist Economics. Just because the ideas are ahead of their time and have not prominently configured in the orthodox debate of neo-classical economic theory, reflected in fewer Google hits (in itself a dumb criteria for notability), does not mean they are not important, which they are.Ramayan 08:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, most of the points made in the last two comments sound like in-uiverse to me. The article on Batra says specifically that nobody has paid any attention to the theory.:"However, due to his unorthodox and controversial views, and the eventual predictive failure of his bestseller, Batra fell out of favour with the mainstream academic community."

A walled garden: a guru, a disciple, and the books they publish about each other. Some others may know their names, but the theory is more than adequately covered in the article on Batra. DGG 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, article retention policy does not care about any (white) American academic saying "yea" or "nay" about it, as this is wikipedia, and not your peer-reviewed economic or social science journals. Moreover, HE ACTUALLY HAD A BESTSELLER! It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it doesn't matter if it's not all predictively correct. By your logic we should remove cold fusion as an article, and perhaps merge Dianetics with Hubbard's Bio, or maybe put Aikido in Ueshiba's bio since they still refer to him as "The Master?" Clearly that should not and is not going to happen, and it shouldn't happen here with Prout. Your "walled garden" comment can only arise from not actually looking at any of the points made above. If you would like to tritely dismiss all of the points I made and Ramayan made, then perhaps you should start with recognizing that our points sweepingly dismissed the basis for every merge and delete comment posted here, including yours, but did so on a factual and specific basis. Your "guru and disciple" comment is just plain incorrect; There is an entire institute devoted to Prout in Venezuela! What I can't believe is I walked into this by chance, I have nothing at stake here aside from adherence to wikipedia policy and truth, yet my couple of hours of investigation plainly showed that what you are saying is just not true. I am convinced that the "delete and merge" crowd is conflating this with a POV issue, so we need to move to that venue and end this charade. Unbelievable. Admin, please? Aschoeff 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment. For clarity, this is a theory of P.R. Sarkar and not of Ravi Batra. Batra has, however, been active at fleshing it out. There is no question that this theory is an important contribution, if only because it is based on the ancient cosmology of the Vedas. However, there is much more to it than that. It is a novel theory which claims to contrast and trancend both Capitalism and Communism. There are sections on both of those economic theories, or would you have them merged, respectively, with the bios on Adam Smith and Karl Marx? Ramayan 22:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of beating a dead horse a bit more, the subtext of their rationale goes something like this: because the Soviet Union fell in 1989, I guess Communism should go under Marx's bio, but because there are so many Capitalist countries chugging along like mine (USA), that warrants a separate article. Aschoeff 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm always in favour of a good dose of sarcasm!

But: Marxism is easily seen to be relevant, by the sheer number works criticising it. Did PROUT got enough reception that even a single book was written criticizing it?

That was an extreme example to show how evaluation based on such criteria is unnecessary.Aschoeff 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pjacobi 20:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's important, it just needs work. 124.187.23.114 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a new economic theory not implemented yet in any country, but being tested partially in Venezuela. It has a place here, and I don´t understand quite well why somebody proposed it for deletion. We may agree or not with it, but it deserves to be on the wikipedia as a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xanirudha (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- This doesn't appear to be an economic theory at all, at least not to anyone who has made it through Economics 101. All the article produces is some highly platitudinous principles which don't seem to add up to anything like a system. If someone could point out refs from the economic community, there might be some hope of establishing notability. As it is, there's no evidence of that. Mangoe 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't claim to just be an economic theory, and if you would please read the above points I made and Ramayan made, you will find the answer to the issues you raise. But, just to be thorough, once again, wikipedia isn't a peer-reviewed economic or social science journal, so those criteria do not apply.Aschoeff 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, they do. The use of the word theory implies scientific intent, an intent which appears throughout the article. Therefore it most certainly is subject to peer review. Frankly, for Wikipedia to be credible, it should also be subjected to the same review, but one cannot have everything. Mangoe 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was also addressed above; even preposterous ideas can call themselves a theory for the purposes of deserving an article on wikipedia. Aschoeff 06:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this does need some work on the presentation, the content is inspiring. 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Glitches found in the Pokémon video games. No content is being merged, so no need to leave it hanging around in the history when consensus has conclusively said it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (there's a clear consensus to 'straight redirect' or 'delete'). Daniel Bryant 08:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch Pokémon[edit]

I redirected this page to Glitches found in the Pokémon video games with an explanation, and an editor reverted it with no explanation. First off, the article is redundant - the previously mentioned article covers the key information in this article and more. Not only that, but it violates a few things, examples being:

Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". Unless there is a reliable source for the majority of information (not a fanpage, and not just for a small amount of info.), it will always violate this.

Thank you. --Teggles 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I am the nominator) --Teggles 05:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glitches found in the Pokémon video games. If someone reverts it back, request that the redirect be protected. TJ Spyke 05:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Glitches found in the Pokémon video games already mentions the existence of these glitches and some of their possible results, and there's really no need to catalogue every possible result of triggering these bugs. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Normally I'd say delete, but seeing that there is already an article about the glitches, this should be merged into/redirected to the glitches article listed above. --Nehrams2020 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as is! None of this stuff is original thought! Anyone who has a copy of Pokémon Red or Pokemon Blue can pick it up and see the proof for themselves. Also, I did not catalogue EVERY POSSIBLE RESULT of the glitches, merely some of the best-known ones. Also, hardly any of the stuff covered here is covered in Glitches found in the Pokémon video games, apart from the Missingno. stuff. And the external links (and the only proof for what the article states) being fansites isn't that big a deal. This isn't like the whole issue with Serebii.net releasing the names of 4th generation Pokemon, this is different. These fansites are two of the most reliable websites on the internet that you can find with glitch Pokemon coverage. And as I've stated before, this is merely stuff you can play Pokemon Red or Pokemon Blue to find out for yourself. Feats-O-Strength 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They may be be the most reliable fansites, but the problem is that a fansite isn't reliable. If they are the most reliable websites on the Internet that can have glitch coverage, then it fails Wikipedia:Notability. --Teggles 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even so, as I've stated previously, this kind of stuff doesn't NEED websites confirming it, fansite or otherwise. This kind of stuff one can find for oneself within the games without much difficulty! Feats-O-Strength 12:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it's a policy on Wikipedia that information needs to be verifiable with secondary sources. See WP:VERIFY. I've just looked at your contributions and a whole part of them seem to be for minor fiction. You'd be better off at a dedicated Wiki if you want to edit things like that (not to be rude). --Teggles 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - page with better title and better information already exists. No need for minutiae of the bugs of one video game. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ESkog. --Phoenix (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the title is a reasonable redirect, keeping the history is worthless and dangerous if no content is merged. Since the target for the redirect already covers the topic adequately, merging seems unlikely. Creating a fresh redirect after deletion would be acceptable. Jay32183 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect to Feats-O-Strength, Glitch Pokemon don't require that much coverage. Likewise, the majority of the Glitch Pokemon article seems to be based on the section of Generation I Glitches from the Glitches found in the Pokémon video games, based on the fact that the posted information by Feats-O-Strength in the article appear substantially similar to this version of the Glitches found in the Pokémon video games article from a day before Feats-O-Strength started the current version of Glitch Pokemon. Nothing to merge, no reason to bother. Unlikely search term, too, since most people don't bother to romanize Pokémon with the é. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Sincerely, Thrashmeister {U|T|C} 03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 02:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth Dying For[edit]

This band seems to fail the standards of WP:BAND. It's hard to tell based on Google because "Worth dying for" is a fairly common phrase. Also, there's another band out of the United States with the same name. The article claims they made radio airplay and everything, but I can't find anything to suggest that. Metros232 12:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Jean-Philippe Bessette", the band's cofounder, gets 50 ghits, mostly in French. Not notable. YechielMan 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, I tried to get Jean-Philippe Bessette on Google, what I've found were links towards two different French-Canadian sites citing the band "Worth Dying For", members included. I even managed to found his graduating entry from the Sainte-Foy Cegep !!! Also found the MySpace link also quite easily in the same search. By searching "Worth Dying For", the first link offered was a direct link to the band's homepage "http://www.worthdyingfor.net". It's a really common phrase, indeed, but is it really a valuable criteria for deletion ? And of course, all the GHits related to either "Jean-Philippe Bessette", any other member or the band itself, will be in French.... 'cause the band is French-Canadian. PhoenixAscendant 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 05:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND. The band do not appear to be signed to a major record label, and their only album "Waiting For The Last Sacrifice" has only the official website as a google hit. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This band does not meet the standards of WP:BAND and is not notable. Wikipedia should absolutely continue to have higher standards of notability than MySpace. WikiFishy 00:58, 5 May 2007(UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 11:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balti and Havana[edit]

This strikes me as both an advert and a possible copyright violation. What do others think? Postcard Cathy 11:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They have a tasteful webpage ([11]), but I don't see notability. Stammer 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 05:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absent questions of notability, there are no sources of any kind, no links, and the article seems to consist entirely of original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orphic (talk • contribs).
Delete: unsalvageable ad copy from a single purpose user. Mangoe 13:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think relisting was unnecessary... there's little to discuss... just make it go away. Tom e r ^talk 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UC Men's Chorale (2 nomination)[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella group. No indication that it is more notable than any other chorale group in the nation. Makes various claims in its history, but there is no indication that any source other than the group itself has picked up on these factoids. In particular, the claim about being the oldest group on the west coast seems geogrpahically arbitrary, and not particularly backed up by the source, which isn't even substantially independent. First nomination did not result in any keep votes which cited WP:MUSIC criteria. Savidan 05:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and the fact that it's still this bad a year after the lst AFD. It had its chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If they furnished reliable sources for the historical claims, I could support keeping the article. As is it is an apparent copyvio, being word for word the same as their website [12]. Edison 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If Category:Collegiate a cappella groups exists, this article belongs and needs to be sourced. However, this article is totally onsourced and has been out there for 15 months. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- this deserved to be deleted last year. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SouthSide Boys[edit]

Non-notable a collegiate a cappela group (WP:MUSIC). No sources. Article is primarily a vanity list of their songs and members. Savidan 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Badly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:A as well as WP:MUSIC. Edison 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete You guys are just mean :( all I wanted to do was create my first entry for something near and dear to my heart. If you don't like it, don't read it! I don't really get who it hurts to have this entry. User:petruchi41 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It just doesn't work that way. See WP:HARMLESS for details. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-promoters' desperate pleas do not warrant lowering the standards of Wikipedia.WikiFishy 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW by User:KFP. Moreschi ^Talk 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have modified the summary of the close from "Speedied by User:KFP" to "deleted per WP:SNOW by User:KFP" as the latter seems a more accurate description of the close. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged al-Qaeda members[edit]

A WP:BLP nightmare. Contains hundreds of names and is blissfully unsourced. Even if so, "alleged" is a weasel word; one can find almost any publication considered marginally reliable that will "allege" almost anyone of membership in a nefarious organization. Nuke from orbit with prejudice. Merzbow 06:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed... a WP:BLP nightmare. I started to remove names from the list that didn't include sources to justify their inclusion in the list and realized that none did. I left only the blue links... they probably point to articles that include sources. If this is the end result, a category would be better than this list. Sancho (Review me) 07:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps even a speedy per BLP. Uncited negative material gets removed. This is certainly uncited and hardly can be construed as less than negative.--Doc^g 13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc and WP:BLP. DickClarkMises 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP Hut 8.5 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow. Yea, a BLP-violating, unreferenced mess that needs to go. Tarc 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word "alleged" is the weasel among weasels. The list is a mixture of operating members and people who can at most be described as supporters, and not a single source. Pax:Vobiscum 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely: speedy delete per WP:BLP. And do not allow this as a category, either. AndyJones 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a note at the BLP talk page in the hope that an admin with an interest in that project looks at this. It really should disappear far faster than the speed of an AfD. AndyJones 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly Speedy Delete, Salt, Set on Fire And then run away laughing. This ones a nobrainer. Kyaa the Catlord 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clear grounds to speedy based on WP:BLP. Otherwise, I'll have to start adding names of people I don't like to the list, since sourcing is optional. _(kidding) bobanny 20:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC) How the heck has this gone unnoticed since November, 2003? bobanny 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - someone, please NOW!!!. Moreschi ^Talk 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baleete then Burninate. Obvious BLP violation. ~Crazytales 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article is not a repost of the exact material that was deleted in the previous discussions. However, it fails to address the issues that led to it deletion in the first place. The original article was userfied by Thebainer to this location for further expansion in order to solve the problems that emerged at the former discussions. Therefore, and comparing the two versions, the recreation of this article by another user fails to address said issues, and I suggest submitting a request at WP:DR if any editors are interested in remaking this entry. Article Speedy deleted per CSD G4. Phaedriel - 08:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Frontier (Pokémon Emerald)[edit]

Article whose subject has been deleted twice - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Frontier and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Pike. I can't tell if it's a repost or not, so G4 doesn't apply. hbdragon88 07:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one way to find out... Tagged. MER-C 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David F. Booth[edit]

Not notable. CJ 07:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As written, I don't really see anything that passes WP:BIO. Sources would certainly help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. No sources listed and no sources of confirmation available upon searching Google and Yahoo. WikiFishy 01:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SP DELETE obvious crap -Doc^g 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Friend as the favoutrie Martians[edit]

This is a weird one, looks like a cut'n'paste combination from several different other movie pages, none of which seem to support the stated title on this page (example: two different imdb links, neither matching here). No ghits for title at all. Anon removed by speedy (for hopeless nonsense) tag without fixing anything and I know nothing about the this movie genre, so here we are in AfD-land. Detective Gadget (film) is also weirdly-imdb-linked here, like trying to support a spin-off by linking its parent? DMacks 07:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Nonsense article/hoax. (PS: The anon should have used the ((hangon)) tag. If a speedy tag is removed by anyone other than the original nominator or a reviewing admin, please replace it and warn the remover.) Sancho (Review me) 08:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the imdb links also goes to Rocket Man. The article appears to be a hoax and I also couldn't find anything on it google-wise. Unless there is any defining sources available, which I doubt, let's let this one go. --Nehrams2020 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as test page. My guess is this was somebody testing out how to compose an article by cutting/pasting the RocketMan article and messing with it. Or just nonsense. Either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian misanthrope[edit]

Neologism, no common usage. Article is unsourced / unreferenced - Tiswas^(t) 08:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the talk page and the time that has elapsed since this article was first identified as a possible neologism, it doesn't seem likely that sources will appear any time soon. Orphic 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neo or, take your pick. Tom e r ^talk 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oxymoron. No recognizable references. WikiFishy (UTC)
Delete couldn't find a usage anywhere to top it off. 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 23:52 UTC, May 5, 2007.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sindoko[edit]

Non-notable. ghits: [13]NMChico24 08:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Tag added Corpx 13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Claim of making (Dr Evil voice) "one billion dollars" seems to be false. This says it's more like $1-2 million, and even that's probably self-reported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete based on policy, ignoring the fact that the article is an autobiography and obvious conflict of interest and the large amount of sock puppetry and double voting. The article claims notability, but notability is not established by the sources given. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Donati[edit]

Girolamo Savonarola 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Award winning filmmaker's and published author's are noteable. I did remove a link to what seems to be a personal website and added in a link to a Television show. Alan David Carl

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Morcombe[edit]

A news incident that probbaly belongs on Wikinews, and an apparent confusion between the public interest and that which merely interests the public. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly suitable article for the vicitim of a crime, Wikinews is for news stories, this is about the victim and the profile so its not the actual news story, just an article related to it.The Sunshine Man 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are millions of kids that go missing every year. This one doesn't seem particularly special. Novalis 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If its referenced to media reports, its notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very notable crime, especially in Queensland where it was a big front page news story for months. Could and should be better sourced however. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons outlined by Mattinbgn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Euryalus (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, media reporting covers four years. John Vandenberg 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all those advocating same. The case has been reported on sporadically for a number of years, is always brought up when other kids go missing, spawned a charitable organisation and is generally well-known. Hard to be more notable than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News Archive shows 782 hits for him .[http://news.google.com/archivesearch?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-15,GGGL:en&q=%22Daniel+Morcombe%

His family has developed a Foundation and put out a child safety DVD. [14] Capitalistroadster 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there were roughly a quadrillion news stories about this kid when he disappeared, and big (expensive) billboards all over Central station with his picture and a hotline number. I find it hard to believe that there's not plenty of sources available. Lankiveil 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep As the person who wrote this after it was discussed at deletion review, I found sources relating to this. The fact a foundation has been set up in his name and that there has been substantial press coverage in Australia should probably assert notability. --SunStar Net ^talk 07:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberball[edit]

Non-notable, unverifiable sport which the article itself states was made up only a few days ago. Pure WP:NFT material. Prod removed without comment or improvement. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should not these blatant examples of "Things made up in school one day" be candidates for speedy deletion? (I also highly doubt that more than 35,000 people attended the match). Dr bab 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Instead of Condemn. This is a legitimate sport with a strong, local following. The 35,000 people was a typo, it is now fixed. What else can I change to allow this informational page to exist? I'm willing to work with yall.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberbad (talk • contribs)

