Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was aborted per parallel nom; see this diff. --ais523 10:53, 5 March 2007 (U T C)

John Carpenter (game show contestant)

Delete all - I question whether winning a million dollars or more on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire confers notability, even if the contestant then goes on to make one or more one-time appearances in relation to having won it. Otto4711 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as CSD A7. Kafziel ^Talk 14:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Bannerman

I am notable enough, but does wikipedia think so? Joannebannerman1982 12:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy This shouldn't be at AfD! Maustrauser 12:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Please stop wasting our time, Tanjaharlock1...Oops, I mean Robinrossam...Oops, I mean Normancliffe... --Onorem 12:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I nominated the article, and the brain donor up there decided she could survive an AfD. Read WP:SNOWBALL love. The Kinslayer 12:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G11 speedy delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NN, not cited, crufty. --Hojimachong^talk _con 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I can't emphasize that strongly enough. Wikipedia is not a free web host. eaolson 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 03:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park IV

The film is not being made, and the article is subject to much rumour and speculation. Its inclusion is too much crystal balling. Wiki-newbie 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to no actual production news announced; would not be opposed to recreation when there is casting, a production start date, and a release date set up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Additionally, I have accumulated more valid (but not recent enough) citations, so when production starts, I can provide an abundant amount of background information regarding the film's journey through development hell. This can be implemented once production starts, if it ever does. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It can be recreated when the script is finished, according to IMBD which is probably the best source for articles like this. [1] JameiLei 18:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CuriousGiselle 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "jurassic park 4" gets 675,000 google hits and "jurassic park iv" 95,700. Definitely notable, although I don't know wikipedia policy with regard to upcoming/potential movies. Joshdboz 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the project was mentioned as early as 2002, so I'm not surprised at the number. However, without any actual production news, I think we're better off without the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough mentions and is filming soon. All the text is actually sourced and not WP:CRYSTAL.--Dacium 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you understand. The mentions are because the project's been kicked around since 2002. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search provides enough evidence that the movie is going to be produced - only thing that needs to be deleted is the projections (from 2007-2001, for example) --Nevhood 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my previous comments about the Ghits. The movie was supposed to start up back in 2002. It's 2007. There is no actual production news, as in an actual start date to filming, announced. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets the crystal ball standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the film isn't currently being made, there is verifiable evidence that it has been talked about. Even if the film is never made, the fact it was talked about (in reliable sources) makes it notable --Pak21 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough for its own article. This is supposed to be an article about a film. There's no actual filming going on here, and there may never be -- the project's been kicked around since 2002. There is no evidence of ACTUAL production of a film. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, Incomplete films, and Undistributed films, which says if a film is in development, actual production may never be reached. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a fundamentally wrong assumption: this does not have to be an article about a film: it can be an article documented the verifiable evidence that the film was talked about, even if this film does not exist, and even if it never exists. WP:NOTFILM states that "if such an unreleased film can meet the criteria in our basic guidelines, then a case can be made for its notability." Jurassic Park IV meets criterion 1, "The film has been the subject of multiple, significant published works, whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers." The fact that the article as currently stands is about the film, rather than the about the verifiable evidence is a reason for cleanup, not for deletion. Finally, I note that WP:NOTFILM is a proposed guideline and certainly does not override the core policy of verifiability. Cheers --Pak21 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, Jurassic Park IV has been in development as early as 2001, with no production ever going beyond that stage. The Google hits are because of the various happenstances in the development stage since that year, and I must remind you, per WP:NOTFILM, "Films merely 'in development' are subject to many rumors and unsubstantiated speculation, and such films often never reach actual production, let alone theatrical release." (Emphasis is mine.) As you can see, the article contains rumors and unsubstantiated speculation. In addition, this is an article about a film. Production of this film is not guaranteed to take place -- being in development since 2001 should reflect how iffy the film's chances are. I would not oppose the recreation of the article when production is set for a time and location with casting completed. However, some people who voted to "keep" are relying on the notion of "enough" Google hits -- take a look at a search for JPIV or JP4 in the Google News Archive, which generates more notable results than the large majority of a typical Google search. And the number is 216. Combined with the fact that there's been rumblings since 2001, that number is rather small and a weak indication of actual production. Seeing that films in development are not guaranteed to be made, this in turn does not meet WP:CRYSTAL standards because the subject of the article, the film itself, may never take place, and the existing documentation is not strong enough to indicate that production will actually take place. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even though production isnt really moving fast, it is being made. Spielberg himself has said it numerous times. Suposedly, filming is due sometime in 2007 once Indiana Jones IV is completed. So I say keep it. darkyoda141 Febuary 20 2007

Comment: Spielberg has also said that it's last on his list, and that he's focusing on Indy 4 right now. Are we going to start getting into the habit of creating articles for films that will not be in production for half a decade? "Pre-production" does not mean it will be made. Scouting locations is just a way to get prepared for when the time comes that you get the go ahead for "production". Look what happened to Halo. That went from definite to "might not" happen after all. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per darkyodal and Pak21. --Djsasso 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until production begins. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Production has already begun, with the pre-production stage. Has a lot more reliable references than other "to be made" articles. Shrumster 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball doesn't apply here. Since it is sourced and it is actually being filmed and now in pre-production stages then it is notable. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above--E tac 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pak21 and Erik.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ah, uh... I didn't vote to keep. But I did update the article with valid citations. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs fixing, but should not be deleted. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to share what you think needs to be fixed on the talk page. I'll see what I can do. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Same with Darthgriz98.--Orthologist 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Under crystal ball - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." We don't know it is "certain to take place". Pre-production doesn't mean they will make the film. I just don't think there is enough reliably sourced information to warrant a page at this moment. It seems better suited for a film series, or on the page for the 3rd film. Saw IV was greenlit and is going to be made, according to the studio, it's pretty definite, but there isn't enough information to support an entire article. We're talking about an article for a film that has years before it get's put into production, because Spielberg has yet to start Indy 4. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:36Z

Trent Model United Nations

Is this Model UN group notable? I doubt it. N Shar 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems unlikely to have any way to become notable. All that's on Google News Archive is some press releases, so fails WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: has no sources, so it lacks verifiability, which is non-negotiable. Also, it doesn't appear to be notable by WP:ORG. - Chardish 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified, non-notable organization with no reliable sources.--TBCΦtalk? 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little here differentiates this Model UN from hundreds of others across the world. Caknuck 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not needed on Wikipedia, its not notable and unsourced. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, unsourced material. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Pea ceNT 09:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:V and WP:ORG - it fails them all.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete university clubs are rarely notable.-- danntm ^T _C 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patently unnotable. Not even worth a mention in the university article, because the event itself is for high-school kids, it's only held at the university. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:ORG Danski14 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been to parties with more notability. Mystache 18:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, specifically per precedent on other Model UNs. WMMartin 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to God complex. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:40Z

Messianic complex

No Verifiability, unfortunately basis for similar articles on other Wikipedia projects. Definitely not “Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD.” Polarlys 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to God complex.--TBCΦtalk? 01:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. God complex: Also no adequate verifiability; 2. Redirect still supports concept formation. --Polarlys 01:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God complex has multiple sources (although I agree it's not adequate). Note also the difference between verified and verifiable. The god complex article is certainly the latter (and partly the former as well). Also, redirects do not necessarily support concept formation. They are intended to make searching easier. Redirecting from George W Bush to George Bush does not support the formation of the former article when the latter already exists. -- Black Falcon 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to redirect these to WP:CRANK? --Dennisthe2 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to God complex. -- Black Falcon 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. YechielMan 01:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what is the difference between Messianic complex, God complex, Christ complex, and superiority complex. Not that I want to know here, but if this gets merged/redirected, where does it go? It seems to me that it and Christ complex might be the same, and might be subsets of one of the other two. I'm not sure. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd venture that Messianic complex is thinking or acting like one has come to save the world, while God complex is thinking that one can control the world. But individuals probably vary--best merged and expanded. There is material to be found. DGG 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - God could be any monotheistic God. Messianic implies only Judaism or Christianity. Therefore "God complex" is better terminology and already exists. Chupper 04:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to God complex (along with Christ complex) - overlapping concepts. - WeniWidiWiki 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think "Christ complex" is the Christian religion-oriented version of the Messianic complex, which as DGG has noted, is different from a God complex. The term "messianic complex" exists and has use in professional circles (see [2] and [3]). I do not think we should merge "messianic complex" into "God complex" as the former may manifest itself as a martyr complex rather than a superiority complex (this is all based on my quite fuzzy understanding of the precise meanings of the terms). I suggest we entertain two proposals (please add others or revise these if you like):

Proposal 1: Centralization

Merge God complex, Messianic complex, and Christ complex into superiority complex and leave the three merged articles as redirects.

Proposal 2: Separation

Merge Christ complex into Messianic complex, and keep and improve (or at least tag for improvement) the remaining three articles (which are conceptually related, but ultimately distinct).

What think ye? -- Black Falcon 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Mirror Universe (Star Trek). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:39Z

Agonizer

Star Trek device that is non-notable independently of the two episodes it appears in. No sources, so it fails verifiability, which is non-negotiable. Prod removed by anonymous user without giving a reason. Chardish 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mirror Universe (Star Trek).--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, episodes are primary sources so it definitely doesn't fail WP:V. Cburnett 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Being verifiable does not make a subject notable as well. Though it's true that this object does exist in the series, it has only appeared in two episodes.--TBCΦtalk? 02:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is your notability litmus test for this? Cburnett 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)--TBCΦtalk? 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is uninteresting and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it meets inclusion criteria, as it is sourced, and verifiable. Jerry lavoie 02:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Are we looking at the same article here? Agonizer, the article up for deletion, has no sources. - Chardish 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Television series episodes are sources. There is huge precedent for that. Can we not say that Homer Simpson worked at a Nuclear Power Plant unless the Washington Post or Oprah says it? Jerry lavoie 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, television shows are legitimate sources. However, the article has no sources. Sources definitely exist, but they need to be cited in the article (see WP:CITE.) Unfortunately an article requires multiple, non-trivial, reliable third-party sources to achieve notability. Star Trek episodes, books, and officially licensed products fail the "third-party" requirement. - Chardish 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Change to Merge to M/U article instead> it's a device in some episodes of Star Trek, that's notablity enough on its own that at the least would warrant a redirect, but appearing in more than one episode makes it better to have one short article on it. If you want sources, there's bound to be something like [4] this that's a bit more adult. This is Trek, I don't have a problem seeing sources as something that can be found. FrozenPurpleCube 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not subjective. We have objective criteria for notability here, which this article does not meet. - Chardish 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with your statement, notability is often very subjective (mostly because the criteria is so often variable, almost any elected politician will get an article, but are they truly notable? I doubt it). Butyour claim is meaningless anyway, as it's pretty clear Star Trek is notable. Nobody is going to argue that. This is an aspect of Star Trek. As such, some coverage of it is appropriate, even if it's just to say "The Agonizer is a pain-causing punishment device found in the following episodes/Novels/whatever of Star Trek". Not covering it would be silly. Wikipedia is not paper, this article is not silly, it's sourceable, and it doesn't violate NPOV. So while i can accept merging it, deleting it is just the wrong idea. FrozenPurpleCube 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, notability is not subjective. This is consensus on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the criteria for notability before you make cases for or against it. - Chardish 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am aware there are people on Wikipedia with that opinion. I believe they are mistaken, because nobody has an objective criteria for notability, believe it or not, it is ultimately based on subjective observation that "enough" other sources have covered the subject. And just throwing links to various pages around doesn't make your argument for you, not when those pages themselves lack substantive and convincing arguments to justify their position. WP:N is just a guideline, nothing more. If you wish to persuade me, try offering arguments related to the subject at hand, not throwing page links around. This is supposed to be about the Agonizer isn't it? As something in Star Trek, which regardless of your opinion as to whether notability is subjective or not, is notable, it therefore becomes a question of how best to cover the subject. It's a discrete and independent device, and appears in more than one episode...but those episodes cover the same subject, which has its own article, so why not merge it there? FrozenPurpleCube 04:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. I'm trying to help you out, because (and I apologize if I'm wrong!) it doesn't seem like you have a clear understanding of what guidelines on Wikipedia are, nor do you seem to have an understanding of what the idea of consensus on Wikipedia is. In a nutshell: guidelines are to be followed unless there's a very good reason not to. I'm "throwing page links around" because I'm trying to refer you back to where I derive the reasoning for my arguments, and to illustrate that I derive them from guidelines and policies agreed on by Wikipedia consensus. I apologize if I've come across as harsh; I'm simply trying to be helpful. Remember: Taco Bell is notable, but not every item on the Taco Bell menu is notable. Time (magazine) is notable, but not every issue they've printed is notable. And, yes, Star Trek is notable, but not every device, ship, and minor character that's appeared is notable. - Chardish 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And you seem to have no idea what I'm saying, or how you're coming across. I'm trying not to be offensive here, but you have not been persuasive, your methods are ineffective, and it's not going to change my mind or help me in any way. Sorry, but the net benefit to me is nil or less. Honestly, I'd rather you stuck to discussing the subject at hand, rather than addressing this other problem. And to try to get back to that, look at it this way, is there any question that it's appropriate to have an article on the episodes of the Trek series this device appears in? Describing those episodes without mentioning this device would be silly, don't you think? It's one thing to not mention every person in a group scene, but this device provided significant importance. Not mentioning it would leave a major hole in explaining how the Mirror universe was different from the "real" universe. Now does this mean an article on it? Maybe not, but a redirect is cheap. However, we have the problem that it's in more than one episode...of different series in the same universe. So that may lead to a different decision. It's not quite right for an article on Devices in Star Trek, but luckily in this case, with several episodes of Trek series (and a few books), there's enough content that the whole Alternate universe warrants an article. Thus Agonizer can be properly described and redirected there. If that's not satisfactory to you, please offer an explanation as to why. And no, an argument about how not every item on Taco Bell's menu should have an article will not serve. FrozenPurpleCube 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry if I've come across as offensive. I'm backing away before this degenerates into a flame war. Goodbye. - Chardish 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't think it needs deleted but it can't stand on its own as it is, redirect it to Mirror Universe (Star Trek). Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable to me. FrozenPurpleCube 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and give to recent change patrollers!) semper fictilis 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirror Universe (Star Trek). Having articles on any piece of technology that appeared in only two episodes of Star Trek is a license to print cruft. What next, individual articles on any disposable crew member with two appearances?--Nydas^(Talk) 10:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete With repect....A tool/object used in a couple of Star Wars episodes??? No sources so it fails WP:V and to be honest it definitel fails WP:NN.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, are you even voting in the right place? There is a fair difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. Again, the episodes themselves are primary sources. Cburnett 14:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Redirect If there is no out of universe info then why have a page when you have alpha memory. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mirror Universe - Meeting "verifiability" does not equate to "Notability", which this article lacks. There are also certain requirements befitting that whole "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". It also contains some Original research elements (e.g. "it is believed...") BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mirror Universe. ConDem^Talk 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mirror universe, as noted above, and merge any information not already there. One piece of equipment in two episodes, unless it's a very major part of the canon, really doesn't need a standalone article, to my eyes. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to mirror universe per above. Just H^{editor review} 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per analogy with WP:FICT for minor characters. --Pak21 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate Star Trek page. The page should become a disambiguation page, as there are other fictional devices known by the name. Shrumster 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list or describe some of these other devices? If this is true, then I would agree with a merge and disambiguate. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 03:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common Chinese surnames

I would like to renominate List of common Chinese surnames for deletion as per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:WINAD. Wikipedia is not genealogical database and this article has little encyclopedic value. Furthermore, it is questionably to list surnames in Korean and Vietnamese according to how common the corresponding names are in the PRC.--Niohe 00:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Invalid criteria are used for nomination to begin with. The genealogical clause in WP:NOT#DIR pertains to biographical articles, stating that biographical articles must be about notable persons. This article is not biographical, nor does it even list any people. WP:WINAD is also invalid, as the list does not even state the meanings of the surnames, and it can't be used in a dictionary function. This list is a researched and published list of the 100 most common Chinese surnames. The article is actually about such a list that is published in real life. It's not a list that's just gathered together by WP editors. Furthermore, it lists rankings of how common the surnames were in both 2006 and 1990, such that readers can compare the commonality rankings of different surnames, and also of commonality rankings of the same surname between 2006 and 1990. This alone makes the article encyclopedic. The fact that it lists the Korean and Vietnamese equivalents of these surnames actually make the article more encyclopedic. And whether or not it's just a list of common surnames in the PRC alone is, firstly, as yet undetermined, and secondly, not grounds for deletion at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think you are misrepresenting the policies here. To begin with, not all dictionaries specialize in giving meanings or definitions. For instance, there are dictionaries for pronunications, for frequency, grammatical usage, etc. You take a look at almost any good Chinese dictionary and you find that they indicate this or that character is also a surname. The best one also have a list of Chinese surnames in the back. As it looks now, the article is nothing but a list of surnames and their pronunications according to their frequency in the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, you are also misreading WP:NOT#DIR, which covers a much wider range of articles that should not be in Wikipedia.

As I said earlier, I cannot see what the frequency in PRC has to do with Chinese surnames in general, something that this article purports to discuss. In the explantion of the statistics for 2006, it states that it is based on information from 1100 counties and cities in the whole of China. Last time I checked, China had more than 2000 counties and usually statistics from China include the PRC only. If you claim that Taiwan is included, the burden of proof is on you not me.

You seem to think that I just dislike this article. Actually, I do like the article and realize that it can be useful, but this article belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It has already been moved to Wiktionary, where it belongs.--Niohe 01:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above really takes away from the fact that this list is a researched and published list in real life. The article is not a list with no other information than a listing, it's not even a list that's been compiled by WP editors. It's also not a genealogy, as it makes no mention of any people. None of what you've said also takes away from the fact that the article provides comparative rankings on commonality of these surnames, something that, in real life, is not found in a dictionary, but in a published list of common Chinese surnames. Lastly, like I've said many times already, the PRC and naming issue is not criteria to delete at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- reasons for nomination are invalid. WP:WINAD does not apply because the article presents additional non-dictionary information (a ranking of names). WP:NOT#DIR is also mis-interpreted: it is not a list of loosely associated topics (#1), a geneological entry (#2)--this applies to biographical articles only, or a phone directory (#3). If you think or are sure that the information is about the PRC only, then simply rename the article. Changing the title of a page is not a reason to list it for deletion. -- Black Falcon 01:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you are misrepresenting the two policies quoted and I refer to my response to HongQiGong above.--Niohe 01:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had read your response prior to my comment. From the thread I see that you brought no counterarguments against HongQiGong's argument that the excerpt on genealogical entries is inapplicable. And also, there are no separate dictionaries for definitions, pronunciation, and grammar--all of these things are included in a dictionary. "Dictionaries" for frequency of use and other information have a more appropriate name--encyclopedias. -- Black Falcon 02:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we stand very far apart in our interpretations of the two above-mentioned policies, I'll leave it at that. It does, however, seem that I am not alone and I will leave it to other editors to weigh in on the matter. To me, this article looks like half-way between a frequency list and a pronunciation table, and as it happens, the most exhaustive treatment of frequency lists can be found on Wiktionary.--Niohe 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we do. Also, there is no article at the link you provided. -- Black Falcon 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory. Furthermore, absolutely none of the pronounciation, Korean/Vietnamese equivalents, etc. information is sourced. Perhaps a bit of the relevant information can be included at Chinese surname, however, Wikipedia is not a place for Top 100 lists. - Chardish 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not a directory. It contains encyclopedic information such as commonality rankings of the surnames. Also, the fact that the pronounciations are not sourced is not grounds for deletion. It's grounds for article improvement and expansion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Usedup 02:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been traswikied to Wiktionary and now exists at wikt:Appendix:Chinese surnames in Wiktionary's category of surname appendices. Any encyclopedic information about Chinese surnames belongs in Chinese surname, but an article that consists of a list of surnames is not encyclopedic. Please see the long list of previous AfDs that have all resulted in deletions for lists of names that I compiled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names. I fail to see why ranking them makes it encyclopedic, and it is ranked just as well at Wiktionary. Translations, pronunciations, Romanizations, etc. are all dictionary material, and not encyclopedic except in the context of encyclopedic prose. The rule of thumb is that if an article is about the word or words themselves (etymology, meaning, pronunciation, etc.) rather than the concept the word refers to (its history, influence, context, etc.) than it is not encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I fail to see how the rankings are not encyclopedic. Plus, this is a list that exists in real life as a researched and published list, which makes it different from some of the other lists of surnames, unless these are also lists that have been researched and published in real life. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Phone books and car manuals and even dictionaries are all published material, but they are not encyclopedic. Please take a look at WT:CFI#Attestation, where you'll see that Wiktionary's inclusion guidelines require that it has been published as well, but not all of Wiktionary is encyclopedic. Having been published has no bearing on it being encyclopedic, however, the fact that it is a list of names does have bearing on it belonging in Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. You can always continue to edit the page on Wiktionary, too. Dmcdevit·t 04:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The converse of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is ??? Neier 14:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:LIST criterion #3: development; the list allows navigation among surname articles and redlinks to the surnames for which articles are not yet written. Also the objection about the lack of sources for pronunciation information for Korean, Cantonese, Mandarin, etc. is rather amusing given that these readings are common knowledge to tens or hundreds of millions of people and are listed in virtually any dictionary you can find, but I put in cites to a web-accessible source for the Korean pronunciation for the top 25, for example. Finally I fail to see how it is unencyclopedic to put the Vietnamese and Korean pronunciations in the table, given that it is nowhere stated that people with that surname are related (you don't see a disclaimer on every article about someone named Smith that they're unrelated to all the other Smiths), and further there are significant populations of both groups living in the PRC as well as populations of Chinese living in said countries who actually use those pronunciations either in everyday life or as their legal name. cab 06:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following WP:LIST criterion #3: development: cab made a valid point above- at some point in the future, each Chinese surname could be expanded upon and a full historical account given on separate pages. However, someone in the discussion for the actual page made a good suggestion- that perhaps this information would be more sensibly ordered by occidental alphabet rather than frequency. --Snowy150 06:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not like the other "List of ... surnames" - it actually has useful encyclopaedic content. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would not expect a directory to actually list items by frequency of occurance.--Huaiwei 08:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument that the article should be kept "as per WP:LIST" is assuming what it should prove, i.e. the utility of an article on every single Chinese surname. I read WP:LIST and it is clearly designed to help people create lists of biographies, countries, species and the like. I just had a look at a couple of the articles on Chinese surnames and all they do is to list the pronunciation and the list number of people called Xu, for instance. They almost looks like disambiguation pages and some of the pages actually are disambiguation pages, like Wei. If this discussion leads to the deletion of a couple of empty article on surnames, all the better.

The argument that the list is useful is not an argument by itself. A phone directory or a top 10 list may be useful, but we don't include them in encyclopedias.--Niohe 12:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid deletion reason given, and no matter how many more parrot WP:WINAD without context; Without substantially addressing the points made by others above regarding the inappropriateness that guideline to this article, then the point of a discussion (and not a vote) is surely lost too. Neier 14:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The last delete vote may not have been very exhaustive, but if you read the contributions carefully, you will find that the points have been addressed. Perhaps you should engage more constructively with the arguments for deletion, rather than just state that the reasons are "not valid."--Niohe 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many valid reasons. You have to read all the comments and replies to get all of them though. Usedup 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them really address the fact that this list has comparative commonality rankings from both 2006 and 1990. What I mean is, a reader can look at the list and see, for example, that X is ranked 10th, as compared to Y, which is 11th, and a reader can look at the list and see, also, that X is ranked 10th in 2006, but was ranked 15th in 1990, whereas Y was ranked 14th in 1990. That's encyclopedic. The fact is, this article is neither a genealogical article, nor does it serve a dictionary function. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the delete votes up to this point (above): Nominator's "not a genealogical database"; WP:WINAD; "per above"; an opinion on the encylcopedic nature of the ranked list; and WP:WINAD again. The WP:WINAD argument is becoming overused in AFD discussions for any list, without understanding the principle behind the rule, and I decided to call out anyone who wants to claim WP:WINAD to back it up. This is not genealogical (as the nominator proposed) as no biographic info is on this page. It is not a directory of businesses (obviously). That leaves us with "loosely associated topics", which is in WINAD as a deterrent to the "me too" lists of every time that a left-handed actor sneezed in a film. A researched list of surnames from a country's census or what not is not loosely associated information. So far, the only reasonable argument for deletion is Dmcdevit's "unencyclopedic". To argue whether it is encylcopedic or not is valid; to try to fit this square peg article into the round WP:WINAD hole is not. Neier 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's interesting to note that, most users that voted Delete doesn't seem to be Chinese, and does not seem to understand the cultural significance of Chinese surnames. Chinese surnames are not just surnames, but the history of the family's background and its origins. There are vast amount of information that could be included. The list requires development, not deletion per WP:LIST#Purpose of lists. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to AQu01rius - That was a very inappropriate remark and I encourage you to reconsider what you are saying. Wikipedia has a no personal attacks policy and you are not supposed to use other editor's real or imagined national origins to discredit their contributions. That applies to you just like everybody else. I expect an apology.--Niohe 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While his comment may have been worded a bit harshly, I think that his central point has merit: Chinese surnames are endowed with more meaning than surnames in many other cultures, and this list could be improved to reflect that.--Danaman5 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be anal about it, I don't think we should say that Chinese surnames are "endowed with more meaning". I just think that Chinese culture takes surnames more seriously than say, the cultures of western or English-speaking countries. The fact that there's a published and researched list of common Chinese surnames is pretty much evident of that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Niohe, please note that User:AQu01rius did not suggest any deliberate wrong-doing on the part of any editors (this would have been a violation of WP:AGF). He only wrote that some editors do "not seem to understand the cultural significance of Chinese surnames". This is hardly an insult or a personal attack. Again, note that the wording does not imply any malice on the part of delete voters, rather misunderstanding or lack of understanding. I think you read too much into his comment (I'm not saying deliberately) and you should not "expect an apology (as you have written) if you assume good faith about User:AQu01rius. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't gloss this over, please. To insinuate that editors do not understand the significance of this discussion because they are not Chinese is a personal attack. Arguments should be considered on their own merits, period. Furthermore, this is not a debate about significance of Chinese surnames, but about deletion policy. We do not create separate policies for matters Chinese or questions pertaining to other cultures.--Niohe 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do agree that the phrasing made it an ad hominem argument and the point would have come across equally or better as "Chinese surnames have a particular cultural significance" (I don't know whether this is true or false). My point was that I don't think User:AQu01rius's comments were directed against editors or were made in bad faith. You are of course right that "Arguments should be considered on their own merits, period." As for your other point that "we do not create separate policies for matters Chinese or questions pertaining to other cultures"--this is true. But we should consider topics that have a "special significance" (if indeed they do), whether the topic is related to Chinese (or any other) culture or to microbiology. I think User:AQu01rius's point, simply stated, is that "Chinese surnames" are an important, notable, and encyclopedic topic. -- Black Falcon 21:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the real reason this article was nominated for deletion, that User:Niohe thinks this article is created out of a "seperate policy for matters Chinese"? Heck, if someone in real life researched and published a book on the most common English surnames with their ranking of commonality, and an editor wrote an article based on that, I would think the same, that such an article deserves to exist in WP. Furthermore, please see WP:BIAS. The possibility that Chinese surnames holds more significance in Chinese culture than English surnames do in English-speaking cultures is something that must be taken into consideration. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This may be of interest to the editors who have voted here, but there is a similar article also nominated for deletion, specifically for Singapore. If you are interested, please comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames in Singapore. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons stated above by me, as well as on the previous nomination.--Danaman5 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a valid, sourced, and potentially useful list and I don't see it being a good candidate for "other" wikis. SchmuckyTheCat 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - It seems that we are talking past each other, so I will try again.

No one has said that this article consists of "loosely associated topics", neither is anyone denying that it is based on a credible source. But that does not make this article encyclopedic; the fact that it is useful or interesting does not make it encyclopedic. A telephone directory is sourced, contains interesting data on the frequency of surnames and is very useful. But it is not encyclopedic. A dictionary can list the pronunciation of several Chinese characters, but that does not make it into an encyclopedia.
As to whether Chinese surnames are more important than "Western surnames" (whatever that is) has no bearing whatsoever on the question whether there should be a separate article listing the hundred most common surnames by frequency. This is a policy question and not a question of different cultures. I'm looking at you, HongQiGong.
No one is denying that there should be an article on Chinese surnames. Neither has anyone denied that certain Chinese surnames may be the topic of separate articles. But no one has so far put forward any convincing argument why we should have a special list with Chinese surnames, many of the articles that the present page link to are not even articles. Many of them look more like disambiguation pages, and some of them actually are disambiguation pages: Mai, Wei, Shi. There is even a special project devoted to the creation Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese surnames, where the to-do-list runs as follows: "1. It must be an interwiki link to an article which satisfies WP:NOT. No redlinks. 2. Individual must have that surname. (Not as a given name.) 3. The individual's article must show the full Chinese name to support inclusion in the list." Can anyone tell me what is going on here? A Wikiproject for the creation of dictionary entries and disambiguation pages? I'm not saying that their work is worthless, but it is misplaced. We have Wiktionary and that's where their work belongs. There is an excellent summary of the differences between Wiktionary and Wikipedia articles here and how that applies to articles on family names.
Some of you have asked why some of the oppose votes only quote the WP:WINAD without further comment. My explanation is that the reason for deletion is obvious, and that most people who are in favor in keeping this article either do not understand Wikipedia policy or the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. If this vote fails, I will take this to arbitration and the article will be deleted.--Niohe 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niohe, comments like "If this vote fails, I will take this to arbitration and the article will be deleted" approach WP:POINT. The only reasons that you provided for deletion were WP:WINAD and WP:NOT#DIR.

OK, so it's all about me again? In what way am I "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"?--Niohe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the former, it has already been noted (and even agreed upon in the original AfD containing this article) that this article contains information beyond what would belong merely in a dictionary. Thus, WP:WINAD is by and large inapplicable.

I and other editors have already stated why we find this list stumblingly close to a dictionary. I am loath to repeat it.--Niohe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the latter, WP:NOT#DIR excludes three classes of articles:

"Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" -- which this article is not, as you yourself stated above.
"Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business" -- again, inapplicable as this is a list of names but not a business directory.

You're only quoting part of the paragraph it also says: Wikipedia is not the white pages. (Emphasis in original.)--Niohe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Genealogical entries or phonebook entries" -- this point applies only to biographical articles: the section reads "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety". (emphasis added)

Well, as I have already pointed out, this page reads like a list of disambiguation pages. What is the purpose of that?--Niohe 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said above that we stand "far apart in our interpretations" of the two policies, but whereas I have suggested my reasoning behind my interpretation, you have only noted the policy (your comment to HongQiGong on this matter was "you are also misreading WP:NOT#DIR, which covers a much wider range of articles that should not be in Wikipedia" and nothing else). Whether this article is kept or deleted is a matter of consensus. You may take it to DRV (although you wrote arbitration, I assume that's what you meant), but the only purpose of DRV is to determine whether an AfD discussion was appropriately closed. For the most part, it should not include arguments about the merits and/or failures of an article. -- Black Falcon 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're "looking at me"? LOL. I'm only responding to your thinking that some special exception or rule is made for the Chinese, and that's why this article exists or that people are voting to keep this article. If that is really your motivation for nominating this article in the first place, it smacks of WP:BIAS. The fact is that this article is not just a simple listing. It's an article about the 100 most common Chinese surnames. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's all about me now, how constructive. Now I stand accused for WP:BIAS for having said that "...this is not a debate about the significance of Chinese surnames, but about deletion policy. We do not create separate policies for matters Chinese or questions pertaining to other cultures." Perhaps you should read the whole article and not just the first three lines on the origins of bias. There's food for thought for everybody there, but that is not what the discussion is about.--Niohe 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm referring to when you said, "We do not create separate policies for matters Chinese or questions pertaining to other cultures". And the "origins of bias" explains that the demographics of most English WP editors is very homogeneous - thus explains why some editors may not understand the importance of Chinese surnames. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about understanding the importance of Chinese surnames, but Wikipedia policy. And just to satisfy your curiosity: I'm not a native English speaker and I did not grow up in an English-speaking country.--Niohe 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not talking about you specifically. I can tell from your contrib history that you have a working understanding of Chinese culture. This is just a reference to your initial exchange with User:AQu01rius, where s/he stated that some of the deleting votes come from people that may not understand the importance of surnames in Chinese culture. I agree that it's irrelevant to the deletion itself, and at the same time I don't think this article ought to have been nominated because an editor feels that it was created out of some "seperate" rule for something that is Chinese. Like I said, if a similar list is researched and published in real life for English surnames, and there was an article about it, I would support keeping such an article, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To HongQiGong and Black Falcon: I appreciate your clarifying remarks and I'm happy to learn that I have a working knowledge of Chinese culture. I would oppose a page on English surnames if it looked that this page does now, especially if it claimed to rank English surnames overall based on the frequency in the US. I think we have exhausted our arguments, let's see what other people have to say and take it from there.--Niohe 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niohe. No, it's not about you. It's not about any of us. But stating that you will take this to DRV or arbitration if the consensus is not in your favor does seem like a form of "disruption". Wikipedia operates based on consensus. Sometimes it's on our side, other times it's not. I realize that this article is in many respects similar to what might be found in a dictionary (Wiktionary). However, let's also please realize that this article also contains addiitonal information that would not be found in most dictionaries. Yes, Wikipedia is not the white pages. Nor is this! This is not a list of individuals--which is what the white pages is. Finally, I have no idea what reading "like a list of disambiguation pages" has anything to do with genealogical or phonebook entries. To sum up, I hope you do not take my (or others') comments personally. They are not directed against you. They are directed against the arguments and the statements you have written. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. We have already deleted a number of similar lists of names in several other languages (including English, if I remember correctly). Why is this list so special? Nominacrufta delenda est! Edeans 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to pass deletion cases for our reference. Thanks!--Huaiwei 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there is a bunch of precedents cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames.--Niohe 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames is still undergoing discussion, and is not leaning toward any sides. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is kind of interesting, if no consensus emerges, then the result is "keep", I gather. So policies do not really matter after all. After an article has been created, no matter how unencyclopedic, the burden of proof is on those who want it to be deleted. As long as I manage to get a narrow majority vote in my favor, it doesn't really matter what kind of article I create. That is a fatal flaw in the system.--Niohe 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I happen to think that if this article is kept, then this is one instance where policies do matter. Like I and others have pointed out, your criteria for nomination are invalid in the first place. They may apply to some of the articles in the other AfD where there are articles that are nothing but lists of surnames that offer no other information, but this particular article is not such a case. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Niohe, WP:Consensus is an official policy. Policies do matter, of course. Those who support the keeping of various articles are not doing it despite the policies. They are doing it because of their interpetation of the policies. To assume otherwise seems to violate WP:AGF. Also, please see WP:TRUTH. -- Black Falcon 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not what I meant. Of course you believe in your interpretation of the policies, I never doubted that. But I find it odd that the burden of evidence is shifted on those who want to delete a page rather than the other way around. It seems that community consensus is biased in favor of those who want to include something rather than the other way around. That is a flaw in the system. I will ask for an outside voice here.--Niohe 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am a tad puzzled by the above comment, for my interpretation of the same policy has been that the burden of evidence will always stay with the contributor, and should any material be up for deletion, it is the contributor who has to show proof. In fact, I considered this a flaw as well after experiencing several cases of over-zealous editors who nominate indiscriminately for no reason than their personal disinterest in the said article's subject matter.--Huaiwei 15:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this useful list. The deletionists really have no clue as to its cultural importance.--OinkOink 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmcdevit and some other points I want to raise. First, this is a list of names. Therefore, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (an official policy) it's dictionary material. The 1990 rankings and the 2006 rankings and the translations into other languages are all great stuff which make this a comprehensive dictionary article, not an encyclopedia article. Second, as has been noted, the cultural significance of Chinese surnames can be covered in Chinese surnames; there is no potential for it to be covered in a list of names. Third, ~~some of the arguments to keep are a tad overwrought, given~~ note that this has already been transwikied to Wiktionary and no material is being lost. Finally, to address the argument that this list is useful for navigational purposes: Let's see. When I look at the first few linked articles, I see two types of content: (1) dictionary material, e.g. in Li (李): "Lǐ (Chinese: 李; pinyin: Lǐ) is a surname of Chinese origin. It is the most widespread surname in China..." or (2) disambiguation, e.g. lists of people named Lǐ. The #1-type material should be tranwikied to Wiktionary and deleted from Wikipedia, like this list. The #2 type material should stay on Wikipedia and pages like Li (李) should be converted into pure disambiguation pages with links to the corresponding Wiktionary articles (using {{Wiktionarypar}}; see e.g. what was done here with Harry). Once this is done, this list would be a list of links to disambiguation pages. There is no warrant to have such a list as it would not help in navigation. Pan Dan 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Individual Chinese surnames have its individual extensive origins, and there is no way that it can all be covered in one article alone. See an expanded Chinese surname article example here: Yuan (surname). Now, if this Chinese surname list is properly expanded, it would include the outline of the history origin of each listed surname, and links to its expanded article entry. Anyways, just look at the article Yuan (surname), and think about it again. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 18:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yuan (surname) is an exceptionally detailed article on a Chinese surnname, could you tell me how many of the 100 surnames have an article like that? I just went through the first ten or twenty and most articles on the list are not as extensive and look of more like dictionary entries or disambiguation pages. Most of the purported histories of the origins lack sources and could be deleted without debate, thus rendering them useless as encyclopedic articles. As per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames most of them could be transferred into disambugation pages or entries in Wiktionary.--Niohe 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That really just says that the articles need work, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Yuan is actually not one of the top surnames in China (Being the 37th), and it already have such extensive history of origin. According to the "deletion logic" I am receiving, a bad, short article that's not verified should be deleted right away, regardless of the subject's potential encyclopedic value? Many users are ignoring this line in WP:AFD: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. ". Read on and it says "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.". Now tell me, are the surname stubs hopeless cases? If you think so, then look at Yuan (surname) again, but look at earlier versions. There are differences between articles that requires work, and articles that should be deleted.

Since Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames is referred to, let's read the first lines of the Conclusion:

"# An article on a surname is encyclopedic if the name has significant history to it, other than genealogy and etymology". Every Chinese surnames have significant history, and that point should not be ignored.

I think the argument is going off-topic. Our main focus should be on whether this list should be kept. I've already expressed my point on that. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both of your comments are entirely circular. Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I see almost nothing substantially historical in most of these articles.--Niohe 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have stubs? Again, please do not confuse articles with subjects. A subject with encylopedia value may have a terrible article entry, but should be expanded, not deleted. Let me paraphrase: "The article is short, therefore it's not encyclopedic, and should be deleted". Is that it?

Pick a surname article, and I'll expand it. Right now your sole reason to delete surname articles is that "they are short, and I don't see (and don't know) anything encyclopedic value in it".

AQu01rius (User  Talk) 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not confusing articles with subjects; the onus of expanding a lousy article lies on the person who created it or wants to keep it. What gets my goat about this whole surname project is that it is (1) entirely focused on increasing the quantity of surname related articles and (2) based on a number of questionable assumptions about Chinese history.

First, if the proponents of these articles focused on creating a small number of solid articles on a selected group of Chinese surnames, it would be easier to argue for an expansion of the project. I started to notice this when a number of biographies on I created got tagged with stuff like "This article is about person with the Chinese surname Chen." At first, I thought this was part of a project that was designed to improve Chinese biographies, but after a while I noticed that all the surname project managed to do was to create empty articles and lists, with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. This was several months ago, and I think it is time to ask where this project is taking Wikipedia.

Second, many of these articles confuse myths with history. I perfectly aware of the fact many people in China place great importance on surnames and that certain surnames carry special meaning for people. But the fact that a certain name can be traced back two or three thousand years back in history does not necessarily mean that all people bearing this same surname today have anything more in common than their surname. Anyone who is familiar with Chinese history or anthropology knows that claims of common ancestry should be taken with great deal of caution.

But fair enough, try expanding Wang (surname) for starters.--Niohe 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - (reply to AQu01rius's first reply to me) I looked at Yuan (surname). It seems to me that most of the intro section, Yuan (surname)#Origin of the surname, and Yuan (surname)#Spread of the surname are about the name itself and should be transwikied to Wiktionary. The rest of Yuan (surname) is about notable Yuan clans and should stay on Wikipedia. Now, if the article under consideration at this AfD were a list of notable Chinese clans, then I suppose I could accept the argument that the list is useful for navigational purposes. But this is a List of common Chinese surnames which presents information about names, not clans, and all of the ~10 bluelinks I checked at random are not links to articles about clans, they're disambig pages or articles about names that should be transwikied and converted into disambig pages like Harry. Pan Dan 00:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is nothing wrong with having dictionary-style information in an encyclopedic article. In fact, it is absolutely necessary to provide context. Transwiki if you like, but please do not delete those sections. -- Black Falcon 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps it should be noted that Yuan (surname) is a featured article, and if the issues you raised were indeed valid, I wonder if you are interested in launching a review on that article's status?--Huaiwei 09:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think Yuan (surname) is a valuable and beautifully presented article. I also think that it would be helpful to distinguish the material on the name Yuan from the material on clans named Yuan. Accordingly I think it would be an improvement to transfer the material on the name Yuan to Wiktionary, and put a helpful {{Wiktionarypar}} tag on the Wikipedia article. This does not require a FAR, it just requires a transwiki tag. Pan Dan 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you please clarify which part you are referring to? I read the article and it all seems to be about the surname. -- Black Falcon 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - I just had another look at Yuan (surname) and it seems that the article is based on a large amount of original research, many of the sources quoted are dynastic histories and other primary material in classical Chinese. This is just another example of the fact that most editors involved in the project on Chinese surnames don't really understand Wikipedia policy. We're not here to publish original ideas on Chinese genealogy. I'm afraid that this article may be up for a complete rewrite. I'll give someone a chance to take care of this, but I will start cutting myself if nothing happens.--Niohe 01:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Original research? That article has 30 references and 4 external links... Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict) (reply to Black Falcon) Yuan (surname)#Early Yuan clans, Yuan (surname)#Genealogies, and Yuan (surname)#Clan organisation are about Yuan clans. Pan Dan 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Pan Dan: This is one of the main differences in Chinese surname. The clan history is largely associated with the surname, and cannot be excluded. This is also why the Chinese surname articles on Wikipedia cannot be completely transwikied to Wiktionary, because the Wiktionary is supposed to include the pronounciation and brief outline/definition only, NOT the history of the surname (see wikt:WT:ELE).