You need to provide verifiable information and references in the form of multiple, non-trivial, reliable, independent published sources to confirm all the information given in the article. Blogs and forum posts are not reliable sources, and it appears these are the only places Lumberball is mentioned.[15] ~Matticus ^T_C 10:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up in school. BTLizard 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. This legitimate sport was not 'made up in school'. It however was a collective efforts of dedicated young men to introduce a new style of the old, tried baseball routine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberbad (talk • contribs)
Delete. It's a sport with a "strong, local following". Exactly. Local. Non-notable. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local does not imply non-notable. Delete because no reliable sources can be found.
Uberbad, even though Lumberball was not literally made up in school, WP:NFT gives a good explanation why this article is going to be deleted. Pan Dan 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable local sport. Have fun guys, though ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So we played a 2-on-2 baseball game but had an odd number of people, so we made the fifth wheel pitch all the time, see? And we also didn't have a bat or a ball, so we used some other stuff we had laying around. Somehow this constitutes a new sport. If you want to create a truly notable sport, do something different. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sport hasn't even been around for a week yet. How could it possibly have independent media coverage, a following, and so on? Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable garbage. Burntsauce 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and probably made up at school in one day. --Haemo 04:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original. So I guess sports such as women's basketball, softball, and women's tennis should be deleted also. After all, they added nothing original to already well established sports. Atleast these gentlemen put a new twist on an existing game. Furthermore, you seem to forget that all sports are created in a moment of spontaneity with stuff that is laying around. Look at basketball, for instance. I'm sure James Naismith is rolling over in his grave now that his original peach basket nailed to a wall has been replaced. Also, unless wikipedia is wrong, which wouldn't surprise me, he used a soccer ball for the first game. I wonder where a gym teacher would find such a thing? I highly doubt it was just laying around. As for independent media coverage, the first game was played directly in front of the Hampden-Sydney College radio station where a student disc jockey was present and broadcasting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.243.25 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UVM Top Cats[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement which doesn't provide a case for meeting WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not so sure about vanispamcruftisement, but no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/group-bio: no evidence of notability, mostly just a place to park an enormous picture of the group. Definitely does NOT meet WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Not notable. Violates CSD A7 and is poorly written and formatted. WikiFishy 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breath of Fresh Squidward[edit]

per precedence of the deletion of Lost (TV series) episode-articles without a confirmed name and a confirmed airdate. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kill" and take every other episode not yet aired with it. -- Nick ^t 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there aren't sources to confirm name and airdate, there's no reason to have an article on it. Jay32183 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to contain any useful information at all. --YFB ¿ 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until it has at least a basic plot 'teaser' synopsis and some indication of a future airdate, then what could it possibly offer? J0lt C0la 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke with sponge. Tom e r ^talk 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

Delete: To keep this would be a joke.WikiFishy 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Keep Keep Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep by changing it to TBA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.122.16.46 (talk • contribs) 17:22, May 5, 2007.
Uh...wha? Tom e r ^talk 02:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no information to confirm anything. Noth that there's any information beyond a title anyways. Fails WP:ATT. -- Whpq 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Redirect to Laser tag. — Caknuck 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laser game[edit]

This article has no substance nor does it fit notablity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junebug52 (talk • contribs) 2007/05/03 16:56:59

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe redirect to laser tag; at most it's claiming that they are synonyms. Mangoe 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if anything. --YFB ¿ 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laser Tag. --Helm.ers 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. --Sahmeditor 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or RedirectKnobbly 07:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This article is better off being a subset of Laser game, since that one is very detailed, compared with this one, which basically consists of 1 paragraph that can fit as part of another article.--Kylohk 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Age Goth[edit]

Oh that's just redicoluous.New Age Goth?? Some goths may enjoy hardcore punk, some may enjoy metal but generally they enjoy goth rock. Another point is that MCR are alternative rock!They're not even emo!Some goths may like them, but that doesn't make 'a new age goth' And where are the sources?Someone has thought-'I wanna write an article' and has written that stupid thing.Xr 1 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Delete.[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Xr 1. I would have thought a new age goth was a goth interested in New age ideas. This article seem to be about a non-notable subculture or even a hoax Think outside the box 12:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be original research, and not very good. I was hoping to find some kind of relationship being drawn between New Age music and goth music that I could argue for keeping. There are points of contact, in the music of Dead Can Dance and other mediæval and dark folk projects. But this is not that. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR and apparently not a term in use anywhere (Google brings up a lot of "new age, goth" in lists but that's it). --YFB ¿ 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems that if everyone were to get into a habit of nominating articles by calling them ridiculous and stupid then Wikipedia would be a very different place. --R e m i 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares that means delete. Only Hot Topic mall rats could give a care. SchmuckyTheCat 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's rediculous beacause New Age Goths doesn't exist.Search in google if you want.And MCR - what they have to do with goth music?Xr 1 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a stubby recreation of the recently deleted Neogoth. As per my remarks on that AfD, there is no "new goth" - there is a goth subculture which has remained remarkably stable for 20 years. Calling it "new" anything implies it went away and came back — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, unreleased album by unsigned 13 yr old. NawlinWiki 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's Perfect (Bo Johnson album)[edit]

This article appears to be a hoax and therefore should be deleted. --Tarnjp 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of ghits for Bo Johnson but none of them appear to be this guy. BTLizard 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I am Bo Johnson. I have my page up now and I do not know why you all want my album page deleted. Please tell my why you want it deleted.And DumbBot what do u meen are you with me or against me? Kelly Fan94 1:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the rewritten article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Packages being hard to open[edit]

The page isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. It provides no real information, or anything. δσώпҹ ^(talk)^(cont) 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title of the page gives nearly as much information as the page itself. Think of all the articles that might pop up if this were considered encyclopedic content...Cans being hard to open, Car doors getting stuck in the cold, Ice being hard to walk on...Someguy1221 08:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. BTLizard 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with Someguy1221, lol Think outside the box 12:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It almost qualifies as patent nonsense in terms of subject matter. Too bad, it could have been speedied if that were obvious. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adds absolutely no good info Corpx 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Tamper resistance if anybody really feels like it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Having taken a look at the page history, it seems that it was originally located at Wrap rage, with lots more information, content, and slightly better sourcing. It was moved to the Packages being hard to open title unilaterally with zero discussion by User:Salad Days for no apparent reason. Subsquent to that a great deal of the article content vanished into thin air, and a prod was removed for no apparent reason. I have reverted the move, putting the article back at the more appropriate title of Wrap rage and have restored the removed content. As it stands the article is probably still deletion-worthy, but it certianly is in better shape than it was when it was nominated for deletion. Wrap rage as a concept may well be notable, but the article definately still needs work and notability is marginal at best. Still, I would encourage those who have voiced support for deletion to re-visit the article as the current version is better than the version you most likely looked at. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From this point forward, the discussion is regarding the article Wrap rage. Sancho (Review me) 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to packaging, the phenomenon is worth mentioning but I doubt there's more than a paragraph worth to write without original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a term used in ergonomy. - I have found this, for example.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ioannes. Far lower recommendation: merge per ~~Sancho~~Night Gyr, but much prefer keep. Tomer^talk 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? :-) I didn't say merge, I was just making it clear that ONUnicorn had moved the page and the article under discussion had changed locations. Sancho (Review me) 15:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sheesh, my bad, sorry. :-D Tom e r ^talk 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very inadequate article, but on a notable topic. The term does appear to be used, and there is a great eal more to be said. DGG
Keep, Consumer Reports has been giving out its "Oyster Awards" for several years now[16]. This year they even reviewed tools especially made for opening tamper-resistant packages. I'm not sure what a better term is, but I know the current name is atrocious (and is not supported as a "name" by the article Ioannes linked to). --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "wrap rage" article is sufficiently well-sourced to stay. - Orphic 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Knife Knut 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Caknuck 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy[edit]

I dont know why this article was never nominated before, maybe people were just caught up in all the hype.Anyway, the event is of no historic sighnifigance, just another case of a celebrity doing something "bad".This is just like the Mel Gibson DUI incident article that was nominated, but people chose not to delete, despite its lack of notability. Rodrigue 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this even had a significant impact on censorship in the US broadcasting industry. It is much more important than many other articles on this website, such as List of most valuable comic books. 65.94.115.119 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I don't know why you brought up that completely unrelated, completly different article and compared it to this one.I dont know if you intended some kind of pun, but regardless of what "effect" it had on censorship, that is purly speculation and just because they slapped a big fine on the people who broadcasted the event does not mean it had a big "impact" on censorship in the US broadcasting. Rodrigue 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was fairly notable - I mean the huge amount of press that it got was certainley a factor in its notability. Also, I noticed that it actually passes every criteria listed at WP:Notable. You know that your argument isn't that great when you say, this article is like ..., which was nominated for deletion but chosen to be kept.danielfolsom 23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I was implying was it was another article created just because of over-hype, and people refused to recognize that and didn't it.The Mell Gibson did not have kind of "effect" on anything except creating hype,so if it was notable enough, than there could have been one on the Michael Richards incident, the time Britney Spears shaved her head and the Death of Anna Nicole Smith, the latter of which was created and I nominated it for deletion and people smartened up. Rodrigue 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this incident caused a change in the way live television is handled and programmed in the United States. Even years after this happened, the effects are still being felt. It is notable. Pgrote 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose an article dealing with why this non-incident kicked up the fuss that it did might be interesting, but so what? BTLizard 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable is a much lower bar than "historically significant". --EMS | Talk 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NOTE. Jay †Litman 13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', strongly. Any TV incident that leads to action by the U.S. congress would appear to be notable enough to pass. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone give me one example where rules or regulations where changed or reviewed because of this thing?,Because just punishing the network involved in the incident has no long term effect on anything, Superbowls were the same before and after this incident, nothing changed. Rodrigue 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per wiki guidelines, notability is not lost over time. Tarc 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we don't delete articles just because we deem the topic wasn't worthy of the media coverage it got. That would be bias, soapboxing, etc. --W.marsh 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the point is it got so much media coverage when it was really just nothing.There are many cases of celebrities doing something contraversial, like I states above.The only thing that sets this event apart is that the Superbowl is one of the most watched thing on television, so alot of people knew about it ehich made it seem like a big deal.

To prove my point, here is a quot from the article:In Canada, where the show was broadcast by Global, the incident passed largely without controversy:In Canada, where the show was broadcast by Global, the incident passed largely without controversy: "only about 50 Canadians complained about the incident to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). CBSC received roughly twice as many complaints about other aspects of the Super Bowl broadcast, including music and advertising issues".

That is compared to the hundreds of thousands of americans who complained about it in the states, like the article says.But because football is substnatually less popular in Canada, less people were aware or cared about the incident, and most likely heard it from american media.

And before you say it was an issue of population, if two hundred thousand people complained in the Us, then atleast more than ten thousand would have complained if football was as popular in Canada, but it was not a big deal Rodrigue 15:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It doesn't matter why it got media coverage, the fact is that it did get the coverage. There's no policy that says we need to delete something because Wikipedia editors don't think CNN should have covered that topic. --W.marsh 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not about how many people know about it, it is about the historical or cultural sighnifigance of the article.If the event had made some kind of effect on later Superbowls, then it would have been important.

For example,the article on the death of Anna Nicole Smith was nominated, by me, and then deleted because even though many people knew about it, mainly americans, the death was of no historical sifgnifigance.But there is an article on the Death of Adolf Hitler and the Execution of saddam hussein.

Both of those people were very well known world wide and there death had a sighnificant impact on the world, not just the country where they were from because of the media. Rodrigue 16:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Merger isn't deletion. And there's no policy that defines notability as "historical or cultural sighnifigance". --W.marsh 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As dumb as it was, it was a major media event, which (as I recall) led to tightening broadcast regulations and other real-world effects. Not your average naughty-celeb tabloid story, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think I would like you specify on those so called tightening broadcast regulations and "real-world effects", because otherwise this debate is only about one thing, whether or not an event thats otherwise unnotable is important enough simply because it had a mass audience and media coverage.But like I said before, it was only really talked about in the country of origin where Football was the most watched annual sporting event.Not talked about nearly as much in Canada or Europe where the event is not as much viewed.

If the event was a big deal, then those other places would have talked about it just as much even though they weren't in the same area.Can anyone specify exactly what effects it had on television regulations or anything? Rodrigue 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What on earth are you talking about? It's all in the article, especially the initial section and the "aftermath" section. You did read the article before nominating it for deletion, right? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may say so, it is flawed logic to reason that something lacking notability outside the U.S. therefore lacks notability altogether. By that logic, anything that happened in Canada that Americans never heard of (and believe me, that's a long list) would also be deemed non-notable. In fact, by that logic, the only things that would be considered notable would be things that had a global effect, which is clearly wrong. I think the nominator is making judgments about the importance of this controversy, as opposed to its notability. Just because an event is perceived as being ridiculous or blown out of proportion does not make it non-notable. A good chunk of the U.S. considers Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky to be "no big deal," but that's clearly a notable event. Besides, add to that the fact that this controversy led directly to a tightening of FCC regulations and increased censorship in the U.S. and we've got plenty of notability. Seriously, folks, this one's a no-brainer. This ought to be speedily kept. --Hnsampat 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is well within the established criteria for notability.--Hnsampat 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a notable event in TV history, perhaps primarily due to the ensuing outrage, etc. It is worth keeping.Isaac Crumm 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per its coverage and effects as noted by nearly every keep vote above. hateless 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I'll probably never have enough interest to actually read it, it is notable even if the level of detail here is a little trivial. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and the nominator is advised to stop wikilawyering. Notable in the United States only is, well, notable enough. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability does not magically disappear, don't be ridiculous. Burntsauce 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all, pretty much. Maxa megalon 2000 05:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be hard to find anyone in the US who hasn't heard of this with the media attention it garnered. Carlossuarez46 06:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main reason to keep this is that it had lasting effects well beyond the incident itself. In light of that the comparison in the nomination is ridiculous. MartinDK 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that is what I keep asking for, what were the so called "lasting affects" that the event had, can anyone name some rules or regulations or something specifically that was directly affected by this event, because I don't think there were any.

And my argument about this being very unimportant still counts.If this kind of thing happened somewhere else in the world, which I'm sure must have, Im sure few outside that area would ever hear about it.But again, because of the shear size of the US, and the viewership of the Superbowl meant the event got something when it was really nothing.Even in Canada, a country that is right beside the US and is very comparible in nature, like the article said: "the incident passed largely without controversy: only about 50 Canadians complained about the incident to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). CBSC received roughly twice as many complaints about other aspects of the Super Bowl broadcast, including music and advertising issues".

But you know I have to say that I'm sure almost if not all the people who voted for keep are from the US, like most people in Wikipedia.Wikipedia is supposed to be a global encyclopedia, that is why an event that just makes news in just one country is not noteworthy.But I supposed the fact that wikipedia is mainly comprised of americans does not help that situation. Rodrigue 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Remark "But again, because of the shear [sic] size of the US and the viewership of the Superbowl [sic] meant the event got something when it was really nothing." See? You're confusing notability with importance. Like I said before, just because an event is ridiculous doesn't mean it isn't notable. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, but every single topic does not have to have global appeal (even though each article does need to reflect a worldview). Events occur that are notable in one country but are completely meaningless in another. Events do not have to be notable everywhere to be notable. The same holds true for other topics. I mean, who outside the U.S. would care who the senior U.S. Senator from Alaska is? That doesn't diminish Ted Steven's notability, though. (And more people know about this controversy than know who Ted Stevens is, believe it or not.) You keep looking for evidence that this event has historical significance. Something doesn't have to be historically significant to be notable. Sanjaya from American Idol is not historically significant either (and he became a star when many people felt he was worthless). Nonetheless, you cannot make any kind of reasonable case that he is not notable. Bottom line: the halftime controversy is not necessarily historically significant, but it is notable. --Hnsampat 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EMS Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 15:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, highly notable. Everyking 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notability has a fuzzy but specific meaning in WP policy, it is not a question of whether I think the topic should be notable. Notability in the WP sense is trivially demonstrated. --Joe Decker 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting Wikipedia guidelines "Notable is defined as 'worthy of being note' or 'attracting notice'; it is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'" (emphasis added). "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable" (emphasis added). So, it doesn't have to be important or historically significant to be notable. This article ought to be speedily kept. --Hnsampat 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. What the fuck, is this supposed to be a joke? Not funny... RFerreira 05:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone who was trying to look up information about it, this certainly seems like something Wikipedia should have, especially if it fits notability reqs. Evan7257 07:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I've closed as no consensus leaning towards keep noting that the article has had a substancial cleanup since nomination and that the majority of deletion recommendations were prior to this cleanup. A new AfD focused on sources and notability wouldnt be inappropriate. Gnan garra 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Library[edit]

Completing a nom. Original reason for deletion follows. Tizio 11:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADVERTISING IT WAS CREATED BY THE FOUNDER OF THE SITE, ITS UNENCYCLOPEDIC GET RID OF IT. User:86.13.202.173

delete - it has zero merit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.202.173 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 May 2007

neutral semi-notable but needs a hell of a clean up Think outside the box 12:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THIS VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. MER-C 12:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Speedied per WP:CSD#A7. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to judge notability based on the absolute mess that's there (though it certainly looks non-notable). Considering an acceptable article would have to be a 100% clean-sweep rewrite, it can't hurt to delete this (and start over, if anybody feels like it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria as per WP:WEB. Jay †Litman 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Pupster21 Talk To Me my RfA 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy with glee. Tom e r ^talk 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the commentary above. Burntsauce 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep, article has substantially improved since it was first nominated for deletion. Burntsauce 23:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the references. It is listed as notable by so many respectable groups, and some of them are more than mere mentions, eg. Nasa, Forbes ,Family Education, so it meets all our requirements. Some of them are however nonsense: eg. Yahoo lists it first because it lists in alphabetical order, etc. I will work on it this weekend & clean it up. It's a usable start for the refs. it does indeed show the detrimental effects of COI on writing a proper article. DGG 00:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the NASA recommendation, and several others. If NASA considers it a good reference for your kids... clearly theres something of value there. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both Alkivar and DGG, passes the NASA test. RFerreira 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up the review list, as detailed on the talk page. it may be interesting to see the one by Peter Jacso--famous among librarians for extremely critical reviews, & this is one of his nastiest. [17].DGG 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up and keep per Alkivar and NASA test. bbx 07:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MER-C —A • D ^Torque 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 18:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG, in the hope that more people like him will improve the page even more. At least it seems notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Robert Swetman[edit]

Contested prod. American poet with lack of sources, dubious notability, and possible conflict of interest. >Radiant< 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good independent sources are found -Doc^g 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of sources, Radiant! Sums it up quite well, also per WP:BIO.The Sunshine Man 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but reverse this if any sources are found. Ab e g92contribs 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foie gras controversy[edit]