Can you fix your link? I don't know what policy you're referring to. Pan Dan 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the link. I think the history of the surname would go under the Etymology section in a Wiktionary article. (I agree that the sections on the history of the Yuan clans would not be appropriate for Wiktionary.) Your conception of a Wiktionary article as necessarily "brief" contradicts Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pan Dan 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Niohe: Original research? Which part? Please bring up your concern in the article's talk page instead of here. And do you mean that non-English sources are original research? Where in the WP:NOR does it say so, or is just your own opinion? AQu01rius (User  Talk) 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with Chinese language sources, as long as these are not primary sources and there are no substitutes in English. See my comments on the article's talk page.--Niohe 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:Pan Dan. I do not see why that information should be separated from a brief discussion of the origin of the name ([[Yuan (surname}#Origin of the surname]]). This is, after all, an article about the surname. -- Black Falcon 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's an article where half the content is about the name and the other half is about the clans. The title Yuan (surname) is not quite right. Pan Dan 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Pan Dan. What do you understand from the word "Clan", and its relation to the concept of a Chinese surname, so much so that you belief they should be discussed seperately?--Huaiwei 07:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's relevant that the Yuan clans are related to the Yuan surname. They're distinct topics as indicated by certain sections of Yuan (surname) describing the name and other sections describing the clans. The separateness of the topics is already evident in the article, and I would propose making the separation even clearer by transferring the content about the name to Wiktionary. Pan Dan 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair representation of what sectionalizing an article means. The part about the surname ("Origins of the surname") provides essential background context to later sections. The article overall is about a particular surname. An encyclopedic treatment of such a subject requires discussing the origins of the name, where/when it is used, and any special (historical, political, cutlural) signifiance attached to the name or carriers of the name. -- Black Falcon 00:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it's relevant. In Chinese history, the origins of clans led to the development of the surname. It's connected. There is no separation. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 03:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that the Yuan clans are irrelevant to the Yuan name. I meant that the relationship between the Yuan clans and the Yuan name is irrelevant to this discussion (for reasons given above). Pan Dan 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did mention a claim that the surname and the clan are "distinct" to the point of requiring two differemt articles. What do you understand from this topic to define this "distinction", and to form an opinion that they should be split into two different sites?--Huaiwei 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is already divided into sections discussing the name (intro, Origin of the surname, Spread of the surname) and sections discussing the clans (Early Yuan clans, Genealogies, Clan organization). Pan Dan 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? That's to make the article more readable. The article on Tony Blair has separate sections for "Background and family life" and "Early political career". Surely you wouldn't suggest that these sections should be in separate articles? Or should we remove from the astronomy article the definition of the word? Dicdefs are allowed in Wikipedia as long as they are supplemented by additional encyclopedic content. It's the same situation here. The "Origins of the surname" section defines the term and establishes context for the rest of the article. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In other words, your only motivation to consider them "distinct" is due to the way a wikipedian article is sectionalised, and not due to your understanding of Chinese clans and Chinese surnames?--Huaiwei 03:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the Yuan clans and the Yuan surname, their relationship to each other, and their distinctness despite this relationship, is based on reading the article itself. If you have an understanding of this subject that goes beyond what is in the article, and you can source it, please add both the understanding and the sourcing to the article. Pan Dan 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you are still not explaining just what "understanding" you have gleened from the above, other than to say there is a section for clans. Just what do you understand about clans and the surname from that article to call them distinct?--Huaiwei 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any name would be presumed distinct from a group of clans bearing that name. The burden is to explain why the Yuan name is somehow not distinct from the Yuan clans. After reading the article, it is apparent to me that there are things to be said about the name Yuan, and other things to be said about the Yuan clans. Why do you think that the relationship between the Yuan name and the Yuan clans means they're not distinct? Pan Dan 17:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the burden is on anyone other then the person claiming a "distiction" in a topic when no one has made such a distinction before. Your claim is unique, unverified and unsourced, and it is not the onus of the entire community to explain old, verified, and sourced information to you. Once again, you are simply not explaining to us just where does the "distinction" lies in other than superficial impressions. I am beginning to have serious doubts on your basic understanding of Chinese surnames, and the reasonings you throw up here.--Huaiwei 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between Chinese surnames and clans is irrelevant to the distinction we always make between content appropriate for Wikipedia and content appropriate for Wiktionary. The organization of the article Yuan (surname) confirms the propriety of that distinction. I appreciate the significance of surnames in Chinese culture, as explained in Chinese surnames#The sociological use of surnames, but that gives no warrant to violate the Wikipedia-Wiktionary distinction. Pan Dan 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So should we remove from the Astronomy article the sentence "Astronomy is the science of celestial objects (such as stars, planets, comets, and galaxies) and phenomena that originate outside the Earth's atmosphere (such as auroras and cosmic background radiation)."? Definitions are necessary to establish context. However, Wikipedia articles should not consist only of definitions (per WP:WINAD). One last thing: the section "Origin of the surname" is actually not even a definition! It's a historical background section. How is the sentence "Prior to the unification of China in 221 BC, the concentration of the surname was in the historical domain of Chen. Some members of the Yuan clan are known to have moved to Zheng and other neighbouring states." a definition? -- Black Falcon 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we move this discussion to Talk:Yuan (surname), where it belongs.--Niohe 23:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chinese surnames, unlike those in many other cultures, are notable and have "deeper meaning" not simply because the characters carry meaning (weak argument) but because there are indeed so few. The phrase "the old one hundred surnames" (lao3bai2xing4) as a euphemism for the populace is indicative of this fact. Moreover, articles on Chinese surnames are in many cases very detailed, and Category:Chinese family names represents this fact as well. This is not a directory (what is An Tian Ming's phone number these days, anyway? Is he still on main street?), and is well sourced. siafu 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Deeper meaning" than what?--Niohe 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the other lists of surnames are simple lists, with the listing indicating no useful arrangement other than simple alphabetization. This list is different; it has collected the frequency data and the name variations--not as OR but as work done by others--and is a worthy as any other such collection on WP. I urge people to reexamine its particular merits. DGG 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic of common chinese surnames has been widely studied and well-sourced. Notable and culturally significant. --Vsion 05:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's yet another deletion nomination that might interest those who have participated in this AfD. Niohe has nominated Template:Chinese name for deletion. Please comment if you have an opinion on this - Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_21#Template:Chinese_name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article provides useful information for someone who is comparing names in a country as large as China. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unboundedly long songs

Original research, unverified. —tregoweth (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "List of songs of length N" is pointless for any N. - Chardish 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous two writers raise valid points, which will probably win the discussion, but I'll speak for the opposing side. I was a child once, and I know that some of these songs, most especially The Song That Never Ends, are infinite loops or unbounded. The fact that there are many of these shows it's a common cultural trend, so a list (or category?) may be appropriate. I'm not sure how to counter the OR problem: how do I find a source for the fact that I used to sing those songs in fourth grade riding with my friends on the bus? YechielMan 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Published books of children's songs would probably be a good place to start. You need some way to verify notability, however, I'd argue that the same song appearing in several (5 ?) books by different authors and publishers would probably be a fair indicator of notability. Nonetheless, such research should be added to the main articles themselves: if the underlying concept of a list is not notable, the list should not be kept. (In other words, "List of cities with green fire hydrants" is not notable if green fire hydrants are not themselves notable.) - Chardish 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per YechieMan; these songs have significant cultural value. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it seems better suited as a category than a list.--TBCΦtalk? 02:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TBC, it is better off as a category if anything is to be done with it other than delete. Largely unverified and potentially original research or personal opinions. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve per nom and comments here. Article could be sourced, and all included songs could be notable, and even perhaps have their own articles. Quality of article as a snapshot in time is not valid criteria for deletion.. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, WP:SOFIXIT. Jerry lavoie 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of evidence for referencing and for showing that an article is not original research ultimately rests with those wishing to keep the article Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and chardish. Original research. Resolute 02:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for lack of sources per Jerry lavoie. MalikCarr 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, the article would benefit from a tighter definition of "unboundedly long." There is a definite difference between neverending songs like...well, like The Song That Never Ends which really doesn't end, and a rock song with an improvised jam at the end that fades away into silence. Including the second group invites abuse. I'm also thinking there might be a less awkward title. Joyous! | Talk 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list lumps a bunch of different concepts under the "unbounded" label: songs like "The Song That Never Ends" that "never end" until the singers get bored; songs like "Row Row Row Your Boat" which are just really short and are usually repeated over and over when sung; songs like "Down By The Bay" which usually go on for a while with different ad hoc variations for each verse; and songs like "BINGO" which do have a definite end but are just repetitive childrens songs. It doesn't form a coherent concept at all. Krimpet 03:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems like a perfectly valid list. However, "unboundedly long" should be defined such that it doesn't include songs which are sung repeatedly in succession and songs which are just long, but still having a bound. And, of course, we need sources. -Amarkov moo! 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amarkov. Cleanup should be attempted before it's deleted. hateless 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:YechielMan. Sources can be found (children's song books, etc.). Also, User:Chardish makes a good point that "List of songs of length N is pointless for any N". However, there is one exception: when N=∞. There are relatively few such songs, but most are notable and they are all tied together by this common link. -- Black Falcon 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve per nom. » K i G O E | talk 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is this significant? I disagree that not having a discernable end somehow makes this an exceptional length. I think you'd all find that there are very few songs with track times of 10:24. Shall I start that list? And could not any song conceivably go on this list? For example: "Row Row Row Your Boat" is actually a very short song. It is sometimes arranged as a round or a medley and could conceivably be arranged to go on infinitely, but, so could any song if you actually wanted it to do so. For a random example: "Not Ready to Make Nice" begins and ends with the same lines. One could easily make the end the beginning and sing the song on loop. Would such a mix merit inclusion on this list? GassyGuy 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at least rename: "unboundedly"?) semper fictilis 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those advocating it, unless citations are provided and such songs as are in fact short but frequently repeated (Row, Row, Row Your Boat is the classic example) are removed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be properly referenced and sourced or it must go as original research. I don't support any grace period - this article was created as an unreferenced OR stub in December 2005 (curiously by a user who was an administrator at the time (and still is)) and has not improved at all in terms of referenced, encyclopedic content despite numerous edits[5] (including recent exposure in a number of popular blogs - there has no shortage of attention to the article). Even the title appears to be a OR concoction[6]. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 08:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable original research. Potentially infinite list: canons or rounds can be sung forever, as well. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This has no encyclopedic significance. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 08:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant to wikipedia and fails WP:NOT#INFO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article doesn't meet criteria for deletion under Wikipedia's "not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy. The policy covers FAQs, travel guides, memorials, instruction manuals, internet guides, textbooks & annotated text, plot summaries, and lyrics databases, saying that these are not valid uses for Wikipedia. However, this article does not fall into any of those categories – or am I missing something? » K i G O E | talk 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Krimpet et al. Shmuel 15:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Krimpet says, this is a loose association of dissimilar concepts. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list has a defined scope, and just needs to be maintained.-- danntm ^T _C 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the reasons for the songs nature is relevant, and maybe this should be accompanied by an article, illustrating the reasons (for example "Ivan's in the Garden picking Cabbages" was being sung by a number of Russian soldiers in WWI as they fought, using their rifles as clubs, having run out of bullets), many are traditional or humerous sones, some are work songs, or might pertain to military cadence. And the list does need continuous maintenance, to clearly classify the nature of the songs, and possibly a link to unbounded chants, monologues, dialogues and stories. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14 19 February 2007 (GMT).
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely original research. It's an interesting idea, sure, but I don't see any kind of sourcing that can bring these various songs together as the page tries to do. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR with no verification, and many of the entries definitely do not fit the list criteria. Also, as Krimpet states, there's no coherent concept. -- Kicking222 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I've read the discussion, and I've decided to do the following.

I will move the article (pending admin approval) to "List of repetitive songs". People do use "repetitive songs" (I can cite references on that), so it solves the problem with the title.
I will rewrite the introduction, again from references, as best I can.
I will delete items on the list that are not blue-linked to relevant articles. What does that accomplish? Very simple. It defers the problem of original research from the list article to the linked article. If you don't believe that "the song that never ends" is repetitive, go check its article. If you don't believe that article, slap an OR tag to that article. YechielMan 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have never seen anyone move a page during an AfD discussion, though I can't find anywhere in the AfD etiquette that says you shouldn't. Be warned that it may be interpreted as bad faith. You should probably wait for consensus to be reached before you make any sweeping changes to a page like a merge, move, or redirect. - Chardish 20:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not generally done, but in this case not problem I think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09 20 February 2007 (GMT).
    - I wasn't aware it was problematic. I was just being bold. I'm no longer active in this discussion, but I take no firm position on what the article title should be. YechielMan 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the name has not received sufficient discussion, and should be done (or redone) as a Requested Move. I hink the cvlosest general word would be "recursive" but there may be a specific rhetorical term.DGG 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unboundedness as a characteristic of songs is verifiable and interesting. Alternately, make it a category. Kla'quot 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really encyclopedia importance. Not enough songs to provide importance. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'd support a move to 'List of recursive songs', per DGG. -- Vary | Talk 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:41Z

Stephnie de Ruyter

Not notable Randomkiwi 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC) This person isn't notable. Stood as a low-ranked candidate for a minor political party, with little likelihood of election.[reply]

Comment it seems the NZ Dem party article would be included here, or else if that's notable enough, this person also probably is. I am not !voting here, because this subject is so far off my radar, I do not have a strong opinion on it. Jerry lavoie 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leaders of even minor parties are notable. --Eastmain 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough. The article has been around for a long while with no issues, and is linked to by a fair number of other pages. --Limegreen 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain.-gadfium 03:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as leader of an active party. Some sources: [7], [8], and [9]. -- Black Falcon 04:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. party leaders in parliamentary systems are important, even if they are not in parliament. semper fictilis 05:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Political leaders are useful to wikipedia considering they are not a Member Of Parliament. Czesc26
Delete The Google UK search results were a bit inconclusive, therefore and in my opinion failing WP:BIO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:42Z

Blog Templates

I don't see any purpose to this article. The concept of templating is not unique to blogs. This doesn't seem to be about anything in particular. Also, the article is unreferenced, making it more difficult to discern its purpose. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 00:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching on Wiki about blog templates and could not find any information about them, so i decided to add some info. I should have added references which i have done now. If you still feel this article is not so important you can delete it.--Inhook 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment You might wish to use Google for searches like that. An article like this is akin to Mitten colors. --Action Jackson IV 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I might understand an article on MySpace blog templates, or LiveJournal template history. (Not guaranteed to be notable, but hey, it could happen). But something this vague and general... not quite. - grubber 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be like an article about punctuation in magazines. Templates are universally used, and nothing unique to blogs. This kind of information belongs on a blog developer website, not in WP. Jerry lavoie 02:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete misleading and no sources.--Sefringle 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable concept. Maxamegalon2000 06:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS. Pea ceNT 09:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:RS and WP:NOT#INFO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Bullet (appliance)

This article is about a product and an infomercial that is not notable: WP:CORP. The article itself seems to be a joke, treating the infomercial as if it were a major motion picture; plot summary, characters, etc. FUNNY but WP:NOT. This kind of article belongs in uncyclopedia. No assertion of notability is made, and the only references provided or mentioned are the informercial and the product website. Seems to almost encroach WP:SPAM, but this is not my basis for this nomination. Delete. Jerry lavoie 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified, ad-like article of a non-notable product.--TBCΦtalk? 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems plenty of published, vetted reviews are in the wild and there is enough material to make an unbiased article. See these links:[10] [11] [12]. Article is also much more tolerable after a section was deleted. Passes WP:CORP. hateless 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-trivial sources (including multiple product reviews!) provided by hateless. -- Black Falcon 04:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant, reads like an ad and fails WP:CORP.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing how this fails WP:CORP. It's got the multiple, non-trivial sources that hateless found (which probably should be added in), and if that's an ad for the product, someone really needs to fire their marketing department. --UsaSatsui 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh come now AfD is not clean up. This product is notable if the article reads like a ad clean the article up. Whisp e ring
Keep Topic is notable. Just about everyone has seen parts of the magic bullet infomercial. The information is in many istances more widely recognized than the product.Pdelongchamp 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Still Keep. I've cleaned it up and included more references. It's a notable topic, no point in deleting it when it's only going to reappear in an even more primitive form. It can be easily cleaned up. I've already cleaned it up a lot.Pdelongchamp 19:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and lordy, someone take some time to clean this thing up - it really doesn't need a full description of the infomercial, complete with cast of characters and trivia (!). Weak because of the sources hateless provided above, I'm only comfortable with one - the Stuff magazine review. The others read like promo pieces. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by nom) C'mon, are you guys kidding me??? The Stuff source??? See that |--BUY IT--| button under the picture? It is an advertisement. Catalog descriptions and statements by companies trying the sell the thing do not count as sources, guys! Otherwise we would be reproducing every catalog out there. PUH-LEEEZE! Jerry lavoie 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuff magazine isn't a catalog. It's an independent source. Just because they have a "buy it" button doesn't make it any less of one, it just means they have a cross-marketing deal with Amazon (and the button doesn't even work). I've give you the other two sources as not RS, the second one isn't written by anyone reputable, and the third is just...blugh. There's more sources out there, though, for one thing, I saw a write-up of this product in Reader's Digest. --UsaSatsui 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- as for the second source, it's self-description is "Associated Content, an online community of highly-engaged, quality content producers, provides an ideal environment for advertisers who are ready to tap into the benefits user-generated content advertising." This is not a reliable source, either. Jerry lavoie 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - and the third one, LASplash, is a e-zine that only has reviews of new products. All reviews read like copies of the product website for the manufacturer. Unlike consumer reports, none of the product reviews do critical comparisons, and none appear to be NPOV. The site does not have any statement of objectivity or any claim that their content is not influenced by paid advertising. I do not regard this as a reliable source. Jerry lavoie 00:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you still want more sources, then here you go, including some news articles that are clearly not advertising: [13] [14] [15]. Also, I want to note that just because there's a Buy Now link at the bottom of a review it doesn't mean it's not an independent review--a separation between advertising and editorial is the typical norm within publications and both have jurisdiction over the same page. Look up your typical negative review on CNET and see if you can find shills on the page. hateless 06:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let us not confuse being mentioned in an article with being the subject of the article. There is a big difference. In the first of 3 new sourced you provide, DMNEWS, the article is about Unfair Trade Practices. The person interviewed happens to be the maker of the product, and it is mentioned. This is a TRIVIAL reference. It does not provide encyclopedic content that can be added to an article about the product. Jerry lavoie 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is about cheap knockoffs as directly related to the appliance. It is thus non-trivial. Is an article about Tony Blair's role in the Iraq War a trivial reference to Tony Blair? -- Black Falcon 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The second article source you provided above is seemingly a reprint of the first. The article provided content that could very easily and appropriately be used in an article about unfair trade parctices and product counterfeiting. It does not provide a source of notability for this particular product. Jerry lavoie 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is about cheap knockoffs as directly related to the appliance. Also, it is not a reprint of the first. The subject is the same, but the content and text are different. It is thus non-trivial. There are many articles about the 2008 US presidential election and many include much of the same information--this does not mean they're reprints to be discarded. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The first article plainly states, in the first paragraph, that the product sold (1) 7 million units (in 3 years), (2) generated $300 million in sales (in three years), (3) was entirely marketed via infomercial marketing, and (4) stated who the marketers were. That is not trivial information, this is essential information. Your standards are quite impossible if this constitutes trivia. hateless 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - When I see a magazine review (or "rave" as your third source above calls it) that appears to use the same language as company-produced advertising, then what I look for to determine if they are a valid source is a statement on the website about neutrality or responsibility for content. If the company states that they are not responsible for the content of the reviews as the content is provided by paying contributors, then it is clearly POV. In the case of the third source above, these areas of the website seem to require a subscription. I can not access any of the website pages which have "premium" in the first part of the URL. My guess, based on the tone of the ad-like "rave", is that it is a paid product placement, and so I would not consider ti a valid source. So we are still at NO SOURCES status for this article, as far as I can tell. Jerry lavoie 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Definitely needs rewrite _SUBWAYguy 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. It is the quintessential advertisement masquerading as an article. - WeniWidiWiki 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree here, that N for the machine means referred to by the world in general as something distinctive under this name,not being calledthis in any number of catalogs and advertisements by the producer and its publicity firms. DGG 02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually have one but I really don't think everything that has an informercial is worth advertising any more. Usedup 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple sources cited above, the product is notable enough to be included. Yamaguchi先生 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ Arjun 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaivaniudhayakumar

It's not anything, really. No Google hits. Speedy tag removed by anon. ... discospinster _talk 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much incomprehensible. Speedy delete if it qualifies as patent nonsense; delete otherwise. GassyGuy 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nonsense garbage. This one is obvious. Jerry lavoie 02:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G1, patent nonsense.--TBCΦtalk? 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a literary magazine. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Green Society. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:42Z

Simon_Reeves

Fails WIKI:BIO. This person isn't notable. Never gained election to Parliament or public office. Randomkiwi 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Society.-gadfium 03:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, a good call. --Limegreen 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Society essentially performed. Simply tag as {{R from merge}} and redirect. -- Black Falcon 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Society. Should not be a separate article. Pea ceNT 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Hut 8.5 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 The Amazing Race 3. --Core desat 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek and Drew Riker

This duo is non-notable apart from their participation in the Amazing Race. An earlier afd passed as keep but that was a group nom. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Amazing Race 3. non-notable game show contestants. Resolute 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Amazing Race 3, not notable enough to merit its own article.--TBCΦtalk? 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest withdrawing until the outcome of the AFD for Amazing Race 5 contestants. Since the outcome of that may have a bearing on this and other TAR articles, perhaps waiting until that is resolved a moratorium on nominating other contestants would be a good idea. Otto4711 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non relevant duo, failing WP:BIO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - realitycruft --MacRusgail 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cruft. ConDem^Talk 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough Noroton 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The Amazing Race 3. I love the show, but if you don't have multiple reliable third-party sources that can say more about them than that they were on the show, it's pretty pointless. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:43Z

Fast track down

non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Article apparently created by the drummer in a conflict of interest. Speedy deletion tag removed by a single purpose account. Resolute 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7, article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject--TBCΦtalk? 02:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. The speedy tag was probably not removed on purpose, as the person left a hangon template there. I WP:AGF on their part. But the band clearly does not meet WP:BAND. Jerry lavoie 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Newly registered user Tom crisp removed the tag with his first edit, adding no other. The latest removal was done by the article creator, using the holdon tag to protest another speedy delete tag being added after I created this AfD. Resolute 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. I removed the hangon, as it is now AfD. Jerry lavoie 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment FTD Wikipedia is a free place of user submitted articles and entries of the world. Where as FTD may not be slapped on lunch boxes and on TVs across the globe you can't under estimate the impact of Fast track down on the local area, the inspiration it's providing to fellow musicians and the gradual change to the sectarian attitudes of the local youth and music scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmilnes (talk • contribs)

Comment. Unfortunetly, that's incorrect as Wikipedia only includes articles that are both notable and verifiable. --TBCΦtalk? 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FTD meets both criteria. Notible in the sence that the band is well known by a large number of people and those people wish to find out more about the band. And Verifiable becuase when I've had some sleep i'll state sorces, reasons, examples etc etc tommorow. I'm not sure anybody but the people of my town or county assosiated have the right to destroy knowledge of the band. may I suggest the persuit of a girlfriend is a far more admerable persuit than systematic search and destroy efforts of the wikiempire. Furthur more I doubt many peoeple would consider you notable or verifiable, that wasnt a cheap dig or pathetic attempt at an internet insult just a fact, in a world of opinions no-one can truly say they are right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmilnes (talk • contribs)

Actually, it meets neither. Please read the guidelines for notability and verifiability. Consensus has been established regarding which musical acts are deemed notable at WP:BAND. If you disagree with the criteria, feel free to propose changes at that project page. If the community agrees with you, the guideline will change. I would also suggest reading WP:CIVIL as well. Resolute 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are very few Wikipedia editors who would assert their own notability. You are right that I am not notable or verifiable, and this is why I have no Wikipedia article devoted to me. As for "destroying knowledge," no one is destroying any knowledge. You wrote the article, and the knowledge in it came from you. You still have it. No one is going to take it away from you. You are free to make the babbling gossip of the air cry out "Fast Track Down!" if you want; you are free to license the text of the article under the GFDL if you want; you are free to create a website entirely devoted to promoting this band if you want. Wikipedia, however, has no obligation to host these efforts. --N Shar 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article clearly ignores WP:CSD#A7.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Balikem 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 as failing WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Does not assert notability in anyway (aside from playing at a friends 18th birthday). Who needs to persue (sic) a girlfriend when I can fight for the wikiempire (I like that one). --Daniel J. Leivick 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school project, probably fails WP:NFT. No tours, no hits, no write-ups, in short, no nothing. The band fails WP:MUS. There are few clearer cut cases than this. Ohconfucius 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:45Z

Tom Slemen

Non-notable Jumpinmycar 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable; dozens of books published, all with ISBN. A quick ghit lookup, and look at Amazon and Banres and Noble, and ISBNdb shows multiple verifiable sources as Author. Other encyclopedias have him, other wikipedia articles mention him. Jerry lavoie 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ^He's right, you know. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man has published 25 books to date. 25! -- Black Falcon 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep per consensus -- possibly a bad-faith nomination (user's only edits were this nom, which completed the nom of an anon user all of whose previous edits were vandalism.) --N Shar 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Published is not the criterion -- discussed by reliable sources is. The article has only one source, and that primary. Delete unless sources are provided. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. This seems to have been a bad faith nomination. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO and seems to be a bad faith nom. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 07:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. I REALLY wish nominators would give us more than "NN" though!! Jcuk 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article pasess WP:BIO, however I do think the picture could be replaced by a more formal one.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the case is so clear, it should be posssible to stop bashing the nominator and actually come up with non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person as required by WP:BIO either here on in the equally unsourced Haunted Liverpool --Tikiwont 14:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep loads of published books, and regular media appearances. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, name doesn't ring a bell to me. Home run derriby 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, at least keep it for the time being to allow editors to find and add some other sources. Author is notable worldwide, having published books in the USA also.--NeilEvans 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only other edit by the nominator is a vandalism on the article "anus" --which I have just reverted.DGG 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he just sees dead people. DGG, my edit on 'anus' was just to point out that the word 'arsehole' is a suitable synonym. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jumpinmycar (talk • contribs) 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Setting aside for the moment that this is a bad faith nomination, the subject is notable per the multitude of published books and frequent media appearances. (jarbarf) 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mailer diablo deleted with summary "WP:CSD#G1". James086 ^Talk 08:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoatSurfing

WP:NFT, unverifiable nonsense (author admits he made it up himself), pretty much nonsense superapathy man 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, nonsense. janejellyroll 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT, WP:PN, WP:NOT#SOAP... the list goes on and on. Krimpet 03:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment brilliant!! you guys actually took the trouble to read the page! So basically i need to write a peer reviewed paper on the topic... hmmmm i suppose that shouldnt be too hard. (would a small research article in the Sport be suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeSouthgate (talk • contribs)
- No, someone else would have to write the article and have it appear in a reputable publication. If you write it, it would still be original research. Caknuck 04:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonsensical garbage. Jerry lavoie 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Possible transwiki to the Uncylopedia (if it isn't already there). Caknuck 04:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per copyvio of this website. ~~Page has been marked for db-copyvio.~~ ju66l3r 04:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)While the creator of the article asserts copyright, it is not proven in any way...oh, yeah, and it's db-nonsense, too. WP:SNOW (darn, Zahakiel beat me to it)...kill this article please. ju66l3r 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per WP:SNOW in Tibet. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism (G3). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...OK, saw the blurb. Make it simple nonsense. So re-tagged. --Dennisthe2 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; no-brainer redirect put in place. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dionne Mitchell

10th-place contestant on a reality TV show. Nothing in the article suggests she's notable enough for her own article. I suggest delete or redirect to The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3. ... discospinster _talk 03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Her only claim to (minor) notability is appearing on The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3, and she's already adequately covered in that article. Saikokira 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Open I think the page should remain open because many other X Factor contenders have their own pages people who also have little fame after X Factor and they include Maria Lawson, Brenda Edwards and Chico Slimani. The article also goes into much more detail than the original page does and provides people who are interested with what she is doing after X Factor, her time on X Factor and has many outside wiki features as well for Dionne fans to access. By FEEFOO (I apologise- I don't know how to attach a hyperlink to my username.)

Maria Lawson released an album and has had a UK top 20 single, Brenda Edwards has been starring in the West End version of Chicago for some time, and Chico has had a UK #1 single and is nationally famous, so they've all enjoyed considerable success. According to this article the only thing Dionne Mitchell has done since appearing on X Factor is "talking with a management company about future projects", which isn't enough to warrant a seperate article. Saikokira 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"provides people who are interested with what she is doing after X Factor".....which doesn't seem to be a whole lot, to be honest. As it stands she has no notability outside having appeared on a reality show, which is not deemed sufficient for an article per a million other AfDs, so Delete. I have no problem with the article being recreated should she ever achieve anything of note in the music business. As it stands, though, she hasn't..... ChrisTheDude 10:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - there is a lot of discussion about whether reality TV contestants are notable, so I suggest we wait and see the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol contestants before we decide whether to delete this. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why should this article be treated any diffrently then any other minor character on a TV show? Is it because she's a real person? What difference does that make when her only notability stems from the TV show? Anyway... Delete for failure to pass WP:BIO, etc. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:45Z

Clown Shoes (Slang)

Slang/neologism from a movie. According to the article, it was coined in 2006, but popularity has decreased even since then. There are unsourced assertions that the term is in use on message boards and among Kevin Smith fans. Even if true, this would fail WP:NEO. janejellyroll 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really that new, but close enough for WP:NEO. --Dennisthe2 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed for Wikipedia; it could be merged into an article on somewhat of slang though. Retiono Virginian 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete attempted neologism that never really took off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete this article is clown shoes.

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Submarine Improv Troupe (YSIT)

Yet another article about a non-notable student improv group. The best claims to notability they have are hiring some well-known people to teach workshops for them and having an an alumnus in two non-notable local improv troupes. I have had too much trouble finding decent sources for this article. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 03:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The troupe has no relevance outside of the Boston Latin School. YechielMan 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Edit conflict Delete — I surely couldn't find anything. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed to Weak Keep After reviewing the sources, I personally think that the article has potential, possibly with a little work. After discussing with creator, I feel that that's just what'll happen. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another student society: per precedent these are generally taken to be non-notable unless there is specific evidence of notability. In this case I don't feel the notability claims are particularly strong - where made they are no different from those that might be made by other similar groups - and the supporting evidence is inadequate. WMMartin 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 12 unique hits on google, most of which appear to be message forums, I would have to say this isn't very notable. IrishGuy ^talk 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group looks notable enough, and I spoke with the creator and he says he'll be adding some sort of info to the article... hopefully soon. Imageboy1 00:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I really wish the creator would discuss this here so we can all rad his promises. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside Boston Latin School. Nothing particularly special. I say delete. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Steel 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Govi Supremacy Myth

The entire article is original research by a single Wikipedia editor. No references are given in the article. It is also a POV fork of the article Govigama. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 07:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Original research and a POV fork. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete I am surprised that User:Snowolfd4 who is obviously very keen to delete this page says that it is original research and states .lack of references as the main reason for deletion. However, the page has 13 references and it also refers to a Sri Lankan Supreme court case (the case number is also provided) and also quotes a Human Rights Commision application. Need even more references ?

The other purported reason for deletion is that it is created only by one Wikipedia editor ! Is that a valid reason for deletion ?

The third reason is that it is a fork. Yes it is a fork but the information on this page is too voluminous to fit into the main article. Hence the fork.

Caste is a sensitive topic in Sri Lanka and it is also a propaganda topic used by Sri Lankan governments as shown on this page. User:Snowolfd4’s keenness to delete this page appears to be an attempt to suppress information that is unpalatable to him . The following record of previous attacks on this page will show that it is malicious and not a genuine exercise to properly implement Wikipedia policies.

On 14 January User:Snowolfd4 tagged the same page as a Hoax saying there were no references. On 24 January User:Lahiru k who appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Snowolfd4 added back the same malicious tags again without giving any reasons on the talk page or anywhere else. Now User:Snowolfd4 is attempting to delete the page from Wikipedia.

This page should not be deleted. Wikramadithya 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikramadithya, please understand I have nothing against you personally. My problem with this article, and, to be honest with you're edits as a whole, is that they appear to be you personal opinion and not the general consensus. Considering that you fail to provide any sources for what you have written here, and for things like you're blatant attacks / defamation against D.S. Senanayake, and the fact that no one else seems to agree with what you're writing, I'm pretty sure they are all you're personal opinions.

Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to publish you're personal opinions. Everything we write here has to be verifiable and accurate, so I don't think this article should remain on Wikipedia.

Also, if you suspect sock puppetry, please feel free to report me (or anyone else for that matter) at WP:SSP or WP:RCU to confirm it.

Thanks, and I'd appreciate if we discuss the content of the article only and not personally attack other users.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when people accuse me for sockpuppeteering or as a sockpuppet itself. If you still accuse me on that, go ahead and put a checkuser case on me. According to WP:SOCK if I really am sockpuppet, I've vilolated that policy since I voted here. If you have no idea how to put a check user, feel free to ask me on how to. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. The "references" are claimed to be the Sri Lanka Government's attempts to promote the myth; thus they can't serve as sources for it being a myth (with the possible exception of the Supreme Court case). Unless someone has written about the Sri Lankan Government's attempts at faking history, they're not notable. --Huon 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not only the article is a WP:OR even the answer given here by its creator is flawed(which made me to vote)..This article is used to make personal attacks on several prominent Sinhalese leaders with totally baseless accusations. Having seeing the way he had attacked fellow wikipedians(calling them sock puppets) ,I don't think we have to go that far to realize that someone is trying to settle a score here..OR using wikipedia to express his personal vendetta..Finally ,caste system is definitely not a sensitive case among Sinhalese, most of them frankly don't care it, and it was never an issue in elections either..thanks --Iwazaki 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~OR, but~~ the overuse of templates on the page appear outright malicious. Edited to add: After closer scrutiny, I think something is amiss here with this nom. The article needs proper wikification and MOS sourcing, but I think this is verifiable. - WeniWidiWiki 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I inquire where you get your opinion from and if you have any sources to back it up?

And I assure you no malice involved in the tags. I believe all the tag were accurate. It is WP:OR, it didn't cite a single source, it wasn't written in an neutral manner and the accuracy of the article is highly disputable.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted.

The page under discussion is not ‘original research’. The page is based primarily on the submissions to the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Commission respectively in the case and application cited on the page. Further, all information on the page has been previously published many times in Sri Lankan research studies and in Sri Lankan national newspapers: the Daily News, Sunday Observer, Island, Sunday Leader and Ravaya.

Normally if a Wikipedia user has a contrary viewpoint, one would expect that user to edit the page and include their contrary viewpoint too on the page. However, campaigning to delete a page without editing the page suggests an intention to maliciously suppress the information in totality.

It’s admirable how several people have rallied, and within a few hours too, to support User:Snowolfd4. One of them is even voting for the deletion of the page based not on what the page says but on what I have said here! However, although this is a Sri Lankan topic, it is not another numbers game where a majority can bulldoze minorities. Therefore diplomatic protocol aside, it would be public money well spent if this interest group could clearly note their contrary viewpoints on the page rather than coming down with a barrage of attacks on the Editor.

It may also be of relief to the interest group if they note that the thorny issue of ‘government propaganda’ on the page doesn’t refer to their present government of Sri Lanka.

Wikramadithya 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote and another bunch of personal insults..You seemed to expanding your personal vendetta from Sinhalese to rest of the wikipedians..Plus,again there are several flaws in you reply,let me address one of them..I voted not only because of your reply,but your comments here certainly made my vote come faster than expected..Even though your work is 100% WP:OR(there is no question about it) i was expecting you to defend it in a proper way..But having seeing the way you insulted fellow editors coupled with whole bunch of OR in the article and not to forget the insults you have directed at the notable Sinhalese, led me to vote immediately.. hope this will clear up things.--Iwazaki 10:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)02:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Iwazaki. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 06:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:45Z

Johnny upchurch

Suspected hoax. The article claims that the subject played for the University of Michigan and the Kansas City Chiefs. However, there is no record for this player on the all-time roster for either team. See Michigan all-time roster search and Kansas City Chiefs all-time roster. Scottmsg 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reference to a Johnny Upchurch on the Chiefs. ~ El Cid 06:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find him either, even after a few pages of search engine. Also, there's apparently a WP:COI problem here too. --UsaSatsui 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad article. --MacRusgail 19:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Pea ceNT 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:52Z

Roadkill Bill Jabanoski

Nom – fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. While the subject appears to have published one book and several CD's, the article contains no independent reviews of any of this work from any reliable source. All sources in this article are self-references to the subject's website or to a music sharing website to which any musician can upload music. The one Amazon reference does not satisfy the requirement for an independent review. Lastly, the "reviews" of this article which were posted on its talk page come from single-edit special purpose accounts. "Roadkill Bill Jabanoski" generates all of 28 g-hits. I would have nominated it for a speedy delete, but the subject does claim notability – so here we are. Feel free to exercise WP:SNOW if you like. It won't hurt my feelings, and it might save us all a bit of time. Rklawton 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD passes, please also consider deleting the following images:

File:11979border.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Crossingtheborder1979.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Crossingthebordercover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:5anywherecover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:3conchdreams.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:1rdcover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:3kwpcd.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:BillJCanada.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:2quebec.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:1posterquebec.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks. Rklawton 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSSION: FROM ROADKILLHEADS.

The above user "Rklawton; Rklawton" who complains about our article seems to be completely oblivious to American "underground" music and writing, followers of whom are well aware of who Roadkill Bill Jabanoski is. WE, a group of fans, not the artist himself, posted this article in an attempt to add an entry into Wikipedia about an artist who has had a major influence on hundreds of thousands of people and to provide helpful links and information about him. As we work and do not have 24/7 to spend in front of our computers, as evidently "Rklawton" does, this article is still a work in progress, more details of which will be added as we are able to find the time. If Wikipedia requires that we document every sentence, provide more independent reviews, etc., we will do so as we proceed. If, however, Wikipedia only chooses to post articles on Britney Spears and the like, your "Encyclopedia" is going to become nothing more than a week's worth of "Access Hollywood" shows. However, if you wish to include reliable information about artists that, while not mainstream, have huge cult followings, then you will keep the article, allow us to complete it, and not threaten to erase it every time someone who happens not to have heard of the subject of the article decides to tell you to delete it, then you will be a real, "complete" encyclopedia. If you don't choose to be this, then stop advertising yourself as such all over the internet.

BAIT AND SWITCH

WIKIPEDIA IS A CON ARTIST WEBSITE

NEW ENTRY FROM JAMES L. GORDON

BAIT AND SWITCH! My name is James L. Gordon. I signed up for an account on Wikipedia, copied down my password, and answered your "check E-mail address" E-mail. I also sent you a $50 donation in the mail because I loved the fact that you had articles on my favorite artists like Chuck E. Weiss and even more so, Roadkill Bill Jabanoski. Now I return to the page for Roadkill Bill (Rklawton: 28 g-hits) and find that you've destroyed the artwork (there was a really great concert poster heading the article beforehand) and are happily in the process of deleting the whole article. I suppose the Chuck E. Weiss (Rklawton: 46,000 g-hits<) and Paul Westerberg (Rklawton: 500,000 g-hits) ones will be next. What's more, when I tried to "Log On" to your website, double checking my password numerous times, I find that I no longer seem to even have an account with you! As a lawyer by trade, I know that this is what con artists call the "Bait and Switch." You solicit contributions by temporarily posting articles, then remove them, and then don't even claim that your contributors have an account. "There's a sucker born every minute," so the quotation goes, and I certainly was one. I would stop payment on my check, but I like to think of myself as more honorable certainly than your firm. I will NEVER use Wikipedia again, I will tell my employees, business associates, and friends not to do so either. Playing con games with people is both dispicable and just plain wrong. --75.74.180.49 06:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)James L. Gordon[reply]

Too bad, so sad. Delete JuJube 09:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google for "Bill Jabanoski" [16] produces a few hits; Amazon pages, his own website etc; not the multiple independent reliable sources we need. I'll happily change my opinion if such sources are produced, but for now this feels a lot like WP:SPAM/WP:COI. Mr Gordon, as a lawyer, don't you know that making spurious public written accusations of criminality is probably a bad idea? -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give Mr Gordon his $50 back. No independent sources to attest to the artist's notability, or to the fact that he has "had a major influence on hundreds of thousands of people". Do these cult fans not have Internet access? ... discospinster _talk 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator and other deceptively misrepresent google hits, requiring nicknames and name in that order, eliminating those about Bill Jabanoski, known as Roadkill (Bill) and the like. Gene Nygaard 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - So how many g-hits did you find? And what does this have to do with failing WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS, and possibly WP:COI? See also WP:AGF. Rklawton 15:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discospinster. Refund if possible. D Mac Con Uladh 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. I'm not sure I believe the "James L. Gordon" story about the $50, but even if it's true Mr. Gordon should be aware that Wikipedia does NOT accept money to write articles or to retain them, and the very idea of doing so would be disgusting to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, no other reputable encyclopedia would accept money to include an article either (try offering Britannica 50 bucks to include an article on "Roadkill Bill"... you'd be laughed out of their offices!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hey, was that a legal threat up there? Cool! Anyway, call it a hunch, but I think we're being screwed with, and that this is someone's idea of a funny prank. I'm sure someone made that article (and those comments on the talk page) knowing it was going to get AfD'd. Oh yeah, no sources, original research, copyrighted images, yadda yadda....--UsaSatsui 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N guidelines. If ROADKILLHEADS (talk · contribs) was under the impression that his $50 gave him the license to publish what he wanted on Wikipedia, then he misunderstands both Wikipedia and the word donation. That said, if the Wikimedia Foundation has a donation return policy, it may be here someplace. Obviously our opinion here has nothing to do with what the Foundation can legally or operationally do. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, the foundation makes it pretty clear that people can't demand their donation back. To quote the policy: "The donor intends the gift to be irrevocable and, therefore, relinquishes the right to reclaim the gift or any unused remainder." So that's that. If Bill Jabanoski is really tring to get himself into the music biz, I can't imagine why he'd want his name attached to this pathetic attempt to squeeze $50 out of a registered charity organisation, and I can only guess what music execs, producers, and potential CD buyers will think of it when they come a-Googlin'... oh well... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect the claimed donation is more pettifoggery, but thanks for finding that. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

IN RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS POST BY STARBLIND, Andrew Lenahan

The entry from "ROADKILLHEADS" above makes it clear that they, a group of fans, posted this article thinking they were providing what they believed to be useful information about a somewhat well-known underground artist and that this article was a work in progress. So it is you, Starblind, who are making false accusations when you state that:

1. The artist himself had anything to do with submitting this article.

2. The "ROADKILLHEADS" ever suggested that they paid any contribution to Wikipedia to publish this article. Rather, it was another writer on this discussion page, signing himself James L. Gordon who, I agree very hot-headedly and wrongly, suggested that he had been cheated out of his donation because he assumed Wikipedia was providing information on his favorite artists.

Perhaps you should take some time to actually read the previous posts rather than only skimming them before also making wrong allegations, Mr. Lenahan (Starblind).

3, As for Mr. Jabanoski trying to use this article to "break into the music business," I highly doubt that the artist even knows that this article exists. You are also almost thirty years too late in your advice to Mr. Jabanoski. His first record was released in 1979, and he has developed a substantial following both as a musician and a writer, particularly over the past two decades.