Major POV Fork of a contentious article without consensus. Delete until consensus on a split can be achieved. Localzuk^(talk) 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant POV fork. Mangoe 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ - WP:POVFORK may apply. As far as I can tell, the section headers are the same as those in the controversy section of Foie gras. An external article is not a bad idea in theory, but I see no reason why the controversy can't be covered in the main article. This is editorial (I'm a bit mergist); having another article does not, in this case, afford or deny more or less detail. Gracenotes^T § 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - At the time I split the articles into two, the Foie gras article exceeded Wikipedia's recommended length, and more importantly, was about 70 percent devoted to negative and controversial material. That's undue weight in the worst way. However, most of the info was valid and sourced and good encyclopedic writing, so I didn't see any reason to delete any of it just to make the article fairer - thus, the logical thing to do was it to devote an article to the well-documented controversy. It's funny, the anti-Foie Gras people seem to think I've done it just to "sterilize" the issue (that was the word one person used on the talk page) - but it's just the opposite, I mean, heck, I gave the subject its own article, fer cryin' out loud! Finally, devoting a "controversy article" to a subject is most certainly not a POV fork when there's so much detailed proof that this controversy exists as an independent subject worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Consider Scientology controversy, Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, Seigenthaler controversy, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Global warming controversy, Creation-evolution controversy, Hacker definition controversy, Video game controversy, Aspartame controversy, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Mims-Pianka controversy, 2007 Timbaland plagiarism controversy, GNU/Linux naming controversy, Stem cell controversy, Hockey stick controversy, Vaccine controversy, Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Hot Coffee minigame controversy, Investiture Controversy, Native American name controversy, George W. Bush military service controversy, Breast implant controversy, Christmas controversy, Easter controversy, Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy, Biopsychiatry controversy, American Idol controversy, Arctic Refuge drilling controversy, Water fluoridation controversy, Karmapa controversy, Chinese Rites controversy, Bangorian Controversy, Flying Imams controversy, Santorum controversy, etc., etc. wikipediatrix 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, striking weak vote. I wasn't positive that you intended to cut down the section in the main article, which I see has been done. Thank you. Gracenotes^T § 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been controversial in the U.S. for many years. I have seen numerous newspaper article and TV news stories about proposals to outlaw it in certain cities and the angry response of gourmands and chefs. There is enough notable controversy for its coverage in Wikipedia, and if it makes the main article too long, then it needs a stand-alone article. Edison 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The controversy itself is notable on it's own. The controversy section was overloading the main article, which does create an undue weight problem. "Controversy" (and "Criticism of") articles are not POV forks on their face, but they certainly can be manipulated and need close watching. SchmuckyTheCat 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable subject of its own and with accepted precedent at Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per wikipediatrix. Clerks. 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per SchmuckyTheCat.--Boffob 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipediatrix. I'm pretty sure I've heard a long radio programme about it on the World Service; controversy is notable in its own right. --YFB ¿ 18:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. In addition to wikipediatrix rationale, please keep in mind that importance of Foie Gras "controversy" section has been repeatedly questioned in a course of past few months on grounds of being artificially boosted. The main reason anti-FoieGras editors are opposing the separation was and continues to be an attempt to piggyback on a popularity of the Foie Gras subject. If the controversy is as substantial as they claim, it deserves its own article. Alex Pankratov 18:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foie gras = oral rape for poultry, so why not have an article? //// Pacific PanDeist * 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Making all the controversial issues into a separate page is totally POV Forking. Controversy is inherent in the subject of foie gras these days and needs to be included in the main article. Making it into a separate article with a small link and reference is a clear attempt at keeping that information from readers. GingerGin 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I've never heard of the creation of a Wikipedia article and a link to that article described as something that keeps information from readers. wikipediatrix 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your condescending tone. I am entitled to my opinion and do not deserve personal attacks regarding my posts. Please stop harassing me and keep to the Wikipedia rules about being polite.GingerGin 00:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of making "a clear attempt to keep that information from readers". Now that's a personal attack. Was I not supposed to have a reaction to that? Please accept my profuse apology for rising to your bait. wikipediatrix 00:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This is something that should be being handled on the talkpage of both Foie gras controversy and Foie gras (well, ok, preferably only on one of them, but still...), not on AFD. Tom e r ^talk 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wikipediatrix, the undue weight argument prevails over POV fork for me. If it is a POV fork, then lets edit it to be a non-POV fork, because clearly the article needed splitting. The controversy section in foie gras can be ~~fattened up~~ expanded however. hateless 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And replace all the controversy info back in the main article. Having a separate controversy page is being used as an excuse to keep a picture of force feeding (inherent in foie gras production) out of the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelBrock (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Um....no, actually, that has nothing to do with why I created this article. Please follow WP:AGF. wikipediatrix 00:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information should either be included in the main article or kept in a separate article, and I think it works as a separate article due to length concerns. For subjects with much controversy, it works well to have a completely separate article. Many cities including Chicago have said that they may ban foie gras, so this is highly notable. As Wikipediatrix noted above, precedent exists for these types of articles as separate entities.--Gloriamarie 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable71.113.238.56 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes perfectly good sense to have a subarticle on this. Everyking 17:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Now if I only had $1 for every Wikipedia article which had "controversy" in the title... RFerreira 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but this is definitely worth having an article about. I've heard about this in the news and seen it in the papers, so obviously it's noteable. Jtrainor 06:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is encyclopedic, there are sources. --Richard 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sounds like a fairly serious issue in some areas, and the content's too long for the main article. Jjacobsmeyer 09:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Exterior Cleaning[edit]

Nominated via template:prod in March, but the prod template was deleted without explanation or remedy two days later by an anonymous editor. Original concerns were: "Fails notability conditions for Companies, Professions etc. Unsupported accustions against the National Federation of Master Window Cleaners", noted by new user, User:ChallenjaD. User has made no other edits, but I am inclined to agree with him on the point of notability. MrZaius^talk 12:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely irrelevant. Corpx 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet criteria for notability as per WP:ORG. Jay †Litman 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The external link takes you to a pop-up ridden junk page. Clerks. 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed Primary Criterion of WP:ORG. The article does not have an independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage and non-autobiography secondary source to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete this article. Mark 06:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Goon Virus[edit]

I believe this article to be a hoax. A computer virus is the sort of thing that ought to pop up on a google search if it exists, and the only google hits I got were Wikipedia. Normally I wouldn't consider that through enough of a search, but when it's an article about a computer virus that supposedly has been added to most virus protection programs... It should be somewhere. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A Google search returns nothing about this virus. Mention of this should also me removed from Timeline of notable computer viruses and worms as it was added there by the same user User talk:205.174.115.201.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerks (talk • contribs)
Obviously someone messed with the article adding the bill virus non-sense. The virus probably returned no hits on Google because it only affected a small network on a school. It also was not that lethal and was very unknown. Therefore the article should stand as is and shouldnt be edited anymore. Unless someone is trying to acquire sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.174.115.144 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If it was "not that lethal" and "only affected a small network on a school" and is "very unknown" then why should Wikipedia have an article about it? My brief search for sources (Google) didn't turn up any. Has this virus been written about anywhere else? Magazines? Newspapers? How can anyone know it really exists or happened? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page as is can be useful for schools to acquire knowledge of how to better updat etheir information software.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.115.191 (talk • contribs)

Delete Unreferenced, but even if we accept every word as 100% true it still isn't notable enough. WP is not the McAfee virus database. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am aquiring a source from a teacher who witnessed the virus and I have screenshots of the virus' deadly messages. I just dont know how to load them onto the Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.115.144 (talk • contribs)

Those would not be considered reliable sources for our purposes. See WP:RS for details.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What better source than a WITNESS and EVIDENCE of the virus taking place? I am certain that if the teacher agreed to be cited as a source on the matter, he/she has reliable information to share. Why would a teacher agree to spread a hoax?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.115.191 (talk • contribs)

Well the teacher is willing to prove that the virus existed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.115.144 (talk • contribs)

Exactly, let's see what credentials this teacher has, and make a decision from there. If he/she seems reliable, I assume that the page can stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.174.115.191 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, I had to clean up the format of this discussion, as it was getting messy. Clerks. 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Mr. Format Guy. I am not to good at formating these discussion things. The Teacher was a witness to the virus and his very own computer was affected by it. He also was the one that upgraded the systems to Powerpoint 2007. So he was very involved in the virus case that affected the school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.115.144 (talk • contribs)

For Wikipedia purposes, we need published sources - i.e. Magazines, newspapers, books, etc. You haven't answered my earlier question: Has this been written about elsewhere? By the way, you can add a signature to your posts so we know who is talking by typing four of the little squiggles, like this ~~~~ ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am a student who attends the school affected with this virus. I do not know how much this will help the matter but I am 100% sure that the shool's computers were infected with the same virus. Also you can do a google search for Caldwell Locks and you will find that he does indeed attend the school. Caldwell, however, is not a very good example of the kind of students who attend this school and we would hate for this out of control child to form a negative reputation for our school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.227.207 (talk • contribs)

I did do a Google search for Caldwell Locks, but the results did not seem relevant to this article. Like I said, we need pointers to 'published sources for the information presented in this article in order for it to stay. And please try to sign your comments with four tildes (the little squiggles). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccinate Wikipedia against this hooliganism. Tom e r ^talk 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Weak sources at best and importance/notability is questionable. WikiFishy 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis articel is so true and should stay at all costs 71.63.55.119 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)ImaG[reply]

The above is the best argument to speedy I've ever seen... Tom e r ^talk 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a student at the above mentioned school. I have witnessed this virus which in fact caused me a great deal of stress when one of my powerpoint presentations was modified by this virus preventing me from presenting a project. I have read the arguments above and there is no reason why this page should deleted from wikipedia. I am unaware of any published sources about this virus but that however does not mean there werent any. I do know however that the virus was in the system but believed to be contained by the quick actions of technical supervisors. I do not know how to add my signature with the squiggly lines mentioned above but I would like my testimony in this matter to be considered as a student affected by the virus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.62.236.206 (talk • contribs) 21:05 UTC, May 6, 2007.

First, to sign with "the squiggly lines mentioned above" (they're called tildes, by the way), you most likely hit shift+` (look in the upper lefthand corner of your keyboard). This will look like ~~~~, but will sign your remark when you hit [Save]. To address your remarks, I've got to tell you...nothing you've said helps establish notability. It's supposèdly some silly virus that reportèdly affected some computers in one small school one day. That's no more notable or encyclopædia-worthy than if the school ran out of toilet paper. Getting a bunch of people to say "yeah, I had to wipe with my lunch tickets" might make good conversation when you're older and drunk, laughing around a campfire...but it's not notable. One day I rounded a corner in the dark on my bike and wiped out in the gravel. My right middle finger got caught in the handbrakes, and I broke my finger. I still have a bonechip in there. That's not notable either...and I still have the bonechip. The fact that my finger was splinted thanks to the expert medical doctor, who can attest that my finger was broken...is still not notable. Even though Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopædia, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawg Tomer...you need a life! 205.174.115.127 17:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)TheSpruillinator[reply]

O My Gosh!!! I can't believe that you guys want to delete an article that no one cares about except its creators. Honestly, do you guys think that someone is going to come to wikipedia and type in "the GOON Virus" ? I agree with Mr. TheSpruillinator when he says that you guys have no life!!!! 71.62.227.207 e Roni

God dang No one cares if you broke a finger. but this is an actual event cause my cousin was affected by this and affecting around 600 of the smartest VA students is a pretty big deal in a school based off of computers. If you can't find an artice on this i'm sorry. i guess this is the authoritative source and to sit there and ask for this article to be deleted is silly. It's true and i'm not quite sure why you care if you aren't using it for research and if you are well then this article has all the facts you need.

You kids aren't doing your cause any favors. 600 of the smartest VA students? That begs ((fact)). Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 23:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOMER!!!!!! DONT MAKE ME TOUCH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You double jalapee bean neck toast head chicken-nugget feeted protein shake. Ill fight you. Just leave the article to the 600 people of whatever. Peace dawg.
71.63.67.111 01:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)The Spruillinator[reply]

Tomer do you know anything thing about the Commonwealth Governors school if you don't i woldn't be saying anything if you do and you don't agree with that earlier statement then you're a fool here's is a quote from their website "The mission of the Commonwealth Governor's School is to provide academically talented and highly motivated high school students with a challenging, differentiated and interdisciplinary academic program of study utilizing non-traditional activities supported by technology at their home sites." i hope that clears that up

It does indeed. It makes painfully clear that the school is having difficulty finding academically talented and highly motivated high school students. Tom e r ^talk 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh haha! your soooo funny..

I'd like to ask where you went to school Tomer?

I make no secret about it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:AFD. Thanks for your interest in my personal life, though. Tom e r ^talk 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer what school did you go to becuase the CGS sites in VA are considered to be some of the finest schools in the Nation. My site alone has all of its graduating senoirs going to colleges that are consisdered to be very prestigoius. most of them going on acedemic scholarships accompinied by athletic ones to. to insult a system of schoola is very poor form and i have no respect for a man who would challenge an actual event and then insult persons he has not met or even conversed with. i'm not sure if the South Hill Times has a website but the local paper did print a very small non-descript article on the matter in their school section. it was printed April 5 th 2007. So their is your proof i'm currently checking for a website even gthough i do not beleive they have one. i will see if i can obatian an article to put on the site. But if you ever again insult a school of students who are far more intelligent than you; And will give something back to the world other than editing wikipedia i will report you to the wikipedia offices by personnally calling them. This is the first time i have read this article bugt i will be sure to pay closer attention to it from now on. ...Rebelscotts3

Just so we're clear...are you a student at this school? Tom e r ^talk 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah..he is..so am I!! .. this virus infected my powerpoint program and I had to buy an entire new program. This virus is very big nuisance. Caldwell sits alone now..in the back of the class..the back corner.

Thank you. Again, I mourn for the future of our nation. Tom e r ^talk 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer you have gone to far with the person that you are insulting. Also the school is an fine academic site your insults are ill founded ad wrong. I am a U.S Naval Academy attendent. I am in my 3rd year currently. My 2 best friends are here with me all 3 of us are are attending the U.S. Naval Academy. all three of us Graduated CGS and another one of our classmates is at West Point with a 5th at the Coast Guard Academy. None of us find your insults or comments funny. We have been in contact with one another and are quite ticked by your comment. I have emailed my teachers at the school to request informatin on this virus, because i can neither confirm nor disprove this virus. Until i get further information on the matter i am not willing to state an opinion either way. I do not understand what your qualifications are to discuss this goon virus matter when you have been working as a shoe salesman for majority of your adulthood. So leave the trash talk behind and discuss the matter. But since you appear to be incapable to disuss the matter without being fair and open i suggest you stop until you have recieved better information. Tomer if you would like one of my my teachers emails i am more than willing to offer you his email. just leave a comment. Regards JollyRoger

Ok Tomer i found the article it was printed April 5th 2007 in the school section of the South Hill Times. As i had thought there was no South Hill Times website. but the aticle stated "The local CGS site has had an apparrent Powerpoint failure due to a local network virus." In the April 7th paper still in the school section but also a related article in the region section. The article in Region stated "A student at the local high school has been arrested and will be appearing in court for a mandatory remdiation council. If found guilty he will face 5 days OSS and if he is at the CGS site the will not be allowed to return for next year." This should cover things up. I am looking for a follow up article. Please read JollyRogers comment becuase he makes alot of sense. ...Rebelscotts3

You fundamentally fail to understand my remark. Sequoyah understood the basic principle that the foundation of civilization is literacy. As remarkable as you mistakenly feel your school to be, if appearances are any indication of the situation, your school has woefully failed you and your fellow students. There are so many spelling and grammatical errors in your many puerile flagellations, that only the most illiterate and forgiving of proponents of "creative spelling" could possibly believe that the future of American civilization, or of the world at large, has a bright future, if, indeed, you are representative of the "best and brightest" as you pretend to portray yourself. There are three possible conclusions one can draw from this inane discussion:

Your school sucks
You suck
The future of the world is dark indeed.

Nothing you say, lashing out at me in imagined juvenile "intellectual" argumentation is going to erase the horribly pathetic things you've already said. The fact remains that, up to this point at least, you mistakenly believe yourself [and your fellow students as well, apparently] to be [a] spectacular representative of an institution of academic excellence. To anyone who's even mildly literate, however, you represent a half-step above a caveman experimenting with writing by scraping on a wet cave wall with a burned stick. Again, if you're representative of the "best and brightest", I weep, profusely in fact, for the future of our nation...and, indeed, for the entire world. I'd say "Cheers", but I think perhaps a better salutation would be "Shut your mouth so your ears can finally hear", Tom e r ^talk 05:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant hoaxery. Warn the creator of the article. --Core desat 06:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Perhaps next time the article creator can manage to spell the subject correctly. RFerreira 06:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount lawely primary school[edit]

Non-notable school — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom Clerks. 15:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lesnail 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD A3. Mystytopia (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is not even a complete sentence, let alone an encyclopedia-like article. Burntsauce 23:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I've searched correctly, even the title of the article is misspelled. Alansohn 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - content was: "it is in mount lawely". MER-C 02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been deleted. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, advertising. Kusma (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outlawz inc[edit]

I'm not sure if it is a classified advertisement or just plain junk. Either way it should be deleted. Clerks. 15:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. Lesnail 15:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant (and incoherent) spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 advertisement, probably G1 nonsense as well Hut 8.5 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eating quickly[edit]

Original research with no proof of notability. Might as well be an article on walking too fast. MartinDK 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like blatant original research. Hut 8.5 16:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Clerks. 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, half of the article is about competitive eating and the other half is a mess. Looks like the author has synthasized a bunch of stuff about "eating quickly" for this article. --Helm.ers 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me of Packages being hard to open. Someguy1221 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nice try? WikiFishy 01:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercide[edit]

Made-up word/artical Shoessss 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references please. If one magazine or newspaper wrote an article about this, I'd consider keeping it. I'm sure one day someone might, but today is not that day. Clerks. 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term does exist [18][19] but it's hardly notable and they don't qualify as reliable sources (or non-trivial coverage for that matter). Hut 8.5 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and lack of reliable sources. --Interiot 22:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about homosexuality[edit]

(AFD1 and AFD2. The arguments by the deletion nominator for the first nomination were extremely weak, as I pointed out in the second AFD, which was much more valid. I carried out the second AFD nomination myself and the list was saved (as no consensus) on a whim at the end by two 'keep' voters who have failed to do anything to improve the article since, and whose arguments were poor ("do we need citations to prove genre in television in 99% of instances?" = WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), claiming that this songs about homosexuality list could be referenced, but still there is not a single reference or citation in the whole list. It's full of original research, much of it is subjective and littered with personal views. On top of that, it's listcruft, and the subsection "Songs where there is a strong indication the topic is homosexuality or can be interpreted as such" can only be original research. It's a haven for anonymous IP edits from people who probably do not understand how Wikipedia works, as they keep adding their own uncited, originally researched personal ideas of songs that fit into this category, and as such is misleading. Jimbo Wales would not stand for a list like this ("I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information"). If anyone can find any reliable sources for a reasonably sized list, I'd be quite happy to have this list stay, even if it probably does constitute listcruft. As such, it's a travesty and a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I heard somewhere ^{[citation needed]} that articles like this are unverifiable and should be deleted. - eo 17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say "weak keep, just remove the OR", but after looking at the article I realized that would mean deleting the entire article. An article based on the section "Songs where the primary topic is homosexuality" would be worth keeping if it was sourced properly, but the only way to get there is to start over. The entire section "Songs where there is a strong indication the topic is homosexuality or can be interpreted as such" needs to be deleted even if this AfD doesn't end with a delete. Pax:Vobiscum 17:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it stands it is original research and doesn't satisfy any of the purposes under the list guidelines (not a "valuable information source" if it's unverified, not useful for navigation or development). QmunkE 17:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unreferenced. Kill, With fire. Moreschi ^Talk 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy with tuning fork Tom e r ^talk 22:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure original research with no reliable sources — in fact, no sources at all. Conceivably, a decent article could be written here, but this isn't it. Kill it and let someone else start over in accordance with policy if they want to try. *** Crotalus *** 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Don't people have blogs for this kind of thing? Unbelievable. WikiFishy 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - keeping an article on the basis of "it can be sourced" necessitates that it eventually be sourced. This hasn't, so I tend to believe such arguments are fallacious in this case. --Haemo 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have nothing against LGBT people (the last girl I slept with was bisexual and I met her ex-girlfriend and she was nice), but I am pleased with the way that this AFD is going.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm sure she'd be thrilled to hear that you're spreading the word... Tomer^talk 02:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I shouldn't use Wikipedia when I'm drunk and get back from a night out, should I?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Definitely not. These things happen. I don't think anyone will mind if you delete your remark and everything that's followed as a result of it, however...including this. (I know I won't object...) Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete save it for gag sites Bulldog123 11:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salatta[edit]

Blatant advertisement Shoessss 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as either A7/G11, and besides that, just plain doesn't make any sense: "aims to connect business users to give them enough room to breath during their busy office life"...Huh?! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is in progress!

Delete, add some references and I will reconsider. Clerks. 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any evidence of notability Hut 8.5 17:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--MonkeyTimeBoy 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I don't see any assertion of notability - A7/G11. Leuko 00:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Carlosguitar 10:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, not flushed. Krimpet (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menstruation slang[edit]

This page, which originally started out as vandalism (see the first version: here, now appears to have these issues:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia:No original research The Evil Spartan 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, funny stuff. If Wikipedia was a Fraternity House Homepage, this article would be perfect. Clerks. 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. Referencing Urban Dictionary doesn't help. Hut 8.5 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Although I find it funny that Aunt Flo actually redirects to Menstrual cycle, this article is garbage. Now if it could reference some historical ways that women (and men) have referenced periods, then it might make the cut. This is just some low-brow humor, however.--Helm.ers 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrap, toss, and clean up. Per instructions, do not flush. Tom e r ^talk 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter crap. Ben Webber 23:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oshkosh West Barbershop Ensemble[edit]

Non-notable school band. Nekohakase 16:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They do not appear to have a claim of notability or to satisfy WP:ORG. Singers are usually not called a "band." This sounds like many amateur musical groups in its lack of notability for purposes of being entitled to a Wikipedia article. If there are any references satisfying WP:A, it could be mentioned in an article on the school. An amateur musical group can be a fun way to spend time, but so is a recreational softball team those generally do not need articles either. If they perform before large audiences in various places and get written up in newspaper reviews and covered on TV an in magazines, or if they receive recognized awards, they would have a much stronger case. Edison 16:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (as redirect to Endal). Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endal (dog)[edit]

Just some non-notable guy's non-notable dog. I almost can't believe this article exists, but yet, there it is. Also a probable copyvio. Cyde Weys 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB - since this debate began and since the original was marked as a copyvio for a time - someone has created another version at Endal - Can someone who cares sort this.--Doc^g 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. We spoke about this [20]. Anyway - I have merged the two articles, and also again tried to make the article more acceptable to Wikipedia because there had been some vanity creep by the original author (bless him!). Provided the author can refrain from turning the article into a promotional tool for himself and his charity, the article is a candidate for inclusion. While the coverage on the animal has not been authoritative, scholarly or of a high quality, it has certainly been widespread, and has included some notable sources, such as the BBC, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. Most of the coverage appears to be variations on press releases that the author has sent out, so there are aspects of this that are questionable. I would have liked to have seen an independent source reporting on the media coverage of the dog - without that the article might be open to an accusation of original research. However, the dog has, through the efforts of his handler, achieved some distinctions which have been recorded by reliable sources. I have sat on the fence a bit regarding this, but upon reflection I'm coming out in support. Keep. SilkTork 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't matter if the BBC uses press releases to gets its information, its their job to vet the information before publication, and fact check, thats why they are a reliable source, and a blog isn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed at your comments, despite a dog being filmed by over three hundred film crews from around the world, having been awarded the highest award for peace time animal bravery, listed in the Times news paper as as one of the top ten most famous dogs of history you doubt his credabilty? Your comment that a highly decorated service man injured in service of his country is a non-notable person...that is below the belt and not what i would expect the author of this site to write. I am sure sniping at folk from the key board is something you consider an act of bravery? Endal and Allen 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't do "righteous indignation". It's just a dog. And I don't think you're realizing what I mean what I say "non-notable". I'm not trying to hit below the belt, it's just that millions of people have been awarded medals throughout the years for military service, and that alone doesn't make someone noteworthy. I'm not saying anything bad about you as a person; merely questioning whether your dog deserves an encyclopedia article. --Cyde Weys 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous indignation

Though I digress from the original topic and having had a period of reflection I have felt I have to reply to part of your response to me... if only to be a voice for those that no longer have the opportunity to reply to your dismissive comment. I am not setting up any sort of conflict or personal argument with you.

I have come as close to being an engraved name on a war memorial in a sleepy English village than I care for, following being seriously injured during operation Desert Storm in 1991. Just because millions of people have been awarded medals over the years doesn't make each one of them any the less notable than the next person awarded a medal tomorrow. Each medal awarded reflects the special action of the individual it is awarded to, singling them out as "notable"! Any person who is prepared to lay his or her life down for the freedom and defence of others is indeed very notable. It Wikipedia was perfect there would be a section listing every medal holder that ever there was and their citation.. Why then do we hold veteran days around the world if not to recognise, the valour and selfless sacrifice of individuals and especially that each medal holder has made for our freedom that we enjoy today.

Millions have fought over the years for the right of people to live a free life from under the rule of tyrants and dictators, regardless of creed, colour or religion. Individuals have stood apart from the crowd and fought for a just cause not for praise or adulation but because it is morally the right thing to do. I can't sit in the wheelchair claiming that I have fought to up hold the rights of people to live in a free society where everyone has a voice and a right that it should be heard, but then dictate what that voice must say. What you have said though in your throw away comment is hurtful and belittles the notable actions of many who have made the supreme sacrifice or for those injured like myself and those who have survived intact. There is a famous saying engraved on the wall of the Imperial War museum in London "War only ends for the dead"..... these words I ask you to reflect on!

Tomorrow the papers will list more names of the fallen in the current conflict around the would, today's news - tomorrow's fish and chips paper...but every individual is notable for upholding the right for us to live in a free and democratic world.... Notable..each and everyone...most definitely.... yes! Endal and Allen 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When your quality of life depends on the abilty and devotion of a dog, you will understand

Endal is not just a dog Endal and Allen 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand why that makes the dog important to you, but it still does not make it important to other people, or to an encyclopedia of general knowledge. I'm sorry. If I ever do need a service dog, I'm sure I will appreciate it, but I still won't think it's notable enough to deserve to be in encyclopedias. --Cyde Weys 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certain major medals, such as the Medal of Honor, are automatic notability. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while removing any copyvios found. Clearly a noteworthy animal given the sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, remove the copyvios, but there are several sources testifying that this animal is notable. Hut 8.5 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep remove the apparent copyvios but retain the substance. definitely notable, sources report the same. would like to point out that said copyvios were in fact written by allen himself (as claimed), so it isn't really copied. of course, this would probably be difficult to prove. rm copyvios, but keep article. xC | ☎ 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this should never have been afd'd. Clerks. 18:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rather than the righteous indignation of the inclusionists, will someone please take the article in hand and make it remotely encyclopedic. I'm fed up with 'keep and let someone clean this up' votes. If you want it, have it. If you can't be arsed, then let's delete it.--Doc^g 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Are we going to put in every animal that won a dog show as well? How about best groomed poodle, 1992? There is so much wrong with this article--the guy wrote it about his own dog, which is pretty much like writing about yourself (considering that the dog cannot write), and that is against our policy. There will be no way to learn what happens with said dog ten years from now--I doubt any newspaper would publish an obit. Let's please get back on track with writing an encyclopedia. Danny 18:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Autobiographical or COI editing does not mandate deletion. In this case, we are looking at an encyclopedia - we have a subject with a wealth of source material to write from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having source material does not mean that it merits an article. If it was truly worthy of inclusion, however, it is likely that someone other than the dog's owner would have started the article. Danny 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have tidied up the article. The notability is the amount of media coverage that Parton has generated - and that is certainly enough to satisfy Wiki requirements, regardless of personal feelings about the worthiness of the material. SilkTork 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you also replaced the copyvio, so I've removed it again.--Doc^g 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COPYVIO WP:OWN WP:COI WP:MOS. I've no objection to someone neutral writing an article about this dog. But this cut and paste of the owner's apparent puffery isn't where to start. I say again, if anyone wants this saved, then go help the guy write an encyclopedic article, and I'll happily rescind this vote.--Doc^g 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. Still needs some expansion, but it's the best I can do under current circumstances. I edit conflicted a few times, so I may have screwed up a process in the process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to thank everyone for their comments either for or against Endal's page. I was requested to enter Endal into the famous dog category (yes it is true Endal can't write it himself) little knowing what I was starting or getting into. I have had great difficulty reducing down all the source and reference documentation but would like to thank all those that have given me editorial direction. Endal fame has been based around his part in my rehabilitation and recovery and enablement over the last ten years. Being voted the Dog of the Millennium and being awarded the first ever Animal George cross surely is notable? The other awards and achievements bolster Endal's case. Resolving the argument over authorship/copyright is like "nailing jelly to the wall" and beyond me. Endal and Allen 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, we are back to square one here. We have an article blanked as a probable copyvio, and certainly in an unencyclopedic tone. We seem to have a majority, if not a consensus that the subject merits an article. We have at least two users willing to work on a new article, but unable to as the currrent one is a disputed copyvio. Does anyone have an objection if I: 1) close this afd as 2) delete the current article as a probable copyvio and no use anyway 3) allow the editors who want to write a new one to do so 4) leave it open if anyone wants to afd it again once written (I won't care either way).--Doc^g 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Copyright now cleared.--Doc^g 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no real notability there, and most of the references are inapplicable to the specific dog. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new article here: Endal as I had already done most of the work before the copyright violation tag was placed on it, but got beaten to the bell by an edit conflict. SilkTork 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on balance. Notability is borderline (might just about be considered notable for a dog) but this is so plainly self-contgratulatory pap by the owner that it is embarrassing. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of good sourced reference material from the BBC and the Guardian. Meets all criteria for WP:Bio. If someone thinks its a Copyright Violation, then reword that section. Remember, you can't copyright facts. The outside press determines notability, not Wikipedians. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least the copyright status is cleared up now (see the note where the author releases it under the GFDL at the bottom of this page). --Cyde Weys 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB see also Endal--Doc^g 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guy=non-notable; His dog=notable. I wasn't expecting much from an article about a dog, but this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. While WP:BIO seems to focus on humans, Endal would clearly pass that guideline or WP:N. Alansohn 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep certainly enough reliable sources here to suggest notability, especially considering its a dog. Delete and merge into Endal which is a more encyclopedic version, not actually sure any merging is even needed. Russeasby 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above I was suggesting delete in merge to Endal when it was at this point [21], but the current version is hardly much better then the origonal Endal (dog). Russeasby 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see the List of famous dogs. Beside Endal, one other service dog has a redirect, but none yet have articles. The dogs in the lists of winners of races and competitions in WP also do not have articles, though many of them would no doubt prove to have sources--there are several magazines that cover dog shows. Even mass media covers some of the shows. Just an informative comparison--not suggesting any precedents. DGG 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Endal. Notable, referenced, encyclopedic. — Athaenara 22:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People have been writing about the dog. It is what it is. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep redirected to Endal. Lot of press coverage for a dog. —Cel ithemis 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ~ Anthony 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd's Pie Advert[edit]

The ad is not notable. I am unable to verify the content of this article in reliable sources. Only source I could find about the ad was a description of the ad itself, which is not enough to write an encyclopedia article with this title. More discussion at Talk:Shepherd's Pie Advert. Pan Dan 17:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely comprehensible. Lil' Dice ^{(yeah, I said it!) - talk} 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel the campaign, er, delete. Claims of being notable and influential are not backed up with reliable sources. An ad one person really, really liked is not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of reliable sources proving notability. Jacek Kendysz 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The difficulty in finding sources is obviously down to the inability to search "Shepherd's Pie" or "Oxo" without coming up with a massive amount of other results on Google first. Also I've made some contributions and the article isn't really doing any harm in its current state. Agent Blightsoot 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- difficulty in finding sources...on Google -- hence my search in Lexis-Nexis and Google news, where, as I said, I found only a description of the ad itself. Pan Dan 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (further comment) A Google search for "shepherd's pie" oxo gives 309 unique hits. Scanning the first 30, I see nothing that's even about this ad (except, as it happens, for hit #29, which is neither independent nor reliable nor non-trivial with respect to the ad[22]). Searching for "shepherd's pie" uriah -site:uriah-heep.com -site:youtube.com -site:myspace.com gives 33 unique hits none of which are reliable. Searching for "shepherd's pie" "bernie shaw" (the purported singer) gives 7 hits. Pan Dan 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with every other meme that's come to VfD. We've had problems like this with similar articles on "internet memes", and this just seems to be a repeat of what we've gone other multiple times. Unless it's something like Steve Ballmers Dance Monkeyboy Video, its generally hard to bring it up in searches or in blogs when its naming is similar to things that are more likely to at the top of searches. The adverts appearance on YouTube, ytmnd and Google video is probably a good indicator that it's reasonably notable and that it can be improved. The fact that this advert could also be referenced in multiple articles (Oxo (food), Uriah Heep, List of internet phenomena, Advertising etc etc) is probably a good indicator for it to remain in its own article, and not disfragmented.

I would suggest the article is kept. A note added that its internet phenomena that has appeared on several sites consistent with internet phenomena. I think people are being a tad pedantic in sourcing the article numerous times in something that is essentially a stub. Roger Danger Field 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Your argument that the ad is likely notable is well taken, assuming that you by "notable" you mean "appropriate sources exist." But I've actually looked for sources (thoroughly, it seems to me) and have come up empty. Pan Dan 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Paxton[edit]

Only 34 ghits, seemingly nothing there bar Myspace. No assertion of encyclopedic notability. Moreschi ^Talk 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band itself is not notable. It'd better be off in the band's article.--Kylohk 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Roger Danger Field 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BozMo talk 07:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history[edit]

The article is about a phrase invented and used by one author; most of it is an original research "background" section, the rest a quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nominator for deletion votes himself, or i may be wrong. --Aminz 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators vote all the time. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Seems to be something someone made up for their book. Moreschi ^Talk 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not. It is a much discussed topic. It is about the general Jewish histography of the Jewish-Arab history. It is notable from an academic point of view.--Aminz 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You've produced a couple of people vaguely mentioning the term Cohen used and some ingenious original synthesis to suppose that this term has any sort of encyclopedic notability/is used by anyone else other than Cohen. Moreschi ^Talk 08:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is the name of an article by Mark Cohen, published in 1991 in Tikkun, Vol. 6 Nr. 3, page 55-60. It has been little used or quoted by others [23]. Some of the content may be moved to the article on Mark Cohen. gidonb 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have tried to show that many famous academic publication has refered to this. --Aminz 23:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aminz. Yes, you have made a real effort to explain you case. Thank you for notifying me about this effort both here and on my talk page! I think it is still far too little to justify a separate article and would like to encourage you to think about improving existing articles in cases such as these. Best regards, gidonb 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not write articles about magazine articles. -- Olve 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but it is not "magazine articles". Magazine articles are written for public whereas this one is about a serious academic discussion. --Aminz 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be as sorry as you like, but Tikkun is in fact a magazine. An intellectual magazine? By all means, yes. But not a peer-reviewed journal whose articles might have automatically merited an article here if that were Wikipedia’s policy. Which it isn’t anyway, to the best of my knowledge. -- Olve 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Weird.--Mantanmoreland 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but how weirdness is an argument for deletion. There are many weird things in the world which in fact are true. I have many examples in math.--Aminz 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what the ... ? Kuratowski's Ghost 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain your argument. Thanks --Aminz 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incomprehensible nonsense. 6SJ7 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My english is not good. Maybe you can help. I can send you the original academic sources. --Aminz 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge (in considerably reduced form) with Mark Cohen. This is one author's WP:NEO and therefore does not warrant an article... it does not play a pivotal rôle in Cohen's work, however, and therefore should not be a central focus of the article about him, to avoid violating WP:WEIGHT. The article The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history presently isn't even linked to from Mark Cohen...and that's how it should stay... Perhaps deserves mention, in passing (not in depth), in an article about Jewish-Arab history (I'm sure there already is such an article, I just don't know the name of it off-hand...). Also, although it's a reason to move rather than merge, the article has a bizarre name that clashes with several conventions in WP:NAME. Tom e r ^talk 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to show that it is not something Cohen came up with. Bernard Lewis for example says: "The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians - and taken up by Muslims in our own time as a reproach to Jews."- This is refering to the first myth created by 19th century Jewish historians. This was politically used by many Muslims of our time in Arab-Israel conversations. The next myth was created by writers like Bat Ye'or which who said that the rule under Islam was no better if not worst that life under Christian rule(in response to Muslims in political conversations). --Aminz 23:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aminz does some pretty odd stuff sometimes.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is odd stuff... --Aminz 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, invented phrase by one author does not warrant an article in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than that. It is about the current general Jewish histography of the Jewish-Arab history.--Aminz 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above GabrielF 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to it. --Aminz 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion has not changed.GabrielF 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unpleasant POV essay per all of the above. Arrow740 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was just created yesterday so it is still very young article but is by no means WP:OR. Everything is sourced to the most reliable academic sources. My argument is based on the notability of this. The term refers to a new type of Jewish histography emerged recently; a dramatic shift from the previous Jewish histography. The topic by itself is very notable. This article explains and provides backgrounds for this shift. I start with some academic sources that mention the term: "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" (almost all of these are academic sources):

The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies - Page 328
Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages - Princeton University Press- Page 9
The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society and Identity.- Brill Academic Publishers - page 146
The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora - University of California Press- p.14
Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide - Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press- page 347
A History of Jewish Gynaecological Texts in the Middle Ages- Brill Academic Publishers - page 49
Memories of Our Future: Selected Essays, 1982-1999 - City Lights Books - page 9
Jews and Other Differences - University of Minnesota Press - page 343
Israel and Ishmael: Studies in Muslim-Jewish Relations - Palgrave Macmillan - page 12
Struggle and Survival in the Modern Middle East - University of California Press -page 45
Power in the Portrayal: Representations of Jews and Muslims in Eleventh- and Twelfth-century- Princeton University Press- page 168
The Culture of Islam: Changing Aspects of Contemporary Muslim Life- University of Chicago Press - page 214
Making Jews Modern: The Yiddish and Ladino Press in the Russian and Ottoman Empires- Indiana University Press - page 279
Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide - Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press - Page 528

Here is the quote from The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies:

The glorified view of a medieval Islamic-Jewish symbiosis was no countered until the 1960s, when popular and scholarly writers began to espouse what Mark Cohen has trenchantly labeled 'The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history'. According to this view, the achievements of the Golden Age were realized only a narrow elite and, for the vast majority of Jews living under the rule of Islam, life was consistently gloomy, marked by anti-Semitism, disenfranchisement, and persecution. This new view of Islamic-Jewish history has permeated both popular and scholarly sources, among them Martin Gilber’s cartographic survery of Jewish life in the lands of Islam and the popularized studies of Egyption Jewish history penned by Bat Ye’or (the pseudonym of Giselle Littmann). (An extended discussion of the 'The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history' by Cohen and a critical response by Norman Stillamn may be found in Tikkun …) Cohen’s musings contribute to a new generation of scholarship, much of it focusing on the medieval period, that aspires to reconsider the history of Jews living under the rule of Islam without falling prey to either the Sepharidic Mystique or to the 'The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history'.