I personally find what there is of the article to be informative and to provide good links, and I believe it should be retained and that Wikipedia should allow "ROADKILLHEADS" to complete it as they requested in their post. If there are documentation problems (which I really don't see. Most of the article provides simply common knowledge information to anyone who has researched the artist, and it does not quote without documentation), then I believe that Wikipedia should work with "ROADKILLHEADS" in solving these. This is just my opinion as a frequent user of Wikipedia and someone who enjoys Jabanoski's work. --75.74.180.49 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Tom Carter. New York.[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are provided; the folks who are opining keep should really focus on showing us proof of this artist's notability under the WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO guidelines, as well as all the others linked above, if they really want the article kept. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Are you sure you're a lawyer, "Mr. Gordon"? You sure do whine alot. dposse 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. If the article satisfied either one of those, it wouldn't take two pages of wikilawyering to prove. ShaleZero 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refund. per all of the above. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of non-trivial sources. If Mr Jabanoski is 30 years in the business and there's no independent publication about him, he's not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Huon 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - just for the record: Gordon and Carter (above) are using the same IP address. Not that their writing style and formatting aren't identical or don't already match in style the two "reviews" on the article's talk page. Rklawton 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just sew on two buttons for eyes, slip it onto your hand and the illusion is complete. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, and methinks most lawyers would read the fine print before paying any money. Jerry lavoie 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. This is the exact reason by the standards exist.--Dacium 00:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:53Z

Kevin P. Varney

I don't mean to waste everyone's time with this, because Prod would have got the job done. I just have no greater satisfaction working through WP:DEAD (a worthy endeavor) than to nail a blatant autobiography. It's not the first time, and I don't know, it's like I can say to this person, wherever he is: "BUSTED!" Okay, I'll shut up now. YechielMan 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OWNED. Er, I mean Delete -- no evidence of notability. --N Shar 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the subject has held numerous important posts, they have not been ones taking great amounts of public attention. Fails WP:BIO. Please remember most people don't actually know that this isn't OK until they enter a deletion process.--Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a vanity page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article of a seemingly living person without references Alf photoman 17:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. ConDem^Talk 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having held some important positions isn't enough to pass WP:BIO--Dacium 00:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stands out here as meeting WP:BIO, although I did enjoy this little gem: "Previously, Mr. Varney served in the White House as the Deputy Chief of Staff of the National Economic Council for the National Economic Advisor to the President and was selected by President Clinton to be the Deputy Executive Director for the 1997 Denver Summit of the Eight.". (jarbarf) 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mailer diablo. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club dredd

No real assertion of notability, spammy, and a conflict of interest. N Shar 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and seems like advertising. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon this noob. Please don't delete it. Maybe cut it to stub. In the meantime can you comment on the revision just made? Noted your comment re like advertising: I tried to remove all of the subjective matter. Noted your comment re conflict of interest: Who else can verify facts about the club better than the owner?Clubdredd 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Victor Sierra Charlie Alpha... So tagged. MER-C 09:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extensive commentary below shows no evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shots

Does not seem to meet notability criteria in WP:ORG or WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YechielMan 06:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Not only that, the history shows that it was penned by the producer, and it is inundated with vanity links to his Myspace page. - WeniWidiWiki 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A case has not been made for deletion. User 'YechieMan' makes no specific assertions or claims, so ther is no fact or matter at issue to which anyone can reply.

The assertions made above by user 'WeniWidiWiki' fail on several points of fact:

1) The entry was not penned by me (though I did supply a photo) 2) "inundated with vanity links". Not so. There were 2 Myspace links, 1 remains for reasons outlined below. If 1 link is "inundation", then most Wikipedia articles are similarly inundated.

The 2 users cited above may be familiar with SPACE SHOTS, and possibly FRONTIERS, but I don't know. If so, thanks for watching -- glad to count you among the audience -- sorry if you didn't like what you saw, but that should not be grounds for removal. If they have not ever seen SPACE SHOTS, and have not been to Austin, TX, then the assertions are rooted in complete ignorance, lack of knowledge, and that explains the lack of facts in their claims(either directly known or for which they can provide evidence).

RE: "... Does not seem to meet notability criteria ..." SPACE SHOTS has been influential and the methods used to procduce it have reduced TV/video production costs significantly. The video shoot, edit, and post-production tactics & strategies have altered the character, content, look, and feel of nearly everything coming out of Austin, TX. The reduced cost and production-cycle times in the SPAXE SHOTS business models are part of what is making Austin, TX a growing center for music (and other) video production, despite its location and other srategic business drawbacks.

I think that the preponderance of evidence would establish that SPACE SHOTS does meet the notability criteria.

I'm not sure how many hits this entry receives, but "Space Shots" (the TV show) is the #7 yahoo.com search entry, and the #11 Google.com search entry, for the term "Space Shots". "Space Shots TV" is atthe top of both company's search-results. Ask Google and Yahoo for details on how their search algorithms work.

-BL The Eagle 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC) - - - - -[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Myspace is not a reliable source. Also, take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Are you sure no newspaper has ever written about Space Shots? CloudNine 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The timing and other facts about this particular delete-request are intersting, and raise questions about conflicts of interest by the delete-requestors.

1) There are more people and there is more commentary pertaining to this delete request than to any (maybe all) other current, pending delete-requests. Despite the claim that SPACE SHOTS lacks sufficient notability, the attention here and now strongly indicates otherwise.

2) For about 2 years, I have been asking the Governor's Music Office to update the obsolete web address for Space Shots. In early February, I went public and noted the "sloppiness and apparent staff intattention" in this matter, and stated that "it begs the question: ...what other information issued by the Texas Governor's Office is wrong, obsolete or inaccurate?"

Question: Are any of those requesting a deletion affiliated or connected, either personally, professionally, or otherwise, with thee Texas Governor's Office or the Texas Governor's Music Office?

3) Time Warner Cable has a TV station called M-E TV which they operate as a music channel in Austin, Texas. For over two years, they have been unable to get "good", "exciting", or "cool" bands to appear on their live music forums, because they are considered "dorky", "gay", "dull", etc. by music fans and bands. A few bands that received a lot of promotion on M-E TV and Time Warner's news affiliate "News-8 Austin" bombed completely at local clubs (no one went to the shows except station staff, who were given free tickets).

SPACE SHOTS is a non-commercial project, and licensing agreements for use of live performance videos of major rock bands (e.g. Black Sabbath, Guns 'N Roses, Motley Crue) have not been licensed to Time Warner for commercial Cable TV use. In a recent solicitation (local posters and several myspace posts -- a link to one such post -- in early February generated over 40 band applications for a video taping event during SXSW 2007. These will use the Austin Public Access TV facilities (under an agreement similar to those recently concluded for the TX State Lottery Commisison, and Friday Night Lights).

Time Warner attempted a similar campaign for M-E TV, but received no takers. They will do something else during SXSW 2007.

So, are any of the delete-requestors here professionally or otherwise affiliated with Time Warner, Warner Music Group, or affiliate labels that have a material interest in commercial ventures during SXSW 2007? -BL The Eagle 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further commentary

I think that the request for deletion here probably has nothing to do with SPACE SHOTS at all. 1) the delete requestor does not seem to have ever watched the show; 2) the requestor seems to be making his request for non-content related reasons; 3) There is no specific fact asserted about SPACE SHOTS cited by the delete requestor that indicates a violation of Wikipedia policies.

This article was not penned by the program's producer.

Just a guess here: This request may have been made as some retailiation for controversial analyses and news reported on FRONTIERS, concerning the Iraq war, U.S. relations with Israel, and a long-running thread that suports the war as an economic venture, but is heavily critical of the U.S. military strategy (or more specifically, the lack of a coherent military strategy) to date.

Recent commentary has drawn a criticism and opposition from both Zionist and anti-Zionist groups. Since the FRONTIERS information is from trusted and verifiable sources, no retractions or apologies have been made.

FRONTIERS has been a controversial TV program series since its inception in March, 1988. But has been retained and built itself an audience.

SPACE SHOTS has not drawn much fire -- until now. Black Eagle 18:1, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_Shots"

Comment - I've honestly never heard of the "FRONTIERS" thing. My only concern is with notability, as I stated above. I cited the guidelines with which I was concerned - if it can be demonstrated and sourced that Space Shots is notable per that criteria, I have no objection to keeping it. Otherwise, it should probably be deleted. Also, the above comment makes me think there's a WP:COI issue here as well. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can WP:COI issues be resolved? I could mail you (or whoever makes the final determinations for deletion) at Wikipedia copies of articles or other materials. What will be useful or helpful, and to where should they be sent? -BL User:The Eagle ^Talk 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same person as Black Eagle? RJASE1 ^Talk 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

No. We are different people. We have worked together profesionally for over 20 years. What is your role at Wikipedia, RJASE1? -BL User:The Eagle ^Talk 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ---[reply]

The only assertion made by the delete-requestor here that seems to warrant a response (since it may be relevant to Wikipedia inclusion policies) is the link to a myspace.com page. This was done for a few reasons:

1) Myspace is a generally neutral forum; 2) Myspace is not a site which I have to maintain or on which I need to provide anti-hacker security; 3) Myspace seemed to fit more closely with the SPACE SHOTS theme so I recommended linking to it instead of other sites); 4)I never spend money on what is offered for free (a convenient web page in this case).

If a myspace link is problem, then go ahead and delete it. People who need to get in touch with me can do so via several other platforms & channels. If you do that, then it seems reasonable to expect that all other links to a myspace.com page will also be deleted at Wikipedia.

I'm not inclined to go through all of the wikipedia entries for various music, movie, television, and other entertainment entities, projects, or individuals. However, after a cursory read-through of those for some local (Austin, TX) talent, it's clear that most of it is essentially promotional and reads like something a publicist would write. Maybe most of it should be deleted ... though personally, I have no problem with any of it.

There is nothing in the entry that is not factual.Direct 'Black Eagle' to remove what you regard as too pomotional to meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Feel free to raise any additional matters of concern. At this time I can not determine that there are any good, valid reasons for deleting the SPACE SHOTS entry.

-BL User:The Eagle ^Talk 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ---[reply]

On a related topic: Aparently there is a lot of confusion about what should or should not be included in Wikipedia. Recently, an entry for 'Freshmen magazine' was removed because someone though it lacked sufficient 'notability', yet there is an entry that may have pre-dated the removed one at Freshmen_(magazine) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Eagle (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete -- nn, short term, cable public access show. Article includes some claims of importance that are not believable and, of course, not sourced. Mango juice^talk 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awyong J. M. Salleh 05:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harpua (band)

Not Notable. --Hojimachong^talk _con 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 05:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSD A7. --Muchness 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:53Z

Dugald macpherson

NN, i'm guessing. --Hojimachong^talk _con 08:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he qualifies as notable under criterion 2 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Further, the book "notes on infinite permutation groups" probably qualifies himunder criterion 3.2. For example it is recommended reading for the following two courses: http://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/KMathF/math/diskret/buecher.html http://www.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de/mi/studium/kvv/ws0102/felgner1.html Thehalfone 09:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a full professor at a major university. He has therefore undergone several peer-reviews by experts, & I would accept their judgement. For those who prefer our customary WP judgement, by our own imperfect criteria, he is clearly N, for writing a textbook used in several universities is accepted as N. The article should of course be expanded, DGG 06:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)![reply]
Keep per DGG and Thehalfone. In addition, he is a winner of the Junior Berwick Prize, a middling-to-major British mathematical prize. --Charlene 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, regardless if we know who Prof MacPherson is there are no references so others can verify, therefore major problem with WP:V Alf photoman 16:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs major work and further sourcing. - WeniWidiWiki 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done some work on it. I used a citation template for the book, but it is terrible: the first author has a different formatting for her name than the others! Is this supposed to a main author and subsiduary ones? In this part of mathematics, its not usually done like that, but just alphabetically. Thehalfone 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:54Z

Laughalujah

The comedy routine is not notable (600 ghits), but it doesn't end there. User:Duvale, who created the article, is probably the same Duvale in the article text, which violates WP:COI. The tone of the article is also POV to promote this person. YechielMan 06:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN and possibly, violation of WP:COI --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 07:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable and COI. A blight upon the houses of all who use wiki for free advertising. - WeniWidiWiki 05:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I received the following message, which I think it's okay to post here:

Good evening,

I see that my article is up for deletion and your name appears as one who may have made the suggestion. Please advise what I may need to do to avoid this matter. I'm not real internet saavy so any help you can give in this regard will be helpful. I've made what changes I believe you may have suggested. Thanks for your help.

To God Be The Glory!

Duvale Murchison, President/CEO Duvale Murchison Entertainment 4400 Seaway Drive Lansing, MI. 48911 YechielMan 06:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the will to improve the article, will alone is not enough to make something suddenly notable. It also doesn't change the fact that it is a COI. Verkhovensky 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 179 unique google hits and no independent reliable sources. -MrFizyx 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Elliptical construction. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:55Z

Ellipsis (figure of speech)

This article is basically a shorter, less precise and less informative version of the newer Elliptical construction article. Also, I believe the title of the article is misleading, since ellipsis as described in the article is not, to my understanding, a 'figure of speech', but a grammatical construction (hence the article Elliptical construction which treats it as such). In addition, the article is being transwikied to wiktionary as a dic-def. Torgo 07:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to elliptical construction, which is a better article on the same topic, or just delete if this search term is too unlikely. GassyGuy 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with elliptical construction and redirect. There are parts of this article that may be worth saving, and merging the two would improve the grammatical article's formatting. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the only thing in this article that is not in Elliptical construction (besides the examples, but the latter article has its own examples for the same things), is the mention of ellipsis in film. However, if anything, I think this short sentence should be added to the Ellipsis article, just to mention it as a different use of the same word. Anyway, it certainly isn't a "figure of speech" (or a grammatical construction) when used in this sense. Torgo 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Newyorkbrad 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because this has better examples. --Dhartung | Talk 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm a Chattanoogan, and I've never heard of this blog dispite the little claim it has to notability. Teke^(talk) 04:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scenic City Online

This is an article about a non-notable blog. It has no independent sources. Proposed deletion was contested by User:Kellylockhart (see the talk page). Khatru2 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Reeves

I'm not sold on her notability, despite her spectacular resume. Being on TV in Alaska, if I may be so provincial, is not a big deal. A few sources might help - oh, I forgot to mention, she's not even the top Google result for her own name! (That would be a Lauren Reeves from Norwich.) YechielMan 07:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's done a lot of stuff, just none that's notable per WP:BIO. Background player on SNL? Miss Alaska runner-up? Not quite there yet. --Dhartung | Talk 10:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN reporter for two stories, retold in the article at length. DGG 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Verkhovensky 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to apparent puppetry and per established users - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing UFO Research Organization

No notability references. Ideogram 07:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ changing !vote - see at the bottom I vaguely remember stumbling upon a similar page once, but cannot find it in my contribs now... I am inclined to believe that it was the same organisation, so this would seem to me the article's a recreation (can't back this up with a link to a log/diffs now though). It didn't seem notable back then either. The website listed in the article doesn't answer. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is run by the Chinese Government (Beijing Association For Science and Technology). Its members all come from different government and university institutes (they don't just pick random people, you have the match a criterea and be qualified). What links do you want? The website has all the links and data, and it is branched on a server of the Chinese government. I do not know who created this similar article you talk about in the past but they made their mistakes by not providing you with factual data, and it has been provided, just look at the links for one. (:O) If you are unable to read Chinese, may I suggest Google or babelfish translator? (:O) -nima baghaei 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just posted a reference, Time Magazine (:O) -nima baghaei 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that reference does not appear to be about the orgainzation in question, just a brief mention of the name in referring to somebody who works there. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TIME article says that "China UFO Research Center" broke up into "competing factions three years ago". It is not clear if the subject of article (Research Organization) is that described in TIME. I do not believe that any of the organizations are "run" by PRC government- tolerated perhaps and maybe including some former government officials/scientist in administrative roles. The yahoo email address and blank page for forum also makes me suspicious to the claims. Doesn't look notable. D Mac Con Uladh 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was and still is government sponsored, look at their homepage and its mother server, and they have all the data on their homepage, once again if you cannot read Chinese, stop jumping to conclusions and translate it: Google or babelfish (:O) -nima baghaei 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it, but I cannot access the server (timeout), but it'd probably be fun since Babel Fish translations usually come out weird. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried it using Google translation, it seems to work fine (:O), try Google -nima baghaei 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct translation link (:O) -nima baghaei 17:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and pondering, but for the moment my opinion from up top still stands, something seems fishy. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help cleanse that fishyness from your mind, but I dont understand what is causing the fishyness (:O( -nima baghaei 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't put my finger on it - I vaguely seem to remember a similar article on Wikipedia, on an organisation resembling this one, maybe even the same one - didn't seem notable back then. I know you have provided references, but am still not sure. If these guys are notable, it's still vague to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an official government agency/organization which has been noted in Time Magazine. I'm sure there are many more Chinese-language sources on this topic. If such sources (even Chinese-language ones) are added, I think that should put notability concerns to rest. I think this article should have been tagged with {{notability}} rather than deletion. -- Black Falcon 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why would this article be deleted??? It just introduces BUFO based on the organization's site( which is legit because it's with B.A.S.T.) -Ssjcloud 20:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User's only contributions are here. --Ideogram 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nima baghaei. CuriousGiselle 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User has less than fifty contributions, and the last were in December. --Ideogram 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that this is not a vote. The closing admin will weigh the arguments advanced by both sides, not simply count votes. Simply saying you agree with someone without adding to the discussion will have no effect. --Ideogram 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One ref does not make this org notable. Annoying commentary by nima baghaei and so many single-use socky /meaty accounts getting involved. Reinforces that this should be removed. - WeniWidiWiki 05:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it is an official Chinese government website and branch, take a look at the data if you have not, why do you say such negative comments (:O( ... love (:O) and their comments are their opinions and thoughts on the subject at hand, you have to actually look at the data on their homepage (if you need to translate it b/c you are unable to read chinese, may i suggest this ... link)and on the reference ... it is these data that should decide its case, not what others have said that may not seem agreeable with you (:O) -nima baghaei 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the the orginization is not well known does not mean its contributions to UFOlogy are unimportant. WIthin a month or so, with a little work, I think this could be a good article Almighty Rajah 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I just added more references! (:O) -nima baghaei 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep on its merits, irrelevant of who is the author or defenders. The organization is real, it is sufficiently independent to be worth an article of its own, governments do for various reasons investigate UFOs, though I personally do not se why. (I was asked to make a comment here, but I had earlier made a comment on the talk page of the article, so I do not consider it canvassing.) DGG 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your comments address Wikipedia policy on notability. --Ideogram 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an official Chinese government website and branch if yah have not gotten the chance, take a look at the data and references and if anyone is unable to read their homepage because they cannot read Chinese, may I suggest google translator link (:O) -nima baghaei 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no question that we should keep this. Any articles can be improved upon in time, if this is the issue that some people have. This Chinese organization is a real organization, and just some made-up name. Deleting it would be a like censorship. Why deprive wikipedia readers of valid information? --Pierre2012 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of the people saying keep seem to understand Wikipedia notability policy. --Ideogram 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how about yourself? Once again, it is an official Chinese government website and branch, take a look at the data and references if you have not and if anyone is unable to read their homepage because they cannot read Chinese, may I suggest google translator link (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I do believe I do understand Wikipedia notability policy. Why don't you try explaining Wikipedia notability policy here, for the benefit of all those voting keep? Quotes from Wikipedia:Notability would help. --Ideogram 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly friend (:O) ... Non-triviality - the website, the data on it, the references (note: it is a branch and it is branched on the government's Beijing website) ... Independence - I am not advertising, why would I advertise a government agency (they wont make any money off because its government sponsored) ... published works - References from Time Magazine, Shanghai Star, Xinhuanet, and People's Daily (just to name a few) ... Reliable - the links to the data have been provided in the article ... Verifiable Article - yup I have shown with all the links that it is verifiable (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to explain Wikipedia notabiliy policy to those voting keep, not to explain how this article satisfies it. In particular, why don't your rate how each of the keep votes addresses the primary notability criterion, namely, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". --Ideogram 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept and I have explained why, I am not sure what the issue is here (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is a lot of the keep voters are saying irrelevant things and so their votes are meaningless. --Ideogram 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought their input was wonderful, and many had good thought to their reasoning. Even those who said delete said irrelevant things yet I loved the input they gave. It just gave more thought to this debate (:O) Yet I never claimed the votes of the delete or keep from anyone to be meaningless ... on the contrary they all count in my eyes and people did a wonderful job helping contribute to Wikipedia, even if they are new and still learning (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you please use the preview button to avoid cluttering up the change history. --Ideogram 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reference list deleted, it belongs on the article.)