Another reason for notability: Joel Beinin, a Professor of Middle Eastern History writes writes that: "Bat Ye'or is an Egyption Jew ... and a leading exponent of what Mark Cohen has termed "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history": a gloomy representation of Jewish life in the lands of Islam that emphasizes the continuity of oppression and persecution from the time of Muhammad until the demise of most Arab Jewish communities in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war... this historical vision has won broad acceptance among both scholars and the general public in Israel and the West"

Saying that it has won broad acceptance among both scholars and the general public in Israel and the West means that it is notable.

Other authors that refer to this conception without naming it:

Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that

"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude(a term developed by Bat Ye'or), of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."

According to Lewis, this is a well-established Jewish histography. Why "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" is refering to the story of "Dhimmitude"? Well, I'll try to explain that: First of all, Bat Ye'or who developed the concept of “dhimmi”-tude is a leading exponent of what Mark Cohen has termed "The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history". Lewis is here talking about the two well-established myths: these two are mentioned in this section: The_neo-lachrymose_conception_of_Jewish-Arab_history#Historical_Background.

--Aminz 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Searching books.google.com is great, isn't it? However, almost all of those "references" are in fact Cohen quoting himself (e.g. Under Crescent and Cross, The Jews of Medieval Islam) or people referring to Cohen's article in a footnote. Yes, Cohen wrote an article, and others have used it in a footnote. So? As for your original research about Lewis, um... Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to show the notability of Mark Cohen's thesis. In order to do that, I need to show that it has been widely discussed. In order to do that, I need to refer to other academic writings that mention this. It is not improper to search for that.

I have explained the connections and would add more information soon. --Aminz 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mark Cohen. It is interesting, but it doesn't at the moment have enough to stand as a separate article. I could also see some of it being merged into an article dealing with the history of Arab-Jewish relations (is there such an article yet? I can imagine such an article being of great interest, but also difficult to get right as it may end up being contentious.) --64.230.121.213 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say clearly, I think this is interesting and that eventually it will find a proper home in Wikipedia. At the moment, it isn't backed up enough to exist as a standalone article, but a version of this should find a home in at least Mark Cohen's article if not elsewhere. --64.230.121.213 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

omg! -- Y not? 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a Delete or Keep? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a vote you know. But I am struck by the applicability of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight essay to this article. -- Y not? 03:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-referential by Cohen, and requires original synthesis by AMinz just to get people to think Lewis is talking about it. Cohen = Lachrymose= dhmiitude somehow = bat yeor = lewis?!!? If this develops into a theory in the next decade or so, fine, but as of now, it's OR and basically non-notable neologism. Avi 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, no. Please read the article and the quotes I have provided. The_neo-lachrymose_conception_of_Jewish-Arab_history is "a gloomy representation of Jewish life in the lands of Islam that emphasizes the continuity of oppression and persecution from the time of Muhammad until the demise of most Arab Jewish communities in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war"

One author, Bat Ye'or used the term Dhimmitude to refer to the story of subservience and persecution and ill treatment of Jews under Islam. It is more specific than the general The_neo-lachrymose_conception_of_Jewish-Arab_history --Aminz 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move useful content to Mark Cohen.Proabivouac 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ salvageable content into Mark Cohen. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the 2nd thought, delete this mistitled OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or else merge text into Israeli-Palestinian history denial as this is a notable part of it that generalizes from Palestinians in particular to Arabs in general. But I think it deserves its own separate article due to its much broader non-Palestinian elements. Mothra 23:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move useful content to Mark Cohen. Tying Lewis to that quote is OR. The "neo-lachrymose" stuff is a polemic against Bat Ye'Or - possibly warranted, but that's not what articles are made of. --tickle me 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pov fork--Sefringle 03:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. But POV fork of which article? --Aminz 07:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a disparaging neologism, not a theory. Beit Or 03:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending quotations from the sources listed above, said to be where the term was used. The concept is probably N, as it has been written about in several scholarly works, and the general question of the differing environments has been a major theme for a very long time. The article is in any case too limited, being based on a single article. Whether the term applies as the standard expression for it--that remains to be seen. In general such revisionist proposals are referred to by such phrases as "The X hypothesis" after the name of the proposer. DGG 03:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, my english is not good. Do you want me to provide quotations from the above mentioned sources? --Aminz 07:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I added a quote here [24]. Thanks. --Aminz 07:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the key part of the quote reads: "... writers began to espouse what Mark Cohen has trenchantly labeled 'The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history'. According to this view,...."

The quote uses this term only as a description of MC's work--it says that it is the distinctive phrase that he used, and thus implies it is not the usual wording for the concepts. The other quotes provided earlier use the phrase in quotation marks, which is also an indication of it being a neologism adopted by MC and nobody else. The concept remains N and, if not already taken into account in the articles in the subject, should be. DGG 17:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cohen: Notability is the criteria for something having its own article. This doesnt seem the case here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cohen's article. Johnbod 14:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. It is usual that the titles of encyclopedia articles are neutral-sounding, and this one is jarring. There would need to be a strong case for the notability of the phrase (which I don't see) to even consider such a thing. It is like making a quotation into the title for an article. The closest analog I've come across elsewhere is Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, which is actually the title of a published essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky, but that one is much less jarring. Speaking of notability, the Google Scholar search for the name of this article gets a total of nine hits, surely a feeble result. By comparison, the title of Dobzhansky's essay gets 26,000 hits in Google Scholar. EdJohnston 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable for an independent article. At any rate, Cohen is hardly alone in his views. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy it User:Aminz (as the only contributor). As a separate article it gives weight to a POV held by a few. John Vandenberg 01:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this lark! IZAK 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- thesis still too obscure to be notable, Aminz can summarize for Cohen bio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HG (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beter[edit]

I searched the NY Times historical archives, Google Books, EBSCO databases other such library sources that would normally have material on a person of that time period, if he was notable. I'm coming up empty, aside from one letter to the editor (doesn't quite meet our standards for sourcing) that he wrote and his book. Also spent significant time looking through Google search results, looking for reliable sources and only found very few which discussed his theories regarding Jonestown. There are simply not enough reliable sources to support the article, nor enough/adequate sources to indicate he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I'm not satisfied with the web links provided as sources, which provide mainly "primary source" material. (Beter's letters, etc.) In summary, I don't think this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, nor are there enough reliable sources to support the article. --Aude (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aude.--Dcooper 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am changing my vote because the article has been completely reworked with proper references. Although his notability is borderline, I think the new references show that he is notable enough.--Dcooper 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aude's excellent nomination. Mark Lane he isn't. Heather 19:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aude's well-researched and fairly-written nom. I must admit to surprise that Beter was not from Louisiana and this was not sourced to an unpublished monograph, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the fact that he testified before US Congress and had Fort Knox opened to the public. -Eep² 09:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He also has ties to Bob Dobbs and Cosmic Awareness (in-progress) and has influenced prominent conspiracy theorists of today via his mentioning of robotoids (of who David Icke is a proponent of, is referred to by Robert Anton Wilson [25] and Michael Tsarion), and other people (the band Wanderers song Peter Beter). If anything, he is notable in the world of conspiracy theory. I will be researching him more. -Eep² 11:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More references to Beter in various books as found on Amazon.com (for the link visit-challenged, The Syndicate: The Story of the Coming World Government by Nicholas Hagger, Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Weyler, The Source: Journey Through the Unexplained by Art Bell and Brad Steiger, and Alternative Rock : Third Ear - The Essential Listening Companion by Dave Thompson (same one who wrote the allmusic Wanderers article). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eep² (talk • contribs) 12:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep While I agree that the sources for this page are appalling and unacceptable, the man himself is highly notable and it is entirely possible to source this page to full wikistandards using reliable third party sources. Contrary to what User:Aude has stated, there are many resources that discuss Beter. Simply skimming google is not a good way of judging somebody's notability. I hold that Beter is a notable figure both in the world of politics and the world of conspiracies and is mentioned in any number of publications, you just can't expect to get a huge amount of google hits on somebody who was notable 30+ years ago but who has since fallen out of the public eye. For example Beter's beliefs in conspiracies are discussed in Lewis' "Controversial New Religions" ^[1] and Hudnall's "The Occult Connection II: The Hidden Race" ^[2], Lee's "Libraries in the Age of Mediocrity" ^[3] and he also makes an appearance in Hailey's "Overload" ^[4].

Beter's public and political career also makes him notable. For example, in 1952 he was appointed to the US court of military appeal and he spoke before congress on numerous occasions including the when he spoke to the Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing at the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations committe for 1975, and in 1960 he was the chairman of the public welfare committee of the federation of citizens associations. He's been around and has certainly built up a biography of notable events and references.

Beter was also assigned as General Counsel to the Export-Import Bank of the United States. In this role he believer that US gold reserves had been secretly siphoned off to Europe and he forced an investigation in which the central US gold repository was fully audited. This grounds for inclusion in itself.

perfectblue 11:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectblue97 - You said on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal in reference to this AFD, "trying to delete as much paranormal/conspiracy content as the can"? and accuse me of "not bothering to check their notability first", and here suggest I only "skimmed google". It appears you really did NOT read my nomination statement and misrepresented my nomination. I spent a long time yesterday looking at various databases that would cover someone of that time period, Google Books (which has lots of full text, old content), etc. Anyway, Beter is mention on just two pages of "Controversial New Religions", one page which talks about him in reference to Jonestown, and just one page mentions him in "Libraries in the Age of Mediocrity". As I've mentioned on Talk:Peter Beter, if the material is adequately referenced, he can be mentioned on the Jonestown page in discussion of such "alternative"/"conspiracy" theories. The second page of that book is simply a bibliography listing. Beter is mentioned on one page of "The Occult Connection II", in reference to his audio letters, and one page in "Overload". These references are simply not enough to go with. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, we need more reliable sources than Beter's own words (which give only one POV). There's not enough material out there to do that. --Aude (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aude, searching using ((find)) produces Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, which indicates sufficient sources. Addhoc 23:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability in a subculture doesn't cut it. Jefffire 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, where do these comments come from? I wasn't talking about the senate from Star Wars, I was talking about the US Senate. It's not part of some sci-fi convention subculture, it's an significant part of US democracy (FYI, it might be an idea to rephrase your comment, especially near any members of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. You're just implied that no figure in modern African-American culture is notable). - perfectblue 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is relative. Plus, it's not even a Wikipedia policy, but a GUIDELINE (and a disputed one at that). Try again, wiktators. There are so many niche people who have articles on Wikipedia it's freakin' ridiculous. Seriously, how many damn cricket players need their own article?! Gimme a freakin' hypocritical break... At least Beter was influential; how many cricketers are famous outside their sport? I can't even think of one--but then I'm from the US where we couldn't give a shit about cricket for the most part. ;) Oh yea--how's THAT for relative notability, eh? I'm so tired of this "notability" copout argument... -Eep² 13:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The consequence of the poorly used sources in this article is that the article is filled with misinformation, most of it making Beter seem more notable than he is. The article previously stated that Beter coined the term "stagflation" and that he initiated the Fort Knox conspiracy theory. Both statements appear to be false from a quick google search.--Dcooper 13:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation for that. perfectblue 11:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:More importantly, the article should provide a trustworthy citation that Beter coined stagflation and initiated the Fort Knox conspiracy theory. If you want to know who is believed to have coined stagflation, you can check the dictionary [26] or read the sources Eep2 found on Talk:Stagflation. I don't know any reliable sources for the Fort Knox conspiracy, but I did find these pages, which attribute the conspiracy theory to Edward Durrell: [27], [28].--Dcooper 12:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That blog link you gave says "access from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:articles_for_deletion/peter_beter has been denied" but it's just a copy of the apparent original article by Herb Lazarus (who, according to http://mpelembe.blogware.com/blog?cmd=search&keywords=Herb+Lazarus used to write for http://gold-guru.info/, which is dead, and maintains some free websites at http://jobsearchaid.com/ and http://makeawiseinvestment.com/). Dunno about that guy as a credible reference... The other site you mentioned, from the American Patriot Friends Network, needs researching too, I think. -Eep² 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More research on Lazarus (who I doubt is this one, president of Carsey-Werner, or this one from a folkfale, but you never know...) seems to indicate he posts his articles on various "article archive" sites: [29], [30] (no direct URL to search results, and I can't figure out how to get the form POST/GET syntax to work, but there are 3 articles by Lazarus), [31], [32], and others via a Google search —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eep² (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's why I said I couldn't find any reliable sources. The important point is that we shouldn't say Beter started the theory.--Dcooper 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There are MANY sources that attribute the Fort Knox conspiracy theory to Beter. You found *2* questionable sources that attribute the theory to Edward Durrell. -Eep² 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aude's well-researched and absolutely accurate nom. Notability is not relative and giving testimony before congress on one occasion does not a notable political figure make. National Airport 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was appointed to a senior fiscal position by JFK and he spoke before congress on multiple occasions. - perfectblue 11:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why doesn't testifying before United States Congress make someone notable, National? Gimme a freakin' break. -Eep² 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many government bureaucrats and other folks testify before congress, but don't have articles here. See all the FBI officials [33], State Department [34], Health & Human Services [35], Food & Drug Administration [36], Treasury [37] and so forth. The heads of these agencies would probably have enough press coverage and reliable sources to work with in creating a Wikipedia article about them, consistent with WP:NPOV and other policies. But, Beter was the General Counsel, and not the head of the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank. The General Counsel's Office is the legal office (presently 25 attorneys) for Ex-Im, and falls somewhere on the organization chart below the Ex-Im Chairman. --Aude (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what Beter's position was, all of his combined actions and influences on other conspiracy theorists is notable as I've mentioned in previous comments. You really don't know until you start researching him even MORE thoroughly than you have. You can't just go with official so-called "reliable" (mass media) sources because most of these people work in the underground, away from the attention OF mass media. I've been researching the origin of the term robotoids for the past few hours and, while Beter clearly didn't mention it first in 1979, his audio tapes have influenced alleged spiritual/psychic channellers (like Cosmic Awareness) and conspiracy theorists as mentioned in previous comments. If anything, all of this research will expose links between these people that are not otherwise apparent in a gloss-over of their biographies... -Eep² 03:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... notable Conspiracy theory figure. J. D. Redding 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aude is right, and most of the opposition is arm-waving. Note also possible vote-stacking through Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal, which should plainly be renamed WikiProject Anti-establishment. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an insult. Time for a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG? Don't be a hypocrite... -Eep² 06:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list of references for the article, I see no reliable sources. ~~We should delete this.~~ --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Addhoc for improving the article, particularly the references. If this article is kept, it must be stubbed right down to something that is supported only by reliable sources. That is, not conspiracy books and websites. --Tony Sidaway 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, Beter's influence on conspiracy theorists is notable. -Eep² 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the lack of reliable external sources. — BillC ^talk 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added references and tried to remove the bias. Addhoc 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Everyone, Dr peter beter has done so much for the good of this nation, it would be a shame from us to delete his entry just like that. many of us worked hard to build this article. please don't just delete it and ignore a distinguished person like dr peter beter. thank you everyone...Grandia01 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an argument to policy in there I can't find it. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aude. >Radiant< 07:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC

Delete per nomination, fails BIO. --Minderbinder 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is wrong with you people?? this article has MUCH better references than MANY articles on wikipedia presently. what's up with these justifications?? 3 "delete"s per aude?? at the time he wrote this comment many references MAY have been unreliable, but after all these edits and improvements this article is still badly referenced?? what kind of a joke is this?? you guys make it seem like dr peter beter is a fictional character who achieved nothing noteworthy in life, and facts prove otherwise.cmon...Grandia01 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm also struggling to correlate the delete arguments with the current article references. Possibly the closing admin could review this. Addhoc 09:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway for an admin to judge??i'm pretty sure that her/his opinion will be much more reliable than most of us here. its just pathetic man, nominate an article for DELETION like its nothing but a bunch of crap even though history and facts prove otherwise. if all of us take Dr Beter as an example then i sincerely believe that we could be of much greater benefit to our community, and hopefully stop this immature nonsense...Grandia01 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

everyone, it doesn't look like we're going anywhere: the article is now just a stub referenced with reliable citations. besides, this "poll" apparently didn't make a difference anyway, i'll delete the delete tag from the article if no changes happens, its just useless now, i highly doubt that anyone is paying any attention even to this delete situation.Grandia01 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you wait for the role of the closing admin to determine whether there is any consensus to delete, based on the arguments presented. Addhoc 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. This AfD (not a poll) will be closed by an admin, and at that point we'll see what the closing result is. Please don't declare AfD's over or remove AfD tags from articles while the AfD is still open. --Minderbinder 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter? The admins are all biased anyway and tend to gang up on AfDs/CfDs/etc. What kind of checks-and-balances system is that? It's not... -Eep² 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, this page is for discussing potential deletion. It's not the place to rant about how The Man is keeping you down. --Minderbinder 22:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so what do we do now?? now some of us are disagreeing to have an admin close this case. should i just go and delete the delete tag??Grandia01 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a process going on here. You can learn about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Do NOT remove the delete tag from the article again. An admin will eventually review it and make a decision.--Dcooper 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Cosmic Awareness and Bob Dobbs references? The Cosmic Awareness primary source is only used to show that Beter is mentioned in the newsletter and on the website--see for yourself--and the Bob Dobbs source mentions Beter:

Bob Dobbs is an expert on communications theory and was a colleague of Marshall McLuhan at the Center for Culture and Technology in Toronto, Ontario. For several years during the mid-'80s he was the personal advisor to investigative journalist Bob Marshall, who hosted a radio show on CKLN-FM called the International Connection. The show regularly featured the information of groundbreaking conspiracy theorists such as Mae Brussell, Sherman Skolnick, Dr. Peter Beter, and Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. Adam Vaughan, the manager of the station, fired Marshall early in 1987 for broadcasting Dr. Beter's "antiSemitic rants" against the Rothschilds. The fact that Beter railed against the Rockefellers just as much as the Rothschilds apparently went right over Vaughan's head. Dobbs later replaced Marshall on the air, and has since followed a rather interesting career trajectory. According to him, he's taken over the Earth. -Eep² 14:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well referenced and should be given the opportunity to grow and be brought up to par with wikipedia biography standards, if anything just mark it as a stub (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Lewis, James R. Petersen, Jesper Aagaard (2004) "Controversial New Religions" Oxford University Press (US), ISBN 019515682X
^ Hudnall, Ken (2004) "The Occult Connection II: The Hidden Race", Omega Press, ISBN 0975492373
^ Lee, Earl (1998) "Libraries in the Age of Mediocrity", McFarland & Company, ISBN 0786405481
^ Hailey, Authur (1980) "Overload" Bantam books, ISBN 0553130285

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars of ER (TV series)[edit]

This article is a textbook example of listcruft. It is an indiscriminate list containing no criteria whatsoever for inclusion. (Who is to decide who is notable enough to be included on this list?) It is also of interest to a very limited group of people (i.e. fans of ER only) and contains no content whatsoever beyond links to other articles. If you want, you may want to turn this article into a category, but it should not be an article. Hnsampat 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely unnecessary for an encyclopedia, and quite "listcruft"-y indeed. The Evil Spartan 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. ER_(TV_series)#Notable_guest_stars covers the content far better. A category can be created after the AFD closes. There are GFDL issues with delete and redirect, but I'm not sure those apply to creating a category. If they do apply, redirecting might be a better option.--Chaser - T 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC) No category, then.--Chaser - T 09:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Consensus is strongly against categories for actors by the series in which they appear. These list articles were created to replace them. Otto4711 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Otto.--Chaser - T 09:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total cruft. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 21:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally, I'd move a bunch of the Cast, Supporting Cast, and this into a new List of ER characters article. For 13 seasons (about 8 of which I watched ...) it's a pretty thin and listy article. The guest stars, certainly, don't need their own, but WP:SS would suggest that one comprehensive list would be a good sidebar to the main article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete precedent has been to delete guest star articles, we started with Flip Wilson, ER is no different, and we should round up and delete the others to be consistent. Carlossuarez46 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no obvious policy violation that would call for deletion. The purpose of the article, although not explicit, is to list notable people who have appeared as guests on the show. The article does have a certain value as a navigational tool (Wp:lists#Purpose_of_lists). Yes, a category would have the same function but, as Otto mentioned, there is a consensus against having TV series specific categories for actors. Pax:Vobiscum 10:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Evil Spartan Bulldog123 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not be making lists of things without a well-defined, encyclopedic scope. Jay32183 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One 06:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Stilyagi[edit]

Dicdef. Put definition in the TMIAHM article, and delete. Kolindigo 18:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; it's not even an English word. —METS501 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonsense; per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think there's a lot of room for expansion on this. A quick google search turned up this from Reason Mag

"These young men were to become known in Russian as stilyagi, a term that is usually translated as "style hunters"; their story has been told by a number of authors, including Artemy Troitsky, Timothy W. Ryback, and S. Frederick Starr. The stilyagi constitute one of the most remarkable movements in the rich history of oppositional subcultures. What they had turned themselves into were walking cultural protests against Stalinism in one of its most paranoid periods. All that Stalin had melted into air, the stilyagi made flesh." [38] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nhelm83 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, 264 Google Books results suggest expandability. It had a brief currency in Western media as well (mostly after the fad itself had peaked). --Dhartung | Talk 01:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move I believe this was a genuine youth cult in the USSR, see [39] for instance. Should be moved to the singular Stilyaga (stilyagi is the plural). Obviously it needs sourcing. Will investigate further when I've sorted the Cyrillic on my computer out. But almost certainly worthy of a substantial article. --Folantin 12:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. стиляга gets 52,800 Google hits and стиляги gets 39,400. IIRC it is used in a general sense to mean any "fashion victim", but there was also a specific Soviet youth cult that went by the name and at least one of the articles on the first page of Google results refers to it. --Folantin 12:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert chang[edit]

Article lacks evidence of notability; prod removed by creator after adding a link to subject's web site, not a reliable source. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly non-notable, creation of a 17min film is not enough. |→ Spaully^₪† 19:55, 4 May 2007 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish Sandwich[edit]

Put it in the Blues Brothers page. —Nate Scheffey 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to suggest a merger, but despite being a memorable line from the movie, this doesn't really warrant a merger. It's just a quote. It could be transwikied to wikiquote if folks here are so inclined.--Chaser - T 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Let's not start articles for each and every quote. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was waffling between redirect and delete, but I can't imagine anyone starting with "Wish Sandwich" and wanting to be lead to "Blues Brothers". They'd already know where it was from - Richfife 20:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability asserted; the joke doesn't seem to have much influence as a concept. We could turn this into a "list of cultural references to wish sandwich" article, but I still doubt then that it's significant enough of a subject. Gracenotes^T § 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. The bag of trivia is big enough as it is. Burntsauce 23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the annals of history, Wikipeadia will be looked on as we look on to the Bible! Surely the term "Wish Sandwich" deserves to be remembered to future civilizations! Tomjoad187 05:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Burntsauce 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default keep, leaning merge (if anyone is so inclined, a merge would not be inappropriate). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Life on a Stick)[edit]

Non-significant pilot episode from a minor television series (cancelled after 5 episodes). The plot summary is the same as on the episode list. Prod contested with no changes made. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

These are all episodes of the same series. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus to improve episode articles and not outright delete (I can cite many precedents). We must remember that Wikipedia is not paper (WP:NOT#PAPER). The television series is notable, hence an episode is notable for being watched by lots of viewers. The article contains real world information such as writer, director and guest stars. We must have faith the Wiki process will improve this article over time. Matthew 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can cite precedent for redirecting minor series' episodes to episode lists as well. We should judge based on the article, not precedent. Notability is not inherited. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an essay, clearly we have differing opinions. This is AfD (delete or keep), not for discussion on redirecting (editorial decision). Matthew 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, AFDs commonly end in redirection. See Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, for example.--Chaser - T 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see those precedents, particularly those dealing with cancelled sitcoms with few episodes and no sources that would meet WP:RS.--Chaser - T 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to go checking to see if they're cancelled sitcoms, but none the less there are some below:
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Cheatin' Heart (Phil of the Future episode)
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls)
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill Ari
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All The Time In The World (Alias episode)
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Great State Fair
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Some Friend
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The A.V. Kid
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrifying Tales of Recess
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode)
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man (not closed, but shows the immense support they have...)
      - and WP:EPISODE. Matthew 20:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precedent for redirection: Failed WP:RS but was not a cancelled series. The articles had less info than these but the series went through 8 seasons.
    - You mean series, eight series. Addendum: They were sub-stubs. Alas, a redirect is not the same as delete. Matthew 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Series in the UK means the same as season in the US. All of the epidode AfDs cited are of major, long-running TV shows, including NCIS and Gilmore Girls. 3 or 4 of those are all episodes of the same series (Recess) all nominated at once but not on the same AfD page. The only ones cited above that aren't still in production (reruns are still common though) are Recess, which spawned 3 movies, and Sex in the City, which still remains popular (Gilmore Girls is ending soon). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete pilot per nom.~~Edit: redirect pilot, as the list article got created today, presumably incorporating content from the older pilot episode. Merge the others as there isn't enough content for separate articles. I don't see anything terribly important besides the plot summaries there. The material in the infoboxes is adequately covered in the main Life on a Stick article. With the plot summaries this short and a sitcom that didn't generate enough interest to avoid cancellation after only five episodes, I doubt the articles will be expanded much.--Chaser - T 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)--Chaser - T 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge all into generalized pages by season with descriptions. None are terribly too significant. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Matthew. - Peregrine Fisher 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, the predcedents for keeping cited above are AfD's for major TV series', most of which are still on the air. This is a barely notable series cancelled after 5 episodes. We don't even do things by precedent here; we should judge based on the articles in this AfD, not other ones. The only thing making the series notable is that it at least made it to TV. Citing precedent is little more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is nothing establishing what makes the individual episodes of this series notable. Where are the sources for WP:V and WP:RS? Also, nowhere in WP:EPISODE does it say all epidode articles are worthy of inclusion. It even says: "If the articles contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He said "per", Peregrine did not bring up precedents - on that matter: my comment does not suggest they should be kept because "other stuff exists", it clearly states: "consensus to improve episode articles and not outright delete" (of which I provided oodles of citations). I imagine Peregrine refers to my other reasoning as well. Have a good evening, Matthew 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the "consensus" is for episodes of major, established series', not ones cancelled after 5 episodes. How is keeping an episode article for a series like NCIS (currently in its 4th season) consensus for keeping epidodes of series' that were cancelled less than halfway through their first season? Also, many of those ones kept were only kept after improvements were made during the AfD. Do you plan to improve this? Some sources to meet WP:RS would be nice.
    - As an aside, why did you mark the removal of the ((prod)) tag as minor? Are you suggesting my edit was vandalism? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's automatically marked as minor. I guess you could say I was saying: "I object to your prod"... now, I'm unsure where you pulled the accusation of vandalism from... Matthew 18:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm mainly concerned about the use of a reversion script to contest a prod. Reversions are not just for any removal, "Do not revert good faith edits." "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule." From WP:REVERT and WP:MINOR. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Notice how they're "help pages" :-)? Matthew 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not have the multiple, reliable, secondary sources independant of the subject for the articles to expand beyond plot summaries. Without the sources improvement is impossible. Also remember that the closing admin is not a verification service, so don't say keep unless you intend to find sources. Assuming they are there is entirely insufficient and harmful to Wikipedia as a whole. Jay32183 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added multiple, reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 23:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For only one of the articles, and if that's as far as the article can go, it still isn't good enough. The articles do not have the potential to be fully developed. The only way for the article to not be dominated by plot summary is for there to be only one sentence of plot summary, making it shorter than the coverage on an episode list. Claiming that two is multiple is not sufficient. WP:N says that the number of sources required depends on the depth of coverage, and there are no in depth discussions. Notability still has not been established. Jay32183 23:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. You wanted multiple reliable sources, you got them. Now you say multiple reliable sources aren't enough. I get the feeling you just don't like episode pages. Also, multiple means more than one. - Peregrine Fisher 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Multiple does mean more than one, but two sources mentioning something doesn't make it notable. Your support of episode pages shows you have zero understanding of WP:N. In all of these discussions, you have never once presented a valid argument. The policies and guidelines exist so Wikipedia can be a quality encyclopedia, and keeping articles like this, that can never be more than poorly written crap hurt Wikipedia, but not as much as people who insist the poorly written crap should remain because they find it useful. These articles can never provide comprehensive coverage of their topics because the sources do not exist. That is the ultimate reason for deletion. If you'd rather be making a fan guide, then contribute to a fan guide, not an encyclopedia. Jay32183 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How about 6 reliable sources? - Peregrine Fisher 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not the number of sources. It's the ability to write a comprehensive, encyclopedic article based on reliable sources. Jay32183 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It has commentary backed by reliable sources on its debut, plot, and reception so I'd say its comprehensive. I'm getting the feeling that you think articles on episodes are not encyclopedic regardless of content. - Peregrine Fisher 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources provided do not establish notability, because the episodes are not the subject of them. Being mentioned is not enough. Abyssinia, Henry is encyclopedic. Look at that as a goal before you judge an individual episode. Most episodes are not going to meet WP:N and WP:RS. Most of everything isn't going to meet policy and guideline. Try making quality articles rather than trying to make articles on everything, becuase that should not happen. Jay32183 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's good that you find one of our 5-10 FA episode articles to be encyclopedic. I don't feel that episodes need to be brought to FA status to avoid a delete vote. - Peregrine Fisher 04:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, not a vote. It doesn't have to be brought to FA right now, but there shouldn't be articles where it's impossible. With these articles it is impossible because there are not sources where these episodes are the subject. Pay attention to detail. Jay32183 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Two of the refs go into detail on the episode, the four others discuss various things concerning it. I hit "random article" ten times, and none of those are as well refed as this one. In other words, we'd be deleting one of our most reliably sourced articles. - Peregrine Fisher 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Other stuff needing to be deleted is not a valid reason to keep. Jay32183 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I know, but 1.6 million other articles needing to be deleted means something. - Peregrine Fisher 05:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess you never make sampling errors when you calculate statistics. It is not one of the most reliably sourced articled. If you want to see a reliably sourced article see James I of England. Jay32183 06:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If James I of England is your standard, you've come to the wrong anyone can edit encyclopedia. - Peregrine Fisher 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per Wikipedia:Television episodes#Dealing with problem articles. Put them all into on page; gather real world content. It's good that it has a reception section, most episodes articles don't even have that..just quotes and random trivia. So props for accomplishing that much, but in the way of real world content outside of just a couple of reviews (one that isn't from a professional critic), it is lacking. No behind the scenes information. It's the pilot, in comparison to the rest of the series it should be the most important episode — it's the episode that started it all. So, I say merge until you can find enough relevant, real world information that can actually support an full article, instead of what amounts to 50% plot, 50% reviews (with 1 review that probably isn't professional). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, for future reference Mr. Z-man, please see the part that says Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research. It becomes extremely tiresome to have to go through AfD and AfD for hundreds, probably thousands of individual episode articles. It's probably a topic that could be brought up on the show's main page, where a proposed merger is suggested for all the episodes into 1 single article (maybe per season, maybe for the entire series). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template fixed by Gnan garra 10:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Nolar[edit]

Hoax about a baseball player that died of "Black Flu" at 107 years of age while still playing professionally. Written in tall-tale speak. No Google matches. Richfife 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable matches, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DickClarkMises 20:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly hoax, not funny enough for BJAODN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry McHugh[edit]

Contested prod. In this article's brief history, it's been tagged ((wikify)) and had the tag deleted by the (SPA) creator without any explanation or improvement to the content; been tagged ((notability)) and had the tag deleted by the creator without any explanation or improvement to the content; been tagged ((stub)) and had the tag deleted by the creator without any explanation or improvement to the content; been tagged ((uncat)) and had the tag deleted by the creator without any explanation or improvement to the content; and finally been tagged ((prod)) and had the tag deleted without any explanation or improvement to the content. Consequently, bringing it here earlier than I usually would since there seems to be no sign of the creator or anyone else improving it. This reads like an advert and appears unimprovable, and although the name's too common easily to search on, googling the name plus the assorted album titles brings up no non-trivial sources I can find. (In light of this article's history, I fully expect the AfD tag to be deleted without explanation as well.) I'm giving extreme benefit of the doubt and not (yet) nominating the other inhabitant of this walled garden Diamond Seven — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - it took all of 37 minutes for the AfD tag to be deleted... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable per WP:BIO. The book should go also, per WP:BK. |→ Spaully^₪† 20:07, 4 May 2007 (GMT)

Listed Diamond Seven for deletion only to find it has already been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Seven. Now speedy candidate. Decreases notability of this article further. |→ Spaully^₪† 20:22, 4 May 2007 (GMT)

Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:RS. Caknuck 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The facts stated in the article are true, despite your own personal opinions to the contrary. If you are biased against someone because of their religious beliefs, maybe you should get a job in the main stream liberal media, and give up your pretense of being an "impartial editor". Good luck in your quest in stamping out any traces of Christianity...watch out, a bigger shoe is about to drop. Dewey96 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)dewey96[reply]
- Comment I believe I could survive it. This isn't an "attack on your religious beliefs", this is the deletion of a page on an artist I'm completely unable to find a single reliable source or evidence of notability for. If the sources exist, add them to the article and the article will be kept - it's as simple as that — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find any reliable sources on him as an artist (writer or musician). And I want to mention that this as nothing at all to do with your beliefs, Dewey96, this is about encyclopedic content.--Helm.ers 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither verifiable nor notable. Dewey96, please check your persecution complex at the door. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly refed He may well be an admirable person who has made significant contributions, but alas this article offers no evidence of this at all in terms of references. A new article with proper references could be added and reconsidered. NBeale 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nan (artist)[edit]

Notability problem of a singer. A single questionable blip on the screen `'mikka 16:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you informed the article's creator that you've listed this article here? Tom e r ^talk 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that while this is a courtesy, it is not a requirement.--Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that while I know that, I'm free to bring it up. Thanks.