Sorry I didnt know it didnt not belong here, sorry bout that, but why was it removed right now and not earlier? (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I just got around to it. --Ideogram 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ok cool. Well if anyone wants to see seven references, please go here (:O) --nima baghaei (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Move to Chinese Wiki/Neutral for now, I say give it a chance to be expanded. The article has indeed established notability as per WP:NOTABILITY and it satisfies WP:VER. It has more than one third party source on the subject. The issue is not as much notability as it is content. I think the article deserves a chance to be expanded before it gets the chop. Also, it appears there is a lot of actions on this page in violation of WP:BITE, please keep it civil and don't bite the newcomers. After looking at these sources they are in Chinese, perhaps this article is better suited on the Chinese Wikipedia if that is an option, as it does have reputable outside sources, but they are not in English. Also, it lacks content and if it is to be kept on any Wiki it needs a mass expansion other than see the homepage.Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It doesn't meet the criteria for notability.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, Nima Baghaei, but this article just is not notable. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia. All of the 'sources' for the article are in Chinese, or question mark language as they would originally appear on Firefox. Also, the article barely has content. There are a few promising sections, but all the article says about them is to visit the main site (which could be used as a source for future reference), instead of giving information right there, like you're supposed to find in an encyclopedia. Nima Baghaei, you asked me to help...unfortunately I don't think it's in the way you wish, and I'm sorry. This article simply isn't notable. If it went under a miracle of a clean-up...maybe. But right now, there is just no way. Gan fon 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Nima_Baghaei has canvassed about 15 talk pages with links to this debate. In addition, his message slanders User:Ideogram. Quite frankly, this behavior is pretty disturbing and I think it should stop. Link – Lantoka (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my stance from up top to conditional week keep. I have just now given this thing some thought. This discussion had grown quite substantially over the past few days (evidence suggests that this is thanks to Nima's actions, but I guess if the article'd be placed on some List of UFO-related deletions then the situation'd be similar), and maybe there is something to it. My suggestion is to keep the article for now, however on conditions that Nima provides sources, be they Chinese or English, and expands the article so that it is something more than just a list of names and links. Lists to prose. Let's wait it out, give it a few months, and watch. If the article does not grow, let's come back to it in a few months and discuss it again. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Im in the minority with that choice, but why cant this article just be expanded. If its that well known and documented whats stopping someone writing more info about it. I have to say in the way it stands, its just a list of various pieces of data, but if someone could put some more meat on the bones it could be a worthy article. --PrincessBrat 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am assuming that references were added after the afd nom. I see references and as far as I know it passes wikipedias notability guidelines. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I made a snap decision and upon further review, I think it fails wikipedias notability guidelines. I looked at the sources in english and the references I found do not reinforce notability for me. [17] is about somebody who works there, but the article is not about the organization. [18] is the same story, the article is not about the organization in reference. This leads me to believe that most of the articles are probably mostly related to the UFO Phenomenon with a brief mention of this organization. I dont think that this meets notability standars because it is not the subject of the third party trivial sources.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Nima. Meets required guidelines. BUDSMR 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Washbourne

I don't see the notability in an unwikified article when the subject has less than fifty Google hits. I have no way to source what's there from on the web, except that he was generally in the military. YechielMan 07:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like an unremarkable career in the Army Corps of Engineers. No notability asserted beyond the Bronze Star, but that doesn't seem like enough to hang an article on. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a lot of verifiable material to work with, and the creator and contributors were not notified of the AfD. - WeniWidiWiki 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's why we have watchlists. Notifying the creator of the article is encouraged but not required, and failure to do so is not a reason to keep the article. -- Satori Son 13:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps verifiable, but not notable. ConDem^Talk 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:56Z

Antagonistic atheism

Blatant attempt to promote a new neoligism to advertise a book. Only 350 google hits most of which refer to the book [19] Sophia 08:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On morning GMT 20th Feb I moved the page back as it got moved by Alicewr to Militant atheism (which is now a redirect to Antagonistic atheism. On with the voting. Ttiotsw 08:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, 114 unique hits. Any salvagable information can be moved to a page on militant atheism, a well-established term. -Silence 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because Wikipedia is not a place for every sound bite of rhetorical propaganda that someone made up one day to get an advantage in a current controversy. Metamagician3000 09:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snalwibma 10:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologistic dicdef. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. At best merge with "Jeff Nall" whenever he becomes notable enough for entry. The guy has a good point to try and get more money though but we need more notable people to cite him on this. Ttiotsw 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next - larconic atheism? --Michael Johnson 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:N completely, as the only citation is to an unreliable source of the author's own work. While this may prove that the term has in fact been used by the author, that's not enough to demonstrate any objective acceptance of this term beyond the author. -Markeer 13:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One person's tendentious crusade. Laurence Boyce 17:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I would have supported redirecting to Jeff Nall if he actually had an article. -- Black Falcon 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Madhava 1947 (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:26Z

Leon S. Robertson

Tough call here. This man has produced a forest of literature, but doesn't seem to have the peer recognition that is typical of notable figures. He has maybe 1000 ghits that actually refer to him. I am concerned about a possible conflict of interest. The author of the article was User:Nanlee, and it says here[20] that Robertson now works at Nanlee research. Yes, I'm weird, but it does help to know these things. YechielMan 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we ought to err on the side of caution here. The person in question does pass seem to be notable as evidenced by his support for a Congressional candidate, being president of Nanlee Research, and the fact that Johns Hopkins University has a named professorship in Robertson's honor: "Leon Robertson Faculty Development Professor in Injury Prevention in the Department of International Health".[21] I will add some of these sources to the article. -- Black Falcon 18:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The inexperienced author of the article did not bring out the fact that in addition to having a chair named after him, he was visiting Professor at several universities, a member of the editorial board of at least one major journal, has published 147 articles in peer-reviewed journals, is on the editorial Board of BMJ and had a truly distinguished career in research administration. However, he never held a full professorship at a major university, which is what complicates the evaluation of his work, for we do not really have good standards for evaluating administrators. But he certainly qualifies. The article, however, will have to be rewritten, since it is a cut and paste copy of http://www.nanlee.net/. including the distinctive capitalization. It is possible that the organization will be willing to license the material under GFDK, but the article still will have to be written to be a more accurate representation of his accomplishments. DGG 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Dina. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:56Z

Death and Taxes

Was already deleted once (the afd), is now a contested prod. Fails to meet notability requirements per WP:MUSIC Vicarious 08:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable band - selling 5000 copies of a CD isn't particularly impressing. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 09:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn band, and note that the author has blanked the page, saying he/she was deleting the article. Does that count as an author-request speedy? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Benjamin Franklin. Oldelpaso 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Warschauer

Does not appear to be notable, the tone of the article is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't an essay space. (Prod was attempted, but removed). Cheers, Afluent Rider 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although this article is clearly causing some people an awful lot of amusement. From the edit history, it seems to be about a non-notable academic actually called Mark Warschauer (who is frequently an "associate aardvark", it seems), rather than the academic paper which is currently here. Regardless, neither paper nor academic (nor aardvark) should be here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, immaterial to an encyclopedia, author should try a scientific publication Alf photoman 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... ?! Delete as an absolute mess. Is this vandalism or just general mayhem? Neither the guy whose name is at the top of the page, nor the one whose abstract has appeared there, seem to be notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the present material. It is, as it says, the outline of a class presentation.

As for the subject of the article before it got vandalized, Associate Professors are not always notable. As judged by his actual bio at http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/markw/markw_biography.php, he does not yet seem to be, but it is not easy to tell, as he is a member of three different departments. Considering the history of the article, it should be recreated properly to see if N can be asserted, for it was just a stub before the library school students got hold of it. DGG 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Depending on the version you look at, it's either obvious WP:OR, or just an article about a non-notable assistant professor. I replaced the version that looks like an encyclopedia article, since the cut-and-paste research paper looks like recent vandalism (or possibly just a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is), not a real version of the article. Dave6 ^talk 08:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:27Z

Artin Penik

Person not notable enough. Nareklm 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Google results abound, and Turkish Wikipedia article implies potential notability, but it is poorly sourced (e.g. geocities). English news searches are also pretty thin. If notability could be established, I could potentially vote keep. --Dhartung | Talk 10:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There all Turkish sources, thats not good enough. Nareklm 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are sources, though as English Wikipedia it is definitely preferable if there are English ones. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For me the problem is reliable and non-trivial sources. There are plenty of sources that mention him, but either it's just a passing mention or the source itself does not seem reliable. However, I don't think non-English-language sources should be discarded. -- Black Falcon 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Penik committed suicide in 1982, web sources are a bit thin on the information, mostly making a reference to the event. However, that his death still gets mentioned in recent articles (see the citation I gave of Oran article dated 2006) shows the notability. The article is a stub and will need to be fleshed out by using print sources. However, the question at hand is notability. --Free smyrnan 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Mardavich 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, screaming delete after two days is not very helpful, but the author should be notified that either there are sources forthcoming or the article will be history soon due to WP:V Alf photoman 13:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Lexis-Nexis, it seems like there was a UPI article that mentioned him around the time of the claimed incident. I can't access it, though. There's a transcript of a BBC broadcast referencing him as well. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is he not notable? The man burned himself in the middle of the biggest square in Istanbul, for God's sake. There is a documentary that shows him in hospital. Google sources abound. He is often referred to in local media. --Free smyrnan 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What local media? Google sources are not the key. Artaxiad 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish local media, meaning newspapers. Any google search will show you that. But seeing that there was a call for English citations, I took the trouble of doing a 3 minute web search and added 3 English citations. Since the event occurred in 1982, before the advent of the web, web references are a bit thin on information, mostly just making a reference to his suicide. This article needs to be fleshed out by using print sources. But there is no question in my mind that there is no "notability" issue. --Free smyrnan 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the article in its current revision and re-consider accordingly. 5 sources have been added, only one in Turkish and that one by a Turkish-Armenian. One source I obtained through LexisNexis, an Associated Press article. Youtube video of Penik interview has also been linked in the External Links section (thx to Artaxiad for tagging it graphic, it really is). --Free smyrnan 13:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm satisfied now that it's been sourced. Keep and improve. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Normally I would say merge with Esenboga attack, as that is his only notoriety, but there is no Esenboga attack article, and it doesn't feel right to bury him in the ASALA article. --Bejnar 03:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems we have enough input to move for a decision. Do we need to wait further? And I would like to ask Artaxiad to also vote, seeing that he tried to withdraw the nomination, which implies a keep vote, but as that withdrawal did not go thru, his vote is absent currently from this discussion. --Free smyrnan 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is well-known in Turkey. Khoi khoi 09:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Grandmaster 11:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable at all. Four out of six sources in the article are also quite pov.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: burning oneself alive in public is a rare and notable statement. Furthermore, considering the limitations of language and age, it's well-sourced. Biruitorul 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:58Z

Michael Alan Frend

Autobiography, notability and does not cite its references or sources. Carlosguitar 19:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as pretty clear vanity pages. SubSeven 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 10:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no references = not verifiable not notable Alf photoman 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BIO Pea ceNT 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:59Z

Will Precious

Appears to be a vanity biographical article. Person is not notable. Article contains original research, attacks on other persons. 791.43 10:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (note: potentially negative and unsourced information was removed). No indication why this person is notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. However the fact that the nominator's second edit was to submit this to AfD is a huge concern, and seems to indicate an ulterior motive. - WeniWidiWiki 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Woohookitty as blanked by author and advertising. This AfD was never listed; I'll list in today's logs. --ais523 10:32, 19 February 2007 (U T C)

BnB International Cigars

Speedy Delete - Article started out as advert (hence name) COI user removed speedy multiple times from multiple people before this current suddenly appearing which is covered in better detail already in wiki. True intent of article still to advertise, hence the only link being to the shop in the title. The Kinslayer 11:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator repeatedly blanks the page, removes speedy tags and generally attempts to hide the true nature of the article through multiple changes. Check the history to see. The Kinslayer 11:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gamaliel as WP:COI and WP:NN. This debate was never listed; I'll list it in today's logs. --ais523 10:38, 19 February 2007 (U T C)

Alonzo Sebastian Blalock

Importance, notability Billy Hathorn 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:00Z

Tarlo

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

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

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

Unsourced, based on a "little known" video game; very likely a hoax. Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, so delete. Conscious 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is legit. I cannot speak for the creator of the page, because I don't know them, but it was a small, pretty poor computer game at a school in NSW, Australia. Raget 10:52, 19 February 2007 — Raget (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as original prodder, I can't find a thing on this. It's either a hoax or totally non-notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page only recently created, Authors may not have had time to complete page and cite any sources as of yet Thenewman 11:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. Conscious 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced and unverifyable hoax - Peripitus (Talk) 11:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either not notable or a hoax. A Google search for Tarlo "Dubbo College" brings up one result (a forum: [22]). No sources cited. Hut 8.5 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should never have made it to AfD - it was a prime candidate for {{db-nonsense}}. - WeniWidiWiki 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Been there, tried that, got declined. I personally agree though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have made some changes based on the one and only reference online, and the nature of the information has been made clear by the first part of the articlePoker me 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless acceptable references can be found by the end of this debate. WMMartin 10:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added even more references. More information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.23.232 (talk • contribs). — 220.233.23.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Please have over what constitutes a reliable source here. You'll find that blogs, hand-drawn illustrations, and personal websites are not listed as reliable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The source is only proving that there is a book, the same is said about the illustration. The sources are not providing information, just examples. Perhaps they should become external links.Poker me 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Masjid As-Sabur. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:28Z

Masjid as sabur

This is a duplicate article and the name is spelled wrong. As its been replaced this article is nolonger needed Da'oud Nkrumah 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Change to redirect to Masjid As-Sabur, the correct spelling. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per FisherQueen as probable alternate/misspelling. SkierRMH 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD was never listed. I'll list it in today's logs. --ais523 10:40, 19 February 2007 (U T C)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:30Z

Garou Tribes (Werewolf:The Apocalypse)

Essentially, this is pure gamecruft of a {{inuniverse}} style. No assertion of real world significance, merely a plot summary and/or a game guide. Zero sources whatsoever. Mainly original research. MER-C 11:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nominator. Moreover, it seems to be lifted from [23]. Delete. Also consider deleting images incorrectly marked as logos. Conscious 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you please specify how this is "lifted" from that website (maybe some quoted text)? I checked a couple of sentences and there doesn't seem to be any copyvio. Thanks, Black Falcon 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nareklm 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep. There's an argument to be made for notability of the entire White Wolf game series clumped under the title World of Darkness if for no other reason because one of the elements of that game was the source material for the Fox Television/Aaron Spelling-produced TV series Kindred: The Embraced. However, none of that matters for this article as copyvio trumps all other considerations. -Markeer 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you have anything to back up a copxvio claim ? I can't see any information that is beyond the usual terms of a summary or description.Heinrich k 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the above "lifted" comment at face value to be honest, I haven't looked through in detail, will do so now. (tempus fugit) >> doesn't seem to be an exact matchup, my apologies for not investigating before my earlier comment. Changed my opinion to a weak keep above, but the article needs work, most notably to assert notability. Editor below makes a specious argument regarding notability to those who wish to know more about the game world, which to me is only true if there were not several other websites that provide similar information. My Keep was based on notability of the subject matter as source material for numerous fictional offshoots, and would suggest the article be tightened up and better cited. -Markeer 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while there are fan pages around, wikipedia should host information, since the information is consense of at least all those authors that added to the page. Disagreements are discussed on the discussion page. Fanpages often host wrong or non-objectiv information. As for lifted information: The tribes represent archtypes therefore all serious pages about the tribes will tell the same. But that's the same with articles about movies or TV shows, their information is also always found on other pages, too. As for notability, tribes are a huge aspect in the complex game world. To properly describe the game a desccription of the tribes is vital. Adding the info into the main article would decrease readability. That's why the article should be kept.Heinrich k 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The World of Darkness RPG settings are reasonably notable on their own, describing the basics of what is a fairly major component in making a character of the RPG and a definitive factor in the world is highly reasonable. I'm not saying this article is well done, or that there isn't some better way to do it, but pending some good argument to merge, it's a keep. Individual articles on the tribes are another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - The notablility of the article could be argued about, but there are different point of view to the topic. While the information in the article might not be of notable intrest to most humans on earth, there are individuals that are intrested in learning the basics about the game and they should be able to find reliable information at wikipedia. Just as there are articles about characters of TV series and movies and Star Trek technology or other fictional subjects. The article's information is vital for those who want to increase their understanding of the Werewolf: The Apocalypse game. Sources (at least on inconclusive information) arn't currently added in the main article but can be found in the discussion page. In addition the information in the article is a combined from various out-of-print books, so the informations availability is limited, and therefore should be available in wikipedia. In addition the article's introduction and title clearly marks the article's information as part of a fictional game scenario, so there is no need to find fault with the article's tone. The arcticle is in fact a very neutral text about a fictional topic, marked as clearly fictional. If necessary source information will be added over time. While it might be right, that article is currently lacking of real world relations, the article is part the necessary information about the Werewolf: The Apocalypse game, and moving all information back into the main article would greatly disimprove readability. In addition all information was moved together into this article from seperate articles for better maintenance, so the article is vital target of many redirects. Heinrich k 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph, on how the game benefits of the existence of tribes and what themes the tribes add to the game. Therefore the article has now real world connection. Will detail this further in the future. In addition, some source information to the various tribes was added. I'll increase this source information in the future, too. Heinrich k 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of these seem to have their own articles, but it seems reasonable to have an article listing them all with a summary for quick comparison. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per copyvio only; would gladly support recreation with legally used text (and a better fit with Wikipedia style). The Garou game universe is complex enough that, if we're going to cover it at all, a page like this is warranted. Not much different from a character listing for a game with a large cast. ShaleZero 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of copyvio given; changing to keep per stated reasons. ShaleZero 21:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "World of Darkness" fictional universes are notable of their own and this article supplements the main WoD articles. I do agree that it should be better sourced (and that's what {{unreferenced}} is for), however it is not original research (see the source at the bottom of the article). -- Black Falcon 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Garou tribes are a rather notable part of a rather notable game franchise and are frequently discussed in the games; all remaining objections (esp. lack of in-universe/rl separation) are a matter of cleanup, not deletion. At worst, this can be split, merged, fluffied and/or deloused. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per norm. Jtrainor 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article being written in an in-universe style is NOT a reason for deletion, and neither is "cruft" of any sort. I don't imagine that finding sources would be hard... There've been quite a few reviews from notable RPG sites which would be applicable here. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier Front

Non-notable, unreleased computer game. Unsourced, and seems rather "crystal ball" to me. Philippe Beaudette 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified and crystal ball. --RaiderAspect 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable: google search for "soldier front" game yields hits only from developer website, free download websites, and user-generated review sites. Natalie 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to assert how it meets either WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE --Gwern (contribs) 05:44 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to check bullet number 1 again under WP:SOFTWARE as this is one of the new products under the ijji game portal. While that may not sound important on its own, ijji is the North American version of the HANGAME portal, a major gaming website in East Asia. Still choosing to delete this article could violate some worldwide view issues. PinoyGenius 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give people time to go through the game. Its out now and it would only be a matter of time before more information and more sources appear. Article needs time to be completed, give the article time. Terminator50 23:16, 14 Febuary 2007 (UTC)
Delete Somehow there always seems to be an argument saying we should keep bad articles because they may someday be good/verifiable/notable, etc. Meet the standards for a verifiable and notable article now, or wait and create the article later. It will be a total waste of people's time if they put in the effort to "perfect" an article only to see it deleted in a few months because it never really was notable to begin with. zadignose 08:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would argue the opposite. If the game turns out to be huge then people will have to start completely fresh with this article. Having never heard of the game I can't claim this to be the case but I believe that there should be a way to prolong deletion if it is believed that an article only needs time. Olleicua 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this game is still in development, open beta, there's no way I or anyone else for that matter could possibly provide as much information currently. Upon further research and development of this game by it's creators, I will be able to provide any missing information currently shown under the article. As of now, none of these Wikipedia users have any authority to even be considering deleting my entry. Philanthropy 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy, There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. They belong to us all. As such, they have to adhere to the criteria for inclusion. This article seems to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Notability standards. When the game comes out, you can recreate the article as long as it is notable, well-sourced, and not original research. Regards, Fundamental Dan 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above statement. Fundamental Dan 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Also notice that this user's contributions up until this article were here [24] and simply adding "owned by stygian", with accompanying website, to some articles. Fundamental Dan 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources-failig WP:V, it needs major cleanup, wikifying and theres not even been a template added saying its a future game or software, in my opinion not worth the trouble.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Per nom. --Bryson 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game just needs time to develop popularity, then all the info will come flowing in. Also about the crystal ball thing, the game has been confirmed and will open today and all of the info on the wikipage is on the website. Whats so unverified about it? Scorcher117 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced It's ok to have an article about an upcoming game, but only if the article is based on referenced, verifiable, independently published facts and it demonstrates a certain level of notability for inclusion. This article, though, appears to have no independent references and fails to demonstrate the game is at all notable. Delete unless proper sources can be provided for verification and notability. Dugwiki 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing turns up in Google News or other news article searches. If it were notable, the news media would have mentioned it somewhere. --Aude (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no notable sources about the game Gunster but we still have the article. Scorcher117 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You should give the game some time before deciding if the article should be deleted or not. Check out the release date, it's barely 1 day. Be patient and give some time. OhanaUnited 22:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have tried to edit this article more to make it more readable and "wiki" like but I don't usually edit articles and don't know more of the code per say. The article however is legit and is pertaining to a game that was just released. Its following is a couple thousand and growing so given time the article should grow. It is unreferenced however because all the information is on either the game's site itself or found by playing the game. Socerhed 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game is fairly new, give it some time. Ambrosia- 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reference my comment above as to why this article should remain since it is a product of the ijji gaming portal website. Additionally, the game has been out for several days now and, with the number of users fluctuating between 2500 and 3000, there has been ample opportunity to test the game out and render all crystal ball concerns obsolete. Furthermore, the fact that there have been no further recommendations for deletion since the release of the game should provide more evidence to keep this article. It is important to preserve the "history" of this game as it is occurring and fresh in its players' minds rather than trying to write about it after the fact. Finally, how someone can recommend the deletion of an article pertaining to a topic within 24 hours of its release is beyond me.--PinoyGenius 19:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metacomment: The game was apparently released (as open beta) after the nomination, so many of the "delete" comments saying "crystal ball" or "unreleased" seem to be outdated already. I encourage those who already commented above to update their stance (possibly still recommending delete for reasons other than "crystal ball"). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:21Z