Tom e r ^talk 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Googling shows this is a real singer and the song Hula Hoop (a Cheeky Girls type dance-pop track) did have a video with what looks like a moderate budget. No information beyond that that I could find. Will gladly reconsider if anybody comes up with reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- doesn't sound like notability threshold crossed to me. `'mikka 00:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC from what's available. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged the article for references in January, and none have been provided to date. Article looks abandoned. Most definately fails notabiity criteria for WP:Music. Cricket02 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Criterion 2 is "has had a charted hit on any national music chart", and Hula Hoop was, as the article states, a major hit in Thailand in summer 2003 and made waves in the rest of SE Asia as well — I've got a CD full of remixes of that track alone. Googling for her Thai name (แนน) pulls up 413,000 hits, nearly all of them referring to her. Jpatokal 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Gnan garra 06:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alians[edit]

Sorry but this has been outstanding as unsourced for over 6 months now and is turning into little more than a vandal target for idiots who cannot spell. If this can be brought up to WP:A standards then by all means please help, otherwise we must delete. Burntsauce 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless there is another page that would be appropriate to list this information on, it should go. WikiFishy 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment there should be a chance for any of the potential projects that might be interested to see it first. DGG 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless verifiable sources can be provided over the next few days. I'm not seeing any. RFerreira 05:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The interwiki'ed article bg:Алиани appears to be somewhat more substantial and to have some sort of refs. A request for translation would seem appropriate, with this article returned here if the translation does not occur within a month or two. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I made a request for translation and it has been answered. Definitely attributed now, albeit with Bulgarian references. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, of course. Vandalism and people's inability to spell is not a reason to delete, and references are easy. Notability is out of question. Todor →Bozhinov 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It still is not clear to me what is referencing what. Did someone just append a list of "references" to the bottom without actually citing any of the article text? RFerreira 04:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it really necessary to have in-line citations merely to have the article pass AfD? I mean, we're not writing a featured stub, we're just saving the article :) References are OK as far as they prove the existence of the group and confirm the basics of the article (that the definition is correct). Todor →Bozhinov 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per TodorBozhinov. 1ne 18:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
keep - I guess a big problem with the Wikipedia concept is, it's hard for English-speakers to create a good article on a Bulgarian Muslim group about whom most of the scholarship would be in Bulgarian. I'd be happy to see the article stay here, even if in the present form, because I like the idea of providing cross-cultural info like this. Someday an English-speaking Bulgarian with too much time on his hands can give you a beautiful article on the topic with inline refs and everything - let's keep this as a placeholder until then. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Alaimo[edit]

Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple non trivial independent reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. View Mindbeders wrestling Greats - Lucifer and Lucifer2 and also read Angel Medina he can support all. This page stays and does not fail..You have no clue and if you do then it is way off.Independent wrestler lucifer is Billy Alaimo also in Lowball. — Suplex66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Based on the subject of the article's MySpace address being "suplex66" it's reasonable enough to say the creator of the article is also the subject, and it's been tagged as an autobiography accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete He only wrestled for a few years, and did absolutely nothing notable during that time. He has made a few very small appearances on a few shows, nothing major. He most definetly fails WP:BIO. Kris 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, not notable, and the Keep comment above by Suplex66 is gibberish. Darrenhusted 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 while closing as no consensus would be an easy solution there are a number of considerations to this discussion. Is WP:NOTABILITY by being the subject of multiple independent reliable sources enough for a keep result versus WP:NOT indiscriminate collection. Theres the questions that remained unanswered is the subject something that will last the test of time, is the article name appropriate, should it be merged into another article and which one. Gnan garra 09:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US House Resolution 333[edit]

Delete. Article fails to meet the notability test required for all wikipedia articles. JasonCNJ 21:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And we know that a subject must be notable. I feel this article fails to meet the notability standards.

Thousands of bill and resolutions are filed in Congress every session. Most never get a hearing or a vote. I do not think we should create entries on every bill filed in Wikipedia (but I suppose that's an argument for another day and another page.) I do think that any congressional resolution or bill must meet strict standards of notability to ensure that Wikipedia does not become an indiscriminate collector of information.

I've seen the news story relating to this question being asked in a Democratic presidential debate. But I do not think that makes it notable. Notability is something that must be "significant." That means more than trivial or passing reference to it. I do not think one question in a minor presidential debate is anything more than "trivial."

There exist few sources of outside coverage on this subject. Its sponsor had a news conference, but I do not think that meets the defition of outside sources. Legitimate news organizations have mentioned the story -- but mere mention is not sufficient to establish notability.

I am not new, but I am not inexperienced on Wikipedia. I am open to debate and precedent. But, at this time, I do not feel the article is question has sufficient notability to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.

JasonCNJ 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article concerns topic of significant interest in current US politics.--OtisTDog 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article concerns the actual document used to file impeachment charges against Vice President Cheney on 24 April 2007. Prior to the creation of US House Resolution 333, separate discussions of these articles of impeachment had already sprung up at Richard Cheney and Dennis Kucinich. This article was created to be a common ground for those discussions, and I created links to it from applicable locations.

JasonCNJ is an early participant in the process, and has contributed significantly to the article's progress. I would like to once again thank him for his efforts on this matter. His efforts are particularly appreciated in light of the fact that he stated early on that he was hostile to its existence and had been considering filing an AfD on it.

Regarding notability concerns, there has been significantly more discussion about the article subject than is currently cited. I have chosen not to include this material to date in order to help prevent the typical POV conflicts associated with politically contentious issues. I have so far tried to limit article content to three things: contents of the resolution, history of the resolution's introduction into Congress and subsequent accumulation of co-sponsors, and background information regarding the US political process that can help readers to gauge its likely impact. I have supported cited quotes from only key players in the political process that will determine the resolution's outcome, but other notable commentary exists, and has been growing over the last few days. (See, as a prominent example, today's opinion piece by Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, which is not at this time included in the article.)

JasonCNJ seems to think it is a foregone conclusion that the articles of impeachment will fail to move out of committee, which may affect his judgment of notability. He is entitled to his prediction, but he cannot know the future. Although the current content of the article is relatively small, I ask you to consider WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL in your determination on notability. I believe it is reasonable to expect that this subject will become of increasing interest over the 110th Congress and/or the 2008 election cycle. Even assuming this prediction does not bear out, I contend that it is a greater error to eliminate this early version (and lose its work) than it is to allow it to linger for a few months.

In formal response to JasonCNJ's arguments re: notability, I submit that House Resolution 333 is not a typical bill -- subjectively, consider that it's not everyday business to impeach high government officials; objectively, its mention (not by name but as "Dennis Kucinich's plan") in the recent primary debates should be enough to set it apart from the pack.

This article has attracted the attention of User:Tim Long, User:Stemonitis, User:Nima Baghaei, and User:GTBacchus, in addition to myself and JasonCNJ. I hope that their opinion will be solicited before the nomination is closed.--OtisTDog 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to notability concerns expressed by others here, I have added a number of sources covering the topic to my user page. Many of these sources are ones that I have deliberately left out of the article because they are only political opinion, and, as stated above, I would very much like to exclude that sort of material unless it comes from the mouth of a key player in the resolution's consideration.

My first batch includes at least 12 sources from publications that are notable enough to have their own page here at Wikipedia. Searches are complicated by the fact that many people discussing this resolution do not know the resolution's title or number.--OtisTDog 02:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think this is important, but could use more info on what would be needed to make impeachment a reality. Tim Long 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that would be largely original reasearch. Heimstern Läufer 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is ridiculous. The mere fact that a bill is proposed is not sufficient justification for an article here. This is not a catalog of proposed bills in Congress, else this project will expand by literally hundreds of thousands of articles. If this bill makes it beyond the stage of a political stunt by a candidate with no shot of achieving his parties nomination (which it obviously won't) then it would be worthwhile. A search on Yahoo News for the name of this bill produced ONE result. As it stands, this is no more significant than any of the other thousands upon thousands upon thousands of bills that are proposed, and go nowhere. JCO312 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Google searches that I've done seem to turn up a heck of a lot of blogs, forums and activist sites and very few reliable sources. The few that do exist (such as the brief stories given in the article) do suggest some coverage is definitely worthwile, perhaps in Dick Cheney and Dennis Kucinich. Heimstern Läufer 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Worthy subject matter, but poorly written and formatted article. It either needs a lot of work or do be deleted.WikiFishy 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although this has only slightly more than zero chance of proceeding, it is notable. Note that two Democrats have co-sponsored the bill as of today. [40] No, we don't need to document every resolution introduced, but in point of fact very few resolutions attract any press attention before becoming bills, and this one has. --Dhartung | Talk 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary keep People have been talking about impeaching Cheney since 2001 but that doesn't necessarily make this resolution more notable. If the resolution is brought to a floor vote then it'll be clearly notable. I suggest that it be kept until we can tell if it's likely to progress. If it doesn't come to the floor I'd vote to delete it. -Will Beback · † · 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is a resolution that has been submitted and has received endorsement from other politicians, it is current news and has the potential to become very big news in the future if many more members support it. The article itself is also a good description of the actual resolution and its history and given the nature of wikipedia on being very open and encouraging towards the development of articles, i believe this is a keep. Also, it would be great if we also added the actual resolution to Wikisource (just an idea hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Endorsed legislation of clear historical importance. Owen 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not every story that makes it into (buried) newspaper articles is notable. At this stage, this is just a resolution, and WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL.--Work permit 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This bill is, as mentioned, historic. Even if it fails, it is a potent sign of the extreme antipathy the Democratic Party and others hold for Cheney, and by implication, Bush. This is not just another bill that is doomed to die in committee; this is an impeachment. This issue has been discussed by AP and Newsweek, if any more objective requirement of notability is necessary. Syckls 19:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article sources several reliable published sources, which is the real reason you want notiability, namely: have several people written and published about the topic so that the article is not original research. That Pelosi has had to announce that she considers the issue off the table caused the topic to be reported by many news sources. -- Yellowdesk 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment This article needs renaming badly. Resolution numbers reset to 1 at the start of each U.S. Congress, so there are a lot of different H. Res. 333's. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, Caerwine. The original title for the stub was "US House Resolution 333 (110th Congress)". I am not sure what happened to rename it, but I assumed it was renamed by someone with more knowledge than me about Wikipedia's article naming conventions. Would the original title be more appropriate, in your mind? If not, do you have (or does anyone have) any title suggestions?--OtisTDog 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a relevant event and a proposal in the legislature. Why would you delete unless you have an agenda? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It belongs in wikinews. An obviously dead bill does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Blue Tie 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two important things to bear in mind. First, the resolution is not yet dead and cannot be accurately identified as dead until it is either voted down or the current Congressional session ends. Second, discussion had already arisen in at least two locations in Wikipedia prior to the creation of this article. (See above.) Do you recommend that all such content be removed?--OtisTDog 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will never be declared dead. Ever. But it is still dead. It dies in committee. It never comes up for vote. That is the fate of most bills. As far as all such comment? Maybe. It would depend. I would have to see the particulars, but this is so non-notable that I think this hardly deserves even a single sentence in the Dick Cheeney article, much less a whole article on its own. I mean, imagine this sentence in the Dick Cheeny article: "A resolution for his impeachment was presented to the Congress by Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Cucinich. Cucinich acted on his own without discussing the bill with House leadership and it subsequently died in committee, as did his support from the Democratic National Committee and the House Leadership." Well that last phrase would not make it in, but it is what will happen and it is an example of why this is such a stupid article. Perhaps the most notable place for it to reside would be in the Dennis Cucinich article in a few months where it is described as one of the reasons his bid for the White House did not even pass muster in his own party. --Blue Tie 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Describing this article as such a stupid article doesn't seem likely to advance the debate to a conclusion. If I might paraphrase what you've said above: you believe that the bill introduced lacks sufficient notability to be included in the encyclopedia in & of itself, and that it is very unlikely to become notable by being taken up and put to a vote, because of its very unlikely prospects of ever seeing the House floor. Have I accurately captured your position?A bill dies if it doesn't come to a vote by the end of the legislative session. No declaration is made, as such. The bill dies when the legislative session dies, at its adjournment. --Ssbohio 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you generously reworded my comments in a positive way. Thank you. You are right about the technical death of a bill though in fact it dies even sooner than the end of the session.--Blue Tie 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Notable as part of the Bush impeachment that has been in contention for several years. Also, THOMAS shows that bills of impeachment of a President or Vice-President are comparatively rare. I'd be just as happy to see it merged, or to see it kept & treated as a spinoff from Dick Cheney, Dennis Kucinich, or movement to impeach George W. Bush. --Ssbohio 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Anna Nicole Smith is dead, but we haven't deleted her stupid article... yet. As for this Resolution, it seems notable in being a direct call for impeachment. It looks well referenced. Anyway, I'd also support merging to movement to impeach George W. Bush as above, if it is preferred. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Srikeit 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Mercedez[edit]

Non-notable porn actress; fails to satisfy any inclusion criteria, including WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject seems to meet the first and fifth criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Mercedez was a contender for the 2003 AVN Best Starlet Award. Also, she appeared on the front cover of notable pornographic magazines. She also was featured in the show Skin, and has also co-written a book. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The first criteria is for winners of a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, which Mercedez hasn't done. The fifth criteria is for being featured multiple times in mainstream media, which she also has not done. Appearing on the cover of magazines is not a criterion, and the book in question is a) not notable and b) not authored by Mercedez, but by Dan Anderson (http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&ti=1,1&SEQ=20070509163358&Search%5FArg=how%20to%20have%20a%20xxx&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=15059&SID=4). Valrith 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet standards of WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Wikipedia should not be a search engine for the adult film world. Non-notable actors should be deleted.WikiFishy 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nishkid64 article meet WP:PORNBIO criteria. Carlosguitar 10:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedez (porn star). -- nae'blis 21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which should be sufficient in itself (db-recreated). Nothing has changed since AfD last deleted this article. Valrith 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was asked to comment as an admin with some porn article experience. :-). The deleted version of Mercedes (porn star) is recognizable as an ancestor of this article, but this article is roughly twice as long, with many of the appearances and references being new. Not a speedy as recreated. Will need to research a bit to give keep/delete opinion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have provided info on the talk page with a least 5 reasons and appearing on skin the tv show and being nominated for an AVN plus working for vivd entertainment should be notable enoughDwanyewest 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has multiple independent sources writing articles about her and has won multiple awards, the Latin Entertainment & Video Expo, the several Ms Nudes, and Hustler Honey, which isn't being a Playmate, but twice is notable. I'm going to improve the references a bit. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her AVN Award nomination and TV appearances make her notable. Epbr123 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Textbook A7. – Steel 20:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest Among Ruins[edit]

This article was thrice deleted under WP:CSD#A7. After a discussion with the article's author, I decided to send this article to WP:AFD. From my research using Google, I did not find evidence that the band meets WP:MUSIC. The only criterion it might possibly meet is the first one. According to the article, the band was featured in a review by the local Sen Baltimore magazine, whose purpose is to document new and upcoming bands in the Baltimore area. The other source is from the newspaper of Towson University, which two of the band members attended. According to WP:MUSIC, the source can be considered trivial, but be judged upon on a case-by-case basis. After looking at [41], I think the main focus of the article is Jeff Sanders' deployment to Qatar. He is a student at Towson, and the article mostly describes his experiences trying to work with his band, while being stationed overseas. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does meet one criterion than it should not be deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to be a informational site. How is anyone to be informed if you can't get a single article up here. Also, this band plays their hearts out several times a month at venues all over the Baltimore area. Lighten Up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awater3 (talk • contribs)

Policy states the band must be featured in "multiple non-trivial published works". I'm contesting one, if not both of these sources, which would mean the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Also, please sign your comments. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life dude. Use your free time to workout. Not edit wikipedia all day. Awater3 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence from multiple, non-trivial WP:RS that the band meets notability criteria set forth at WP:MUSIC. No albums, no tours; only references to the band are Myspace and a couple of local-interest sources which feature these types of "your local band" stories ad nauseum. I hate to generalize, but "unsigned" and "new and upcoming" seem to imply "non-notable" in 99.9% of band articles which use those phrases. For all intents and purposes, the original CSD A7 seems appropriate, but might as well let process take its course if preferred. (Note: as a matter of housekeeping, the deletion review in today's log should be closed for this article.) --Kinu ^t/_c 22:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Valid A7, unsigned garage band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of anything resembling notability. Wikipedia is not a compilation of slow news day filler stories. —Cryptic 07:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Unsigned band? --Work permit 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anthony.bradbury. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela denney[edit]

Contested speedy. Article does not establish noteability, speedy deletion should probably be upheld Dr bab 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems like it was!Dr bab 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NYB says keep, we keep. – Steel 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip K. Howard (author)[edit]

Notability questionable. Created by GoodmanMediaPR (talk · contribs) whose only other contribution was to add this paragraph to Common good, plugging Philip Howard's organisation. – Steel 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are some sources. Perhaps relative to the WTC memorial lights? DGG 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep. Howard's 1995 book, though I don't agree with much of its content, has been highly influential in U.S. debate on tort reform and related issues. The article could and should be much stronger but absent BLP concerns that is emphatically not a deletion criterion. I am not thrilled that the article in its current state appears to have been created by an agency, but frankly the fact that we lacked an article on this person for so long is equally embarrassing. Newyorkbrad 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play It Again Sam[edit]

unsourced article on a commercial entity of no evident significance. And it's a misquote. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep record label with some very notable artists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cross-promotion with Wax Trax means it's pretty notable in alternative music terms. Note the incoming links. --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is seems OK to me, not unsource.Carlosguitar 10:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and merge to 9/11 Truth Movement, per consensus. - BanyanTree 02:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (third nomination)[edit]

The subject of the article is not notable enough to have its own article. The article should be deleted, and any parts of it worth keeping should be merged into the 9/11 Truth Movement article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- delete and merge into 9/11 Truth Movement, meetings subsection[42]. This gathering is not notable enough by itself to have a separate page. There's a place for it at the Neo-Con Agenda Symposium here[43]. I also question that we need 7 Alex Jones forks on Wikipedia, of which this is one. See Alex Jones (radio), Prisonplanet.com, 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, InfoWars, Infowars.com, TerrorStorm, and Information Clearing House. MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that this "symposium" is not notable enough for its own article, nor are there really enough (if any) reliable sources available to support the article. --Aude (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "Media Coverage" section is clearly designed to demonstrate notability, but when you actually look at the references, it is clear that this claim is exaggerated. The Washington Post is a few paragraphs in a larger "Nation in Brief" piece, with the exception of a Turkish article the other references are all reprints of the SAME reuters piece. [44] [45][46] - the original Reuters links are no longer live. GabrielF 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, mergemergemer ...uh... Delete and merge per all of the above. CWC 06:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wasn't notable when it was written and even less so now with the passage of time.--MONGO 17:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom--Dcooper 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated by nominator.--Jersey Devil 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as an unsourced, non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Brewerton[edit]