Keep. The article has been significantly improved (including sources) since the AfD was placed (see [25]). Also, I don't find it very appropriate to nominate a speedy-able article for deletion 7 minutes after its creation. I appreciate the work new-page watchers do, but non-speedyable articles can be added to one's Watchlist or bookmarked. -- Black Falcon 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is still no evidence of multiple non-trivial third party sources. There also seems to be a WP:COI and a fair bit of WP:ILIKEIT. --RaiderAspect 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A new game that does exist and has now been released and has gained sourcing since first being put on the chop block shows more of a new article being formed than an article beyond hope of meeting wikipedia standards. Bbagot 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I commented above. Hasn't established notability. It is common for fans, or those in favor of promoting a new product in beta, to insist that an article should stand without establishing notability, or providing independent third party references. You may like the game, but anyone can announce a beta test and get some folks to download something for free. That doesn't make it a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article.zadignose 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I am saying again as well, the same goes for the articles Gunz and Gunster but we still had those articles during their open betas. Scorcher117 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is true, we even have a Ragnarok Online 2 article and it isn't out either.68.197.250.68 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that there are other articles which may not establish notablity DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE KEPT. It means that the other articles that don't establish notability should be deleted. --RaiderAspect 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:32Z

Jascha Silberstein

No claim of notability, no references. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Philippe Beaudette 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N Jeepday 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete So he was a teacher and occasional performer. Does that mean he meets biography guidelines? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. --Gwern (contribs) 05:59 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a teacher and performer is not enough for WP:BLP. Fundamental Dan 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Teacher and occasional performer" seems unfair. The article actually states that he was principal cellist in the orchestra of the Metropolitan Opera for thirty years. I have tried to fix the article up a bit and put that already in the beginning. I get over 13,000 hits on Google, many for still available or re-issued recordings. Searching Amazon[26] also finds some CDs. Here[27] is a review of a video of a 1980 performance of Puccini's Manon Lescaut, issued by Deutsche Grammophon, where the reviewer states that "Cellist Jascha Silberstein's solos also give particular pleasure." An archive search[28] of Google News get 24 hits. Most of these are pay-per-view or subscription sites which I can't access, but (for instance) a viewable snippet of some review from the Washington Post says "A principal attraction of those festivals has always been Jascha Silberstein, the first cellist of the Metropolitan Opera, a master of all that is romantic ..." The website of the Servais Society (Adrien-François Servais was a famous 19th c. Belgian cellist) has a news item saying that "In the series Jascha Silberstein - Live Performances the label Kurakichi Studio releases previously unpublished recordings of this famous cellist."[29] Apparently he is well-known among fans of cello music and important enough to have his recordings re-issued in a special series (although he seems to be personally involved in that). I don't know if this is enough to show notability. (I can't find any actual biography of Silberstein except on the site where his live performance recordings are sold, which is arguably not entirely independent of him, but I suspect one might find more in dead-tree publications.) Pharamond 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See if Wikipedia:Notability (music) can be any help. I am willing to be convinved, but I am not sure if being a performer of other's music and being mentioned a few times in various publications 'cuts it'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bogus nomination (a) has asserted claim for notability as the principal cellist in the orchestra. and (b) lack of references in not a reason for AfD; it should be tagged for cleanup etc. --Kevin Murray 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain to me why being a 'principal cellist in the orchestra' is enough to be notable. On a sidenote, the only article that links to him (as of this moment) is Festival of Neglected Romantic Music - and I don't really see what makes that event notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharamond. Seems notable enough in his field for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he is so notable because of his relationship with the Met Opera, shouldn't he be mentioned at least in passing in the Met article, as are numerous conductors, singers, etc.? Further, since he's now retired (as of 1996), I kind of doubt he will become any more notable. Therefore, where does the article have to go from where it is now? (On a side note, was he the principal cellist for all thirty years?) Cedlaod 02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why should Jim Morrison have an article and not Jascha Silberstein? 63.228.63.253 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because Jim Morrison is about a hundred times more popular then Jascha Silberstain?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe all the records Jim Morrison has collaborated on/sold? Was that a serious question? Cedlaod 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Not a computer game or a television character, but an accomplished musician. 63.228.63.253 13:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Silberstein to Jim Morrison is silly and not really doing his case any good. (Was that even a serious comment?) I guess one could compare Jim Morrison to a cellist superstar like Jacqueline du Pré. But there seems to be a point in Wikipedia having a bias for contemporary popular music (in the sense of pop, rock and related genres) as opposed to classical music. A more relevant comparison would perhaps be to the huge number of obscure groups or people included in categories like Category:Black metal musical groups or Category:Heavy metal drummers. Heavy metal is certainly significant as a genre, as are its superstars (its Morrisons or du Prés, if you will), like Metallica or Motorhead or the members of those groups, but with all the subgenres (black/death/thrash/doom etc. etc.) and all regionally popular groups, I wonder if most of the metal bands and musicians on Wikipedia really compare that favourably to a musician who has played first cello for three decades in the (presumably often recorded) orchestra of one of the most famous opera houses in the world. Pharamond 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Popular music(ians) cruft is another area in need of desperate pruning.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no mention of any cellists in Metropolitan Opera, and apparently not even all of its conductors are notable enough to be listed or have an article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:31Z
Strong Keep. The article on the Opera, like that for most musical organizations, lists the conductors and some of the principal singers. We don't seem to have standards for orchestral musicians, but i think any of the regular members of any of the major professional orchestras is about comparable to a regular long term member of a professional football team. The leader of a section is the senior player of the group, and generally also a well known soloist on his instrument, as is Silberstein. The opera orchestra gives concerts of its own & tours on its own account apart from the opera company. It's hard to give numbers, but I think it would be safe to say that the leader of a section in a major orchestra must be among the 20 best players of the instrument. Do the 20 best bass players in popular musics have articles? Sure they do. But not a single one is known to me, by name or by music. Notability in the field is notability, or else we will all be deleting each other's genres. Pharamond sees it right.

As another comparison, think of it as members of the section being like full professors, and the principals being chairmen. Orchestral musicians are appointed in similar ways, by judgement of their peers--in classical music, usually by the even more demanding judgment by blind audition. DGG 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:01Z

Dave davies seo

Fails notability. Looks like self promotion. Watchsmart 11:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Does appear to be self promotional. Not seeing any relevant notability per WP:BIO. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ineffective SEO spam masquerading as an article. (All our links are nofollow, folks.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - What is is exactly that you'd like? I would like to add in all the larger SEO notables. I've only gotten as far as Jim Hedger as I'm in the finishing rounds of working on the SitePoint book and haven't had time but there are a ton more SEO consultants who are highly notable and I want to see the majority added (Jill Whalen, Bill Slawski, Rand Fishkin, etc.) . And yes, I know the links are nofollow. As a link building method, well ... there are definitely easier ways to get links than this. :)

I don't really think that Davies (and Hedger, also) meets notability requirements. The page on Rand Fishkin is cheesy, and his meeting of notability standards is the result, perhaps, of a lot of self promotion.... but at least he has been the subject of _one_ non-trivial magazine article. I don't see your guys meeting any of the suggested criterion. Do you? Watchsmart 04:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His visible notability seems to be restricted to being the updater of one technical manual.DGG 04:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient independent sources of info to produce an encyclopedic article at this time. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 09:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:34Z

Kid Beyond (2nd nomination)

Non-notable "singer, beat boxer and live looper" (WP:MUSIC). Has released one CD on a non-major label (falls a bit short of "Has released two or more albums on a major label"). No published sources. Was deleted, apparently recreated, and then kept in a confused, multi-article nomination which had a lot of anons and new accounts. Savidan 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable singer, as the nominator showed. YechielMan 05:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity and/or promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. --Nlu (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Agree vanity. --Bryson 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - I've added multiple published sources, and can certainly add plenty more if it would be helpful (didn't want to go overboard, though!). JavaTenor 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more reliable sources which don't copy each other, don't go overboard. Leap overboard with a plastic tuna under each arm, whilst dressed as a pirate and singing about rum. The crux of the matter is that these sources are very necessary to build an article since KB hasn't released albums from a major label. I'm personally satisfied with the ones already in, but you can't hurt the article or its chances of staying by establishing KB's notability. QuagmireDog 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the sources provided by JavaTenor, the subject is definitely noteworthy. RFerreira 06:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. One self-released (or micro-indie) EP and a youtube video with 15K views isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-trivial SF Chronicle and Keyboard magazines about the individual (and other sources). There is multiple, reliable, non-trivial coverage, despite opinions about musical accomplishments (or lack thereof) to date. -- Black Falcon 18:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --MacRusgail 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage by multiple articles is enough to establish notability.-- danntm ^T _C 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established with the SF Chronicle and Keyboard links. Further to that, his IMDB page lists several credits as a voice actor, including Max in Sam & Max Season One, the sequel to Sam & Max that goodness knows how many gamers have been waiting for with clenched fists for years, and that Wii owners badgered Nintendo into trying to license the game for the system. He was also featured on Guitar Hero (in what capacity I intend to find out) and several karaoke games in a series (as a singer and as a backing singer). If verifiable, his voice acting and singing work in videogames deserves a section of its own. QuagmireDog 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His involvement with Guitar Hero is listed as 'singer' according to the IMDB page, judging by the way the songs are labelled 'as made famous by' during Guitar Hero, I'm assuming KB and the other singers listed are the ones who actually cover the songs between them. Not a stellar endorsement, but on the other hand he's been employed as a singer in a game where music is the name of the game. Karaoke Revolution is the game series he's also creditted with singing on. QuagmireDog 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through ^ the videogame work, all the references I found lead back to the subject's own web page, even the stuff from Moby Games. Without reliable sources it's not relevant in the discussion and just muddies the waters. QuagmireDog 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has sufficient sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The San Fransisco Chronicle is just a human interest piece in his local newspaper and the keyboard thing is basically online only. Savidan 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence for your assertion that Keyboard Magazine is "basically online only", especially given that their website offers subscriptions.JavaTenor 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple published works on him. Even National Public Radio profiled him. We might might not like this person, but there is nothing about the multiple sources written about him that fall under the increasingly very strict WP:BIO's definitions of "trivial," i.e. a passing mention or directory listing. --Oakshade 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already voted Keep above the relisting, so there may be no need to cast the vote again, but I've added a few more published sources.JavaTenor 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously given NPR story. -MrFizyx 00:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy (SoCal)

Does not seem to meet notability criteria in WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 04:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Comment if the article is not deleted, it should be moved to a more appropriate title. i kan reed 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is sometimes hard to gauge, but the two excuses for references are not enough. YechielMan 05:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to admit, I am a newbie with Wikipedia. I was going to move the page into the band format (when I figured out how to do that). In terms of Notability, Blonde Vinyl Records is considered by some to be a pre-cursor to the much more-successful Tooth And Nail Records because it released avant-garde CCM, which was quite unusual at the time, and pushed the envelope of what Christian Rock could be. Later, another Avant Garde label, Flying Tart, which also released a track from Sixpence None The Richer on a Christmas Compilation before they were a cross-over success, released records by the band Fluffy. Fluffy's records were released through national distriubtion channels (for the CCM market) and the recorded works span a period of six years. The source for a majority of the information on the article comes from CD's that I own, and I guess I just don't know how to source that. I exchanged two brief correspondances with Chris Colbert many years ago and that is my only affiliation with the band Octillion 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that subject meets any of the notability criteria of WP:BAND. Also some fairly significant WP:NOR issues. -- Satori Son 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academy scream

No references, does not assert notability Croctotheface 09:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep article was only created four hours ago, give the initial editor some time to show notability. Possibly interesting filmcruft. ^Khukri 10:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google hits I'm getting (admittedly I didn't check every single one) for "Howie scream" are related to Howard Dean. If an editor shows notability and adds reliable sources before the AfD runs its course, then I'd be in favor of keeping. I think this is a potential candidate for speedy deletion, actually, because it does not make reference to any sources and does not assert that it is not merely an OR concept made by one editor who is seeking to use WP to publicize it. Croctotheface 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Google search for "Academy scream" returns about 10 results related to this scream; however, they are all forum posts. Pquijal 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:NEO, WP:OR. Otto4711 12:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for the same reason as Khukri. --Djsasso 17:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep does not apply to this nomination. Someone other than the nominator has recommended deletion, the nomination is not vandalism or disruption, the nominator is not banned and the article is not a policy or guideline. Otto4711 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then...either way it works out to the same thing. --Djsasso 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lol I think this article should be given a chance. When I saw this up for AfD I had a feeling I knew what "Academy Scream" was referring to, sure enough it *is* referring to that soundbite :P. I would've added that the soundbite is also featured in every Nutri-Grain cereal ad featured here in Australia plus it's also featured in one of the Star Wars films - although some supporting evidence should be supplied to back up the claims I suppose. --Rambutaan 06:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh some pages with other people looking for it: 1. http://disruption.ca/archives/sci-fi-scream/ 2. http://whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/588155.html . Apparently it's featured in the following media: Serial Mom (1994), Natural Born Killers (1994), Aaahh!!! Real Monsters (1994) - Cartoon, Basketball Diaries, The (1995), Broken Arrow (1996), Face/Off (1997), Star Wars: Dark Forces (1997) - Game, StarCraft (1998) - Game, Medallion, The (2003), Wonder Showzen (2005) also the Australian NutriGrain ads plus the Doom movie trailer at the end.

I mean, people looking for it on a few internet forums doesn't mean that the topic is notable. As WP:N says, "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works." So far, I do not see the kind of discussion in secondary sources necessary for the article to remain in WP. The Wilhelm scream is notable because it has been discussed in such sources. My concern is that this article is an attempt to draw attention to what the article's author considers an interesting topic, which is not the same as notability Croctotheface 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. There was even a RefDesk question (here...) --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metacomment: The "speedy keep" !votes above are obsolete now that it's not "only 4 hours since article creation"; and whatever newbie-biting damage occured has already been done. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:51Z

Delete I'm willing to assume good faith enough to accept this is probably a known industry term in sound editing, but lacking verifiable sources demonstrating that such is the case, this article needs to go. -Markeer 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually isn't a "known industry term". Nobody knows if the industry has a name for this particular popular effect or not; if it did somebody would probably have found a source by now. The name "Academy scream" is made up by people who know it mainly from the videogame. --Dhartung | Talk 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a letter to Blizzard Entertainment for any information they may have concerning the sound effect. Pquijal 04:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I understand the rationale behind the speedy keeps above, but it has now been more than ten days and no sources have been provided. RFerreira 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pequin

Non notable author, fails WP:BIO. Among the 45 distinct Google hits[30], the only very small claim to fame is that he has collaborated on the "True Porn 2" comics anthology (published by Alternative Comics (publisher)), but apart from having his name listed as one of the contributors on some websites, he doesn't seem to have received any attention for this or any other comic. Fram 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unsourced, and no evidence of importance or significance – Qxz 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pequin here. I didn't create the original article about me but I thought I'd try to argue my case for just a second. First off, as opposed to the claim above, I was not only listed as a contributor for True Porn 2 but was reviewed, albeit briefly, for my piece here: http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_12.29.05/theend/lovebites.php

Additionally, I've just recently been nominated for a Shuster Award for Canadian Webcomics, which can be seen here: http://joeshusterawards.com/story.asp?storyID=78

I also have done illustration work for Somethingawful.com as seen here: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/electric-heart-true.php

I'd also like to point out that the main reason I assume I was wiki'd in the first place was not for my short True Porn 2 piece but for my autobio comic at http://www.ryanpeq.com which I've been updating for close to three years. Lastly, I do play an at least slightly significant role in the autobio webcomics community with my hosting of the Journal Comic Jam.

Thanks for you input. For those not following links, I just want to say that the Shuster Award nomination is a category populated both by the judges and the readers, and has (if I count correctly) over eigthy nominations. Fram 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - NYC JD (make a motion) 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:02Z

Terence James O'Dwyer

Contested WP:PROD, original reason is here, no vote. Chick Bowen 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source verifies that O'Dwyer is a director of Metal Storm, but I don't see the kind of independent writing about him that would make him notable per WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the prod (lack of notability given as the reason), I have expanded on the notability of the subject, and provided sources. He is a director or chairman of a number of public Australian companies: Metal Storm, Bendigo Bank, Brumby's Bakeries and MFS Limited. John Vandenberg 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now seems to have more than adequate sourcing. --Eastmain 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a guy doing his job. --Peta 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Metal Storm caused quite a stir in Australia, a revolutionary breakthrough that was shunned because it was to do with firearms by the AU government that went offshore and is now costing us billions in development costs for a product we'd have gotten dirt cheap if we kept it local. Very significant. His role in Bendigo Bank, another very Australian significant feature would make him noteworthy furthermore. Definite keep here. Jachin 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough for mine and the article has sources. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is a chairman or director of several major companies in Australia, and this article is becoming well sourced. I'm also concerned that it only took four hours to go from a PROD to a nomination of AfD, in spite of the fact the article was in the process of being improved. --Greatwalk 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but recommend creating a new article Fencing in Mexico and merging this to it (or equivalently, rescope rename this one). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:36Z

Federacion Mexicana de Esgrima

Appears to be a non-notable fencing organization. About 1000 ghits. Some bad signs: there are no significant incoming or outgoing links, and there's no interwiki with Espanol. If it's not deleted, consider moving to "Mexican Fencing Federation," the English name. YechielMan 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Creating outgoing links just requires a bit of formatting, sources would be nice but I think the subject is probably important enough for an article. No opinion on the need for a move – Qxz 21:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 12:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it merits an article as a national sports federation. I agree that the move may be in order, possibly combined with rescoping the article to something broader like Fencing in Mexico. Conscious 12:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as national sports federation per above and move to Mexican Fencing Federation per nom. Lack of incoming links can be corrected by editing "Sports in Mexico" or Fencing. -- Black Falcon 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Mexican Fencing Federation" does not appear to be a common way to refer to this association. "Fencing in Mexico" would be a good idea if the rescoping can occur, but if the article remains about the association, this name appears to be the more common one. GassyGuy 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right (see [31]). However, "Mexican Fencing Federation" is just the direct translation of the organisation's name. "Fencing in Mexico" would be nice, but it would require refocusing, as you have noted. I think it might be alright to leave the page at this title, but the English translation should be noted in the article (I will add it momentarily). -- Black Falcon 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:37Z

Tracy Rice

Appears autobiographical and is not notable, failing WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO Selket ^Talk 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have combined the singer and her albums. Also nominated are:
- Truth (album, Tracy Rice) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Out of the Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, fails WP:MUSIC after extensive searching, one reliable source[32], all others just appearance listings or promotional. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is one reliable source not enough? On the other hand, if it's autobiographical, that's not good. Weak delete – Qxz 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator was Micahsheppa (talk · contribs), and the article says that Micah Sheppard is Rice's civil partner. That's clear WP:COI, and in the case of questionable notability, tips the balance for me. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Friends, I am her manager and her wife. I believe the article (not autobiographical) is sufficiently neutral for inclusion, regardless. I've added a few links to help with notability --micahsheppa | talk 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far to much unverifiable material, borderline notability and COI. When or if this person becomes more notable some one who doesn't live with here will create an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly common for artists to marry their managers. I consider a fan-generated page less reliable than an industry-generated one. If you will specify which material in particular needs to be verified, I will attempt to clarify. --micahsheppa | talk 12:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A manager as well as a spouse has a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a music press-release service, and "industry generated" biographies are inherently biased -- they violate the core policies of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my fatal flaw is honesty, then. Delete away.--micahsheppa | talk 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete b/c no secondary sources - NYC JD (make a motion) 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ashen

Non notable comedian. Speedy was denied, I can see no assertion of notability within the article. Delete unless notability can be established. J Milburn 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There are certainly notable YouTube "celebrities" nowadays. I have no idea, however, if Dr. Ashen is one of them. Still, since he is purported to be a reviewer for gizmodo, I think someone should check into the issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve for clarity and expand. » K i G O E | talk 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve I also agree on expand It needs more links and a picture of Dr. Ashen. Seb2net 13:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neither of the people claiming this should be kept have provided any proof that this person meets our inclusion criteria, and, as such, the article should still be deleted, no matter how many people say it should be kept. This is especially true when one of the comments is from such a new account and basically just copying what the other said anyway. J Milburn 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO, and article does not provide citations to reliable, third-party published sources as required by WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 13:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Smargiassi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - NYC JD (make a motion) 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernumerary actor

This article is problematic for two reasons.

Major parts of it appear to be original research.
The notability of the concept is in doubt; I found less than 100 nonwiki ghits with quotes.