Unsourced article where the only assertion of notability is that she is the preselected candidate for one of the major parties in Australia for a federal electorate at the next election. The article reads like a campaign press release. Mattinbgn/^talk 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources on article and no Google News hits except mentions by name with no further info. John Vandenberg 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not enough material from reliable sources to make an article or even a stub. If we had a mention on the campaign in Mayo, she would warrant a mention in that but not a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Capitalistroadster above. Additionally, Mayo is one of the safest Liberal seats in the country, the chances of the ALP (and my extension, Mary Brewerton) taking it are vanishingly small. Lankiveil 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do not see what the chances of this seat changing hands has to its relevance. This service should be obligated to provide background information on ALL candidates running in an election.--Jfulbrook 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This is an encyclopedia, not an election information service. JPD (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Capitalistroadster. I note that John Schumann who took on Downer in the 1998 election and made Mayo one of the most unsafe seats in the country has an article (although he was notable for his music too), but this is too speculative at present and there simply aren't enough sources to warrant a separate article. JRG 04:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources, therefore not notable according to Wikipedia policies.Assize 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as an article that consists of external links alone, WP:NOT refers. (aeropagitica) 04:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digital Asset Management systems[edit]

Repository of mainly external links to commercial applications constituting spam Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT Blueboy 96 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a list of spam links. The article has had plenty of time to turn into more than just a list of links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if you like, get rid of the links that offend thee so greatly, keeping only the packages that have internal WP links to articles. Somebody help turn it into a comprehensive feature comparison table. Disclosure- I was one of the people that requested this page, and through these spam-like links I have now discovered a great many packages I hadn't previously heard of. Connectionfailure 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (You admit it's spam-like?). Your suggestion would make a list of one valid article link in the ==Open Source== section, and two valid article links in the ==Commercial== section (one other in the latter section is a company article, not software product article, so is invalid). It's not much of a list to start with, otherwise I'd probably have tried to make it a correct article rather than sending it here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someguy1221 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Shapiro (American criminal)[edit]

This is WP:NN and fails both WP:BIO and WP:NPOV. This article is about someone who commited a stupid hoax and for that the article traces a "guilt by association" for all manner of "lurking" Orthodox Jews whom it casts as "extremists" and "terrorists" (see "references" and "categories"). This is an article about a pathetic non-notable sicko, and there are millions of such people from all sectors of society who will certainly not be getting articles about themselves on Wikipedia (just because they were in the morning police blotter, or got a mention in a periodical, or plea-bargained with a judge over some petty crime or something similar.) Is this guy really an "American criminal" as the article's title will not let us forget? Whoever thinks so, lacks a sense of proportion and has more of an interest in fanning hysteria than in conveying NPOV information. This is not encyclopedic, and if anything it can become a paragraph somewhere, as in delusions of grandeur maybe. IZAK 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons, IZAK 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable criminal with ample references, including a story in the New York Times. --Eastmain 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is he "notable" compared to the millions of others who also get mentioned in the papers but don't get Wikipedia articles? IZAK 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reliable sources, and the write-up in The New York Times establishes notability. It might be a good idea to move to something that didn't include the word "criminal" in the title, though. *** Crotalus *** 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The attempted assassination of a former Israeli Prime Minister is a bit more then a "petty crime" even if it was a hoax. He has three independent, non-trivial and reliable sources as per WP:BIO and an POV issues require revising not criteria for deletion. As per naming convention, I'd suggest renaming the article to either Harry Shapiro (criminal) or Harry Shapiro (hoaxster). MadMax. 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since Shapiro was a native of Jacksonville, and the crime was committed there , the neutral reference is Harry Shapiro (Jacksonville, Florida), and I'll change it to that when the AfD is closed with, probably a Keep. If a date of birth is available we could use it instead, but I do not see it in the references. It is perhaps worth noting in the article the partisan nature of the Washington Report, the main source of information used for this article. DGG 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we saying that being written up in a major daily for whatever serious (a tube of gunpowder seems a bit more than a hoax to me) crime establishes notability? With about 4000 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the US alone (see Crime in the United States) times 300,000,000 people yields 12,000,000 violent crimes per year in the US alone. Not all perpetrators are caught, and many probably have multiple victims, but a goodly number are caught – 2,000,000 people are already incarcerated in the US alone(United_States_prison_population#Population_statistics) A goodly % of the people who are convicted of these crimes (and get incarcerated) will have their stories in some daily, probably once when they're arrested and again after the verdict, plea bargain, or sentence. If that equals notability, we'll have no shortage of bios to write: commit a crime, get a WP article. Of course, by the definition of serious crime convicts who get written up once or twice makes one notable, WP will stand for Wikipoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 06:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For mundane everyday crimes or memorial articles, your points are correct. However, this was certainly a high profile crime (and given the circumstances a possible international incident). The event (or hoax) itself would certainly be notable, even if the arguement of the subject's non notability was correct. MadMax 09:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't have a strong opinion on whether the article is kept or not, but those who are arguing "keep" based on coverage it receives begin trodding down the slippery slope. The "international incident" aspect of this takes it one level off the mundane, as does the notability of the intended victim, so if I would probably agree "keep". But note in some places (Japan most particularly, but Europe too), the murder of their nationals in the US gets a high degree of press regardless of the previous non-notability of both criminal and victim; one could easily get <pick a number> citations to those crimes, despite the fact tha they are not that different from what unfortunately by US (at least by big city US) standards is an all too regular happening. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an odd case such as this one establishes notability. Other similar people have Wikipedia articles, most notably Dan Burros, Davis Wolfgang Hawke, Leo Felton, etc. --Wassermann 11:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasserman: What is "odd" is how on Earth is Harry Shapiro similar to all these neo-Nazis you cite? IZAK 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MadMax, this criminal does meet Wikipedia standard of biographical notability, since it may involve an international assassination. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above, but caveat this is not a routine case. Also, does this guy have a middle name so we can rename the article to Harry Middle Shapiro or is his given name perhaps Harold that we can rename the article to Harold Shapiro, with appropriate redirects. Article names with "criminal" in them just strike me as wrong somehow. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious notability as per press coverage and several comments above. If possible, find a way to move as per Carlossuarez46's comments above. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fellow about whom the article was written served his time for the crime, and should no longer be called "American Criminal." Classifying him as a criminal is kind of against what the penal system is designed for - rehabilitation. Nobody was hurt in his hoax, and obviously the crime was a mistake. Let the guy move on from his ten years of prison, and let's not call him "Criminal." Still this was somewhat of a historical act though, as no doubt it could be included as part of the biography of Shimon Peres, and this guy would be a footnote to Peres' life in politics. 990Jim 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for "Harry Shapiro" Peres turns up 391 links, which is bubkes for a news-related personality. This person is not considered notable for what he did, and does not deserve an article. --Eliyak T·C 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously a quack, not a John Hinkley. The target of the crime does not confirm notability. There are multiple attempted assassinations of American public figures every year that are stopped at any given stage of planning. Do all these people deserve their own WP articles? --Shuki 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized hydrogen electrolization system[edit]

No hits whatsoever about this system, should be deleted as a hoax Blueboy 96 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a hoax. Converting water into hydrogen through electrolysis is a well known process. Using electricity from a car battery to convert water into hyrdogen to power automobiles is by definition inefficient. --Work permit 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Someguy1221 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a minor occurence of the well known investor scam Water fuelled car/Water fuel cell. This particular one earned $150 from Cauwels and Stuve Realty and Development Advisors, LLC for an "outstanding engineering project"[47]. Well done Paul-Patrick Perseo, that's a good career start, but not good enough for an article in Wikipedia. Pls come back once gathered at least 10 million investor dollars or at least had a full page ad in The Economist. --Pjacobi 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/scam. Neat trick, though, making electrolysis more than 100% efficient. andy 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as copyright violation. Permission provided to the creator of the article here is irrelevant. Wikipedia must have the right to freely redistribute the material, so it must be released under the GFDL or other free license.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Record Detection[edit]

User RHaworth considers this page to be original research (see Talk:Duplicate_Record_Detection) and voted for deletion. I gave the reason why I believe otherwise, but it is better to let the community decide on what to do with this article instead of having a mini-debate about speedy deletion. Ipeirotis 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Without easy access to any of the sources, I can't confirm OR. However, the fact that this was copied word for word from a thesis or essay, whether or not permission is given is a problem. First, it is written in first person, using "we" and describing it as a paper or essay. Also, it's too long; it's perfect for a long research paper, but encyclopedia articles, while comprehensive, should only give an overview of the topic while this goes very much in depth, over 120KB (recommended max is 32-50). This would probably better on Wikiversity. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Z-man. I am also concerned that the IEEE page (or, strictly, the page to which I am redirected because I am not logged in) says clearly: "Copyright © 2007, IEEE, Inc. All rights reserved." -- RHaworth 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. though I would encourage the author to write a suitable article on the subject-- It's odd that we don't have one. This is not OR really, but just a didactic review article-- in a style not at all encyclopedic by WP standards. I will check the copyright status tomorrow. DGG 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely reject the argument that it is too long. Wikipedia is not paper and should go into as much depth as anyone wants to write, as long as it's based on sources. It is true that the tone of the article is not encyclopedic, but that's never been a reason for deletion, only for cleanup. The only reason I think it should be deleted, and it's a big reason, is the copyright status. I hope the author gives proof he can republish this under GFDL. nadav 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Article size. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright Status The copyright of the article is owned by IEEE according to their policy. The conditions for posting the work elsewhere, as defined by their electronic publication copyright policy is "Authors and/or their companies shall have the right to post their IEEE-copyrighted material on their own servers without permission, " and "licenses and permissions to use electronic versions of IEEE-copyrighted material (abstracts, full text, etc.) for commercial or other non-IEEE-related purposes may be granted under terms approved by the IEEE Publication Services and Products Board."

In my opinion, the likelihood of their permitting its redistribution under a GFDL license is 1%. It would be interesting for the authors to ask them and observe their response. -- my guess may be wrong.

The authors have apparently the right to reuse the material in another work, according to the IEEEcopyright form. DGG 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for posting the guidelines. My interpretation of the copyright rules was that I can reuse the material, that's why I asked someone to wikify the article and I posted it here. My hope was that people would further improve the article by adding material omitted in the original version, or material that was published after the original publication date. I have sent an email to IEEE asking for permission and for clarification of the copyright policy. My own interpretation is that I retain the right to reuse the material. Ipeirotis 06:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, it's written as a paper, not an encyclopedia article, but if cut drastically I can see some good overview content in the heart of it. Needs a ton of rephrasing too, it's just the wrong style. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Status According to [48], the authors retain the right to reuse material extracted verbatim from the work, for derivative works. I consider a wiki version of the article a derivative work, losing the original, peer-reviewed status and the corresponding 'quality seal' that comes from publication in a peer-reviewed journal. (Again, I am not a lawyer, and I am an advocate of open access, so my own interpretation of the rules might be biased.) For these reasons, I vote Keep/Cleanup. There are certainly stylistic issues with the article, but these issues can be fixed. The central issue is the copyright. Ipeirotis 14:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of domestic violence[edit]

Marked as needing a POV cleanup for over 18 months, and even after than, I needed to read no further than the first sentence to spot the trouble "Allegations of domestic violence are frequent in post-divorce/separation situations." Yeah? I'm sure that's neutral? Not. Whilst, I'm sure this would be a great subject for an essay, I can see no way that a neutral encyclopedic article could be written here that would pass WP:NOR never mind WP:NPOV. If any wikipedian with a track record in NPOV thinks otherwise, and indicates a willingness to take this on, I'll withdraw. But we let no brainers like this hang around for two long. -Doc^g 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as written, this is a blatant, unsalvageable POV essay. *** Crotalus *** 00:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced POV piece. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty solid article, where is POV? What kind of point of view is the article promoting according to the deletion !votes? Delete per the explanation given by editors below. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the POV in the first line, then I despair.--Doc^g 08:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As I said, most of it is unsourced, which is a problem. It's very heavy with weasel words and often makes claims in contrast with others with no sources at all. POV appears to be slanted toward "most allegations are false" with virtually no sources to support that. I got as far as the first sentence before I saw serious problems:
  - Allegations of domestic violence are frequent in post-divorce/separation situations. - uncited
  - Some contend that situations... - who?
  - It is contended that the legal principle... - by who?
  - Others point out that... - and they would be?
  - Some have accused... - same as before
  - However, there is little evidence for this... - and no source for that
  - exaggerated or fabricated complaints are hardly limited... - no source
  - particular alarm due to the ease of their fabrication... - who is alarmed?
  - However, some assert that there is sufficient bias in some jurisdictions that even such an absurd tactic has been used successfully. - who? and prove it
  - false allegation is easy and disproof is virtually impossible, is thought by many to seriously compromise the integrity of the legal system... - unsourced
  - presumably motivated by the gains in property... - don't presume, cite
  - Many are concerned that the prosecuting authorities... - again who?
  - not taking seriously allegations can lead to further violence, as well as be judicial misconduct... - one example provided, not enough for a blanket statement
  - Others have noted that during a divorce proceeding... who?
  - "usually have the effect of separating them from one of their parents." - uncited quote
  - Of course, no one thinks that large financial incentives... - no one?
  - However, it is clear that there are motives... - possibly, but is there a source for this?
  - (Baskerville 2006) - now a nonexistent page.
  - Home Office Research Report 191 - Used as a source with no explanation of author or context.
  - DontMakeHerMad.com - A POV source
- That's at least 1 example per paragraph. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid criminal topic, although the article does contain a number of unverified claims and definatly needs to be rewrite. Despite some POV issues, the article does contain reliable references which could be used as the basis for a general overhaul. Perhaps a collaberation between WP:LAW and WP:CRIME could salvage this article ? MadMax 05:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it could (theoretically) be fixed. It could (theoretically) have been fixed anytime in the last 18 months. Will you fix it? If so, I will withdrawn.--Doc^g 08:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I was only offering a suggestion. WP:Crime was formed only three months ago and I certainly wasn't even aware this article even existed. As the majority of this article deals with the legal system (and I myself am not a law student), I would think informing members at WP:Law or its subsequent task forces to take a look at the article. MadMax 09:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . This is an essay, based on argument rather than sources; the few ones given are used as illustrations only. Possibly a specialized article on the subject is necessary, but this is not usable as one--it's an opinion piece. DGG 06:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Crotalus and Mr. Z-man Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with domestic violence, even though it is quite long already Think outside the box 13:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Once you take away the loaded original research ("Many are concerned that the prosecuting authorities simply do not take seriously the violence perpetrated by women on men", "it is clear that there are motives for false alllegation, and a judicial history that at least in some jurisdictions has made them a profitable and common tactic", "given the minimal evidence required, exaggerated or fabricated complaints are hardly limited to 'low threshold' conduct") there is nothing left of this article. Hell, it even makes arguments ("It is contended that the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty should apply as much to allegations of domestic violence as to any other allegations of criminal behaviour", "There is also concern that a man who denies that he has committed domestic violence may be regarded as committing domestic violence by his very denial. That is of course an absurd argument...").

There may certainly be valid things to be written on the subject. For example the Family Court of Australia has been experimenting recently with a more inquisitorial system in some cases, meaning less involvement for the lawyers, and they're starting to see subtly changing patterns in allegations of violence (less hesitance to raise them for fear of losing custody, less pressure from the lawyers to raise them to gain custody), and this sort of thing will eventually be studied properly. But I just don't think the academic work has been done yet.

This reads like fathers' groups POV and is chock full of original research to boot. There's nothing to salvage here. --bainer (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the delete arguments above, I don't see much value from this article. We have a good Domestic Violence article already, I'm not even sure I see much that could be merged into it. If someone wants to try, after this is deleted, contact me for a copy of the text mailed to their wiki email (I won't even userify this one, too POV to be here). Delete. Aside, I removed an invocation of an icon ( Image:Symbol delete vote.svg) to mark an opinion, let's not start doing that here, ok? ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DGG, etc. I think a NPOV essay on the subject would be interesting to read, but at present it would be OR even if NPOV could be managed. I think writing this article in an NPOV, sourced way today would be very very difficult, perhaps impossible. --Joe Decker 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an essay, not an article, written to advance a conclusion rather than neutrally inform. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but get some hard evidence in place of those "some contend" and "many are concerned" bits. Find someone who's concerned, and quote them! I am not an expert in this particular branch of criminal law, but even I've seen references to studies about false allegations. This is an important topic and deserves better than a sudden deletion. Heian-794 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hordemaster[edit]

It's a fictional person and on an online game, not the Web, or I'd be tagging for speedy. "E-celebrity" with no media coverage whatsoever of the alleged fame—no source at all, for that matter. Fails notability, verifiability, and reliable sources guidelines for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some mention of this alleged character can be made beyond what's claimed in the article right now. FrozenPurpleCube 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a nn-bio (CSD A7: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites"). *** Crotalus *** 23:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the criteria I thought about, but it only applies to real people, not fictional ones. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty article without context. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Carlosguitar 10:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niskayuna High School[edit]

Lack of sources, no non-trivial coverage that I can see. Seems to fail both notablility and has a need for some reliable sources.—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep by the usual HS standards, 6 notable alumni are an indication of N. If this is no longer accepted as sufficient, then probably not , the 792nd best High School in the United States is not adequate and its about time we stopped taking the Blue Ribbon Schools seriously. DGG 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. — RJH (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and improve). There there are some prominent alumni mentioned in the article.⇒Bayerischermann ^- 20:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article that makes explicit claims of notability. Alansohn 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blue Ribbon satisfies WP:N and is backed by sources satisfying WP:V. Notable alumni do not make a school notable, unless there are an unusually large number that in itself indicates notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'm assumign most of this was added post-afd since I'm surprised at this one being put up. It easily passes WP:N.--Wizardman 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this should never have been listed since its notability, a Blue Ribbon high school, was stated in the article. Articles that have clear notability, but need better sources, should be tagged for improvement not Afd'd. TerriersFan 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HS standard and notable alumni. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oakshade (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure. This AFD was opened by a vandal and never properly listed. Someguy1221 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael's College of Laguna[edit]

Not updated mokmok 06:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. You nominate for AFD, then blank the article, and your reason is...not updated? Someguy1221 03:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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