It may be possible to merge and redirect the bare bones of this article to supernumerary, where it is mentioned, or to another target. YechielMan 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, it seems to me that some sort of sanity should be enforced between supernumerary actor, bit part, supporting actor, extra (actor), and the nonexistent acting corollary to walk-on. There seem to be minor differences in terminology between the theatre, opera, and film and TV, not to mention UK/US/non-English issues. --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the AfD tag was removed by User:Fvarisco I have replaced it. Jeepday 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment review of Special:Contributions/Fvarisco leads to consideration of WP:SPA

Delete the article is unreferenced to support it's content so fails both WP:N and WP:V by this omision. It contains several external links in the body of the article that do not support that assertions of the article but rather seem to be spam in violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Jeepday 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extra (actor) or, perhaps better yet, merge into the latter. Planetneutral 04:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is to or, perhaps merge into an actor category. Article useful in research while writing book. Thanks. User:[email protected]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 12:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. As is, there are decent references for the terms existance and use in opera at least. I'd like to see more in-line footnoting of course. -Markeer 13:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand This is quite a specialized term and could be expanded and cleaned up. He does cite some good newspaper articles.User:[email protected]
Comment The discussion on the AFD and the article are full of contributions by Single Purpose Accounts, I attempted to validate that the reference that are used to support the article. While I did find that some of the books have been published I was unable to validate that "Supernumerary" was used in any context in the reference. My research did seem to show that the term is used as described. Jeepday 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but of the two "votes" since it was relisted I know that I at least am not a single purpose account (and have the 1000 entries in my edit history to demonstrate that). User:[email protected] had already "voted" before the relisting and now again since, but not like s/he was hiding that fact. The other people who have commented (Dhartung, Planetneutral, YechielMan) all have long edit summaries. What are these single purpose accounts that you're talking about? I can only see the one, and the "Username" in e-mail form pretty much let everyone know that. -Markeer 11:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single Purpose Accounts voting here and/or editing the article

Special:Contributions/Fvarisco

Special:Contributions/66.167.233.91 aka User:[email protected]

Special:Contributions/72.83.227.251

Special:Contributions/72.83.86.216

Signed Jeepday 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may notice that all the "references" on the article are added by one of these Single Purpose Accounts, compare Edit 09:27, 16 February 2007 72.83.227.251 to edit 07:37, 16 February 2007 SmackBot You may also note that another single purpose account removed the AFD tag (I replaced it later). User:Markeer is the only non SPA voting keep. Redirect and/or Merge seems to be the most popular non-SPA vote (I voted delete, but would support merge and redirect, I placed merge tags appropriately yesterday) Jeepday 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, I did in fact fail to notice User:Fvarisco (apologies) but for the others, I should mention that IP addresses are not Single Purpose Accounts, only user accounts can be (by definition). Noting the date tags of the edits by those addresses, I notice they are not concurrent, so my best guess is an editor whose system pulls different addresses from a server (extremely common). Please assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers. As for consensus on this AfD, I'm not emotionally attached to the page. The closing admin will make the final decision based on the discussion here, of course. -Markeer 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs inline refs, but the refs it does have satisfy notability. - Peregrine Fisher 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supertuner

Reads somewhat like an ad. Both of the references come from within the Pioneer Corporation; if good external references can be found, I'd be willing to keep. YechielMan 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the only date it mentions is the 1976, for an Ad I would expect more about what it does now not the historical side of it. Doesn't meet WP:NOTE but then for an electronics fanatic it could be the holy grail of tuners. ^{Khukri -} 09:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. James086 ^Talk 11:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources indicating notability, but there are a lot of ads for the "Supertuner III" which I presume is a later model. Still, I doubt it's verifiable. I'm not 100% sure though so I would be more than willing to change my !vote if sources arise. James086 ^Talk 11:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Google evidence shows that it gets frequent 1-line mentions in popular US culture in the 1970s (try "Supertuner 8-track") and classic car enthusiasts are still trading them (see eBay). But where are the non-trivial sources to support this as a separate article?? So I say merge to Car audio. Mereda 08:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 12:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is questionable and seems like a promo piece. - WeniWidiWiki 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:03Z

Decapitation (cricket)

This is not a recognised term in the sport of cricket. A single journalist at the Sydney Morning Herald has written it into a couple of stories.[33] The so-called strategy could equally be applied to just about any team sport. —Moondyne 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator —Moondyne 12:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- —Moondyne 12:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... but it's hilarious. — RJH (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO Watched a lot of cricket and have never heard it used before as a common term. Recurring dreams 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO. I'm a huge cricket fan. This (targeting the opposition captain) is a well know tactic but I have never heard this word used in the context suggested by this article. (The article is wrong anyway to suggest that this tactic was invented by the Australians targeting Graeme Smith in 2005/6. The West Indies used to do this all the time in their pomp eg Courtney Walsh targeting Mike Atherton on the 1993/4 England tour to WI). Jules1975 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arcata High School

This page may not be relevant under Wikipedia's notability standards. Remember that secondary schools are not inherenty notable, and this article fails to prove relevance. DukeOfSquirrels 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references/sources. Also, I find no strong evidence of a notability claim. Existence is not notability. WMMartin 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Meets my criteria for H.S. notability. — RJH (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no third-party sources, no verification, no passage of SCHOOLS3 (or, as it's now fortunately known, SCHOOLS). -- Kicking222 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WMMartin. Shall Wikipedia be advertising for schools??? — Mannfred5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per my arguments here. Soltak | Talk 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my bloviation here. Noroton 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is literally nothing notable here--just a list of the standard activities of an ordinarily good HS. DGG 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1920s high school in US west coast is quite significant. --Vsion 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources means nothing to hang an article on. Shimeru 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my belief that secondary schools are notable, as are small towns and villages. Would not be opposed to a merge per WP:LOCAL until additional sources are provided, but the current links do at least verify the existence of the institution. Yamaguchi先生 02:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High Schools are generally notable. This one is a major school, with plenty of independent sources that should be available for the 80 years it has been around. --Aude (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major school of a significant age, this passes the test for notability. (jarbarf) 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton. AntiVan 05:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backstreet Brawler (Will Prichard)

Non notable indy wrestler, and a very poorly written article. Kris Classic 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do I really need to explain why?! Davnel03 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Yes you do. --Aaru Bui ^DII 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN indy wrestler. Also gets very few Google hits. TJ Spyke 09:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This wrestler was part of the orginal ECW; which hardcore fans (no pun) remember and Vince McMahon makes a mockery of on Scifi. He's related to known guys that worked in the WWE. Plus, Kris Classic has a right to his own opinion, but this is not a poorly written article. It's a simple one, not overglorifying Brawler's career. It's paying respect to one part of the orginal ECW. Plus, wikipedia has articles on other indy wrestlers (like Vladimere Koloff), you can call NN too.User:Goofy14
- No doubt this will be deleted, because wikipedia isn't a democracy. Other indie wrestlers you can call NN, because they didn't make a big name across the country. Still, these workers pay dues, but never get recognized. Jerry Lawler mentions this in his biography (p.244). It's just a shame some wikipedians have a pompus viewpoint, but that wikipedia's right to make that rule (no democracy). In the long-term, the more these viewpoints grow, the quicker wikipedia will implode. It happened in WCW and other businesses. If wikipedia bans me, I don't care. The world and life goes on and wikipedia isn't the only website for looking and contributing information. To quote Steve Austin, "THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE!!!" If you don't like it, can lump it. Goofy14.
Delete Non-notable. Being part of the original ECW doesn't matter (people employed by WWE don't automatically deserve articles either), and it's been established that just being related to someone notable doesn't make you notable. Also, WP has made it clear that "this article should exist because this other article does" isn't valid. Lrrr IV 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. It's not a matter of indie wrestlers "never getting recognised". Paying respect to ECW is not what Wikipedia is for. Being related to a WWE employee is not a good reason for existence. If the article was expanded hugely and referenced then my viewpoint might be swayed. Suriel1981 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cable Television Shows

Delete strange and unnecessary article that is nothing but a list of a few ABC and NBC shows, which are broadcast programs, not cable TV shows anyway. Article is also incorrectly capitalized. Wryspy 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Cable television for now. I would certainly be interested in an article regarding significant cable television serials in the past 30 years and how they may have influenced and affected the television industry. This is not that article. Actually this is not ANY article as is, and paradoxically the shows listed aren't even cable shows, they're network. Agree with nom on use of the phrase "strange and unnecessary article". -Markeer 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, to respond to the above, many of the shows listed would be considered "cable" shows in Canada, because up here cable TV includes the importing of the American commercial networks. However under that criteria this list could well include every American series broadcast. Way too broad and undefined. I could see a list of local cable access shows possibly being made (though there would be notability issues). 23skidoo 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Karina Chmiel

First, no assertion of notability in the article. The only reference is to the person's homepage. We seem to miss Wikipedia:Notability (artists) but general WP:N requires multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work [which] is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. I see no proof of either here. On a final note, the name of that person is likely a nickname - Polish variant of Catherine is Katarzyna... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some info is on [34] (in Polish). Anyway, in case of no feedback I suggest to go as suggested. above. Pavel Vozenilek 12:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Translated the parts that could be used as an argument for her notability, "She ilustrted 60 books. In 1995 roku he won an award/featured status (wyróżnienie) at the Polish comisc convent in Łódź], for her. „Śpiąca królewna” (sleeping beauty) work. In 2000 she was chosen the best grafic artist of the "Eurocon" in the coloured work category." Mieciu K 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but that's all from her own homepage. If she is really notable, we should have neutral sources about her achievements... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has not even been around for a month - no need to tag it for deletion yet. Not everyone can sit down and flesh out an article entirely in one sitting. --Ozgod 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A brief look around the web indicates she is very well-known as a Tolkien artist. She apparently is also in rising demand as a concept artist/designer for movies. The claims cited from the home page can be verified. (Example:^[1]). The page needs some attention from Wikipedians fluent in Polish, Russian and Italian. (I myself have only the most rudimentary understanding of Russian and can reasonably follow Italian, but am far from fluent.) However, simply because the sources are foreign language, does not mean she is not notable or that the article should be deleted. It just means the article needs some attention from those with the skills to verify the references. Vassyana 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- Mereda 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She may also be a comic writer [35]: she is also the artist/author of the "Calvin and Hobbes"-esque comic strip about Boromir's (and Faramir's, and Theodred's, a bit) childhood. John Vandenberg 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as things are with WP:N at the moment we have to assert notability as a Tolkien illustrator, question is if we have to change WP:N and then revisit these themes Alf photoman 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vassyana. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is any subject that defines WP, it's Tolkien, and itis clear she has done N work on this. Alf has it right.DGG 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am tending to delete - without prejudice to recreation if more substantiation can be sourced outside her own web site. The claims sound OK, but only her website to prove them doesn't reassure me at the moment. Tyrenius 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article was probably created as a result of being listed on the todo list of the Middle-earth project [36]. John Vandenberg 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I missed the nom's indication that her Polish name is "Katarzyna", which brings up more useful ghits and 18 worldcat entries. I'll need another day to properly merge them into the article. John Vandenberg 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after disregarding WP:ILIKEIT arguments ("all schools are notable"). Still, the article will stay, and it will also get a {{wikify}} tag. --Core desat 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Memorial High School, Honolulu Hawaii

Secondary schools are not inherently notable, and this article fails to prove any notability. DukeOfSquirrels 07:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst this may be a good school with fine aims, that in no way makes it notable. There are many schools like this one, and nothing to mark it out from its peers. Also, references/sources are non-existent. Sorry. WMMartin 13:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Needs a reformat and expansion before I'd support it. — RJH (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments here. Soltak | Talk 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my two cents' worth here, and although this is a private school and not a public school, it is still an institution that has enormous influence on the students, and therefore on one or more communities. Noroton 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The only thing notable proposed for this school is that it was named after Damien. He of course was famous--but that does not make the school notable--on this logic we would consider all schools named after Washington or Lincoln notable. DGG 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1962 school, significant history. --Vsion 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a fully accredited and notable secondary school. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A school being "accredited" does not make it notable. DukeOfSquirrels 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the use of the word "and" in Yamaguchi's statement. "Fully accredited and notable." Yamaguchi is not implying that accreditation makes a school notable. --Myles Long 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yamaguchi, et al. --Myles Long 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yamaguchi, this does appear to be a notable school with a significant history. (jarbarf) 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All schools are notable. It could use a clean up for advertising language though. AntiVan 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. –mysid ☎ 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Damiano

DELETE This article is about a VERY minor fictional character; an infant in a "bit part". Other character articles from the same show have also been deleted for this reason. Kogsquinge 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:41Z

Doug Pruden

Self promotional, self-authored, non-noteable, non-encyclopediac Wtshymanski 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against of deletion. True, article was started by author himself, but that doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. I am keeping my eye on this article and have deleted some promotional stuff that was there. If you feel that article is still too self-promotional and non-encyclopediac - then, please, fix it. Or leave it for other people to fix. But the article won't be fixed if it will be deleted. And finally about non-noteability. Come on, guy has 9 (nine!) World Records! And it would be interesting to read how the guy decided to make all these records and how he trained. Look at the articles about other athletes - a lot of them have even less information than this article has! mixer 08:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For pushups. "Trivipedia". I suppose this is an appropriate thing to celebrate in an "encyclopedia" that has articles on individual Pokemon characters... --Wtshymanski 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my, what a sore loser you are. wikipedia doesn't delete the articles you think it ought to, so now you go around voting against every deletion you can to prove a point? grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs)

Not only is nothing cited in his article, but there is far too much editorializing - eg. an "awesome man of faith". Should either be deleted or sources should be added. Evileyetmc 17:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping the article and getting rid of the self-promotion and make it balenced. This man is definatly worth a Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.128.97 (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Guinness book is enough to establish notability yet I see problems with WP:V and the whole article sounds as if it goes against WP:COI. In any case citations should be referenced Alf photoman 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Possible to clean up, and the guy holds a bunch of records. Me and my girlfriend enjoyed this entry :P A vegetarian making that many pushups! :P arcade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.81.198 (talk • contribs)
Keep -- notability established by multiple records and repeated coverage. However, I would suggest completely deleting the "Training" section and most of the "History" section as original research--unless it can somehow be sourced. -- Black Falcon 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO as the recipient of multiple Guiness awards, this should be a no-brainer. (jarbarf) 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Botley, Hampshire in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:04Z

Fairthorne Manor

Reads a but like an advert. Borderline notability too. No references. Montchav 15:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability not established.--Sefringle 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable day camp. Note the wording "The most income of F. comes from..." DGG 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:04Z

First Glasgow Route 20

I believe this article should be deleted as it is non notable. Fraslet 15:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information this article is simply overkill and does not contain enough notable information to make it worthwhile on its own. Fraslet 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Orthologist 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Buscruft. Edeans 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Glasgow Route 62

I believe this article should be deleted as it is non notable. Fraslet 15:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is notable. First routes operate all over Scotland, and the article seems to be made with First Glasgow to provide more info. Rysin3 15:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information this article is simply overkill and does not contain enough notable information to make it worthwhile on its own. Fraslet 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of above. Buscruft. Edeans 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I originally created these articles because they emcompass two key routes in the Greater Glasgow area; I believe that the "overkill" comment would be justified if every Route received an article, but in this case I beg to differ. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of routes article similar to List of bus routes in Manhattan. Applies to the two other First Glasgow AFD nominations listed. --Polaron | Talk 07:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Glasgow Route 66

I believe this article should be deleted as it is non notable. Fraslet 15:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information this article is simply overkill and does not contain enough notable information to make it worthwhile on its own. Fraslet 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of above. Buscruft. Edeans 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice for recreating if evidence of notability can be provided. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Dixon

Delete - I believe this girl is not notable enough for an article. She has not been in any notable films or TV shows. Fighting for Justice 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She had recurring parts in two separate TV series, according to IMDb. --Eastmain 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person is not known enough and should not be allowed on wikipedia as she has just appeared on two programmes. Czesc26
Delete extraordinarily minor - NYC JD (make a motion) 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gartner equation

hoax- this is not one of maxwell's equations. check google, nothing like this comes up for "gartner equation." also, it was added by a user named gartner23 with no previous edit history. Calliopejen 14:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and rather speedily as nonsense. BTW, there is an electrochemical Gärtner equation, but it si not the one her and not yet in WP.--Tikiwont 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. This is one of Maxwell's equations - it's listed at Maxwell's equations#Summary of the Modern Heaviside Versions as Gauss's law for magnetism - but "Gartner equation" is not an alternate name. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is possible hoax (the content, about the name), but the Gartner equation (Gärtner equation) exists and [37] ISBN: 0471647497 (find chapter: 4.3.5.2 Steady-State photocurrents) in the book Impedance spectroscopy: theory, experiment, and applications (The Library of Congress). I'm not an expert and I did not find the form of equation, so I can not push my opinion --MaNeMeBasat 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed as well, but deleting this article now does not prevent anyone from creating later an article on the Gärtner equation, maybe even with with a possible alternative spelling redirect from Gartner equation. Not deleting it, on the other hand, would keep the nonsense around in the edit history. --Tikiwont 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the recreation of the article with the proper content is possible later on (and redirect with proper name Gärtner equation), then I'm voting for delete. --MaNeMeBasat 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Spacepotato 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted; no assertion of notability. Kafziel ^Talk 13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killjoy (band)

Not Notable. --Hojimachong^talk _con 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:05Z

Kingdom Eras

A new online video game. I wish them the best, but unfortunately I could not find any independent reliable sources for attribution. Google search didn't bring any up. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB either. Wafulz 00:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V. and WP:ADS; non-notable, one month old video game.--TBCΦtalk? 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources pop-up and it someday meets notability criteria. Jerry lavoie 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Can be recreated later if it gains notability. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable game, fails WP:RS. Pea ceNT 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, yet another free browser-based game, and a brand-new one at that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that the arguments to keep in this discussion, and the article itself, are distinctly different from an indiscriminate list of surnames. Therefore, this is not a valid precendent in the AfD for an article that is simply a list of names or surnames from some culture. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common Chinese surnames in Singapore

Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:WINAD. Wikipedia is not genealogical database and this article has little encyclopedic value. For related discussion, please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames Niohe 03:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Sefringle 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is published by the Singapore government. It has information on how many people specifically in Singapore have the surnames listed, as well as the percentage they comprise of the Chinese population in Singapore. This information makes the article encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article has a source does not make it encyclopedic. A phone directory or a statistical yearbook have sources, but that does not make the encyclopedic.--Niohe 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is to point out that this isn't some list compiled together by WP editors. The article is not about individual words, but about a researched and published list. And the population information related to the surnames make the article encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Insta ntnood 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid statistical list like plenty of others. Just because it's about names doesn't make it a genealogical database. SchmuckyTheCat 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a statistical directory.--Niohe 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chinese in Singapore, meets WP:V and it isn't very long so it won't blow up/unbalance that article. As a standalone article, doesn't seem to be of much use for any criteria in WP:LIST. cab 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - But I think merging it into List of common Chinese surnames would be better, in which also expands the list, and eliminates possiblities of redudancy. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Edeans 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. list is encyclopedic, of general interest, and of value towards understanding the demographic history.--Vsion 05:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's yet another deletion nomination that might interest those who have participated in this AfD. Niohe has nominated Template:Chinese name for deletion. Please comment if you have an opinion on this - Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_21#Template:Chinese_name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. skyskraper 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments also cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames.--Huaiwei 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Epsom in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:43Z

List of leisure activities in Epsom

Wikipedia is not a directory: this article is just a list of mostly pubs, bars, and clubs Croxley 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on WP and transwiki to Wikitravel. Leuko 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:44Z

Madonal

Does not satisfy the required criterias in WP:Notability Must ^TC 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There can't be many places in the world where McDonald's has refused to expand its global empire, making this an interesting exception, and it's got lots of sources. Pinball22 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability page says: "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic..." The Associated Press, Washington Post, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times are among the cited sources on the Madonal page. I think this establishes notability. --Amanojyaku 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed sources easily demonstrate notability. JavaTenor 16:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matsukaze-ryu karate

Non-notable Peter Rehse 07:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I originally tagged the article for prod based on non-notability but that was contested with an attempt made to address the issue. I still think the group is non-notable with only a dozen local schools. Please see the articles talk page.Peter Rehse 07:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep 12 schools is not in the grand scheme of things a large number of locations. My argument, rather, and to be more clear, is that this school is notable based upon its stature as a large Canadian institution. Shugyo 09:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
context please see Association de Karaté japonais du Québec Not sure about the notability here also.Peter Rehse 06:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
clarification Association de Karate Japonais du Quebec is in Central Canada and offers Shotokan karate. Shintokukai (Matsukaze-ryu) is in Western Canada and offers its own unique style. The geographic distances between these two schools relative to the size of Canada is vast (analogy: New York and Seattle). Shugyo 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 03:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without bias unless any reliable third-party sources can be found. I failed in my attempt to find any. Only 47 Ghits for "Matsukaze-ryu karate -Wikipedia", which suggests but doesn't prove a lack of notability. Dekimasu が... 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some reference for notability can be found besides the school's website.MightyAtom 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied by User:BuickCenturyDriver and deleted by User:NawlinWiki. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:06Z

Michelle Hernandez

Birthdate, location, info totally incongruent with the person described on the iMDB page. --Hojimachong^talk _con 04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the author. In any case there is already Luenell. --Tikiwont 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, nobody recognized her? Huh? Alf photoman 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found this article without AfD tag. I had inadvertently bundled with AfD for Martin Hernandez Ohconfucius 09:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Music on hold. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:44Z

Music On Hold Adapter

Updated into articale only format.

Updated the article, not ad. Invotel 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ad, plain and simple. JaedenStormes 14:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music on hold, a better article about the same basic concept, and without the pictures. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:07Z

Nikki Keddie

nnZadeez 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose notable and has won several awards [38] Aminz 07:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per a number of published books. Definitely needs more sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, definitely problems with WP:V Alf photoman 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she passes the good old proftest. This is one of those rare occasions when my area of expertise overlaps with that of the prof being tested. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as it looks like a list at the moment. Alba 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The Balzan Prize is a pretty big deal, but the article is more list than text, and what text there is has been written in the third person. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject looks notable, the article could use some improvement but that's justification for improving, not deleting. ;) (jarbarf) 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup.--Leroy65X 15:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:45Z

Niles North High School

Delete No encyclopedic value Redguard101 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some historical value. Some info from Niles West High School also applies to Niles North High School as well. Loompyloompy313 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some verifiable historical value. Crypticfirefly 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I've restored the info on the famous "eBay Prank" that an anonymous editor removed (along with the rest of the section on the school's history) around Feb. 13th. Crypticfirefly 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless article. few incoming links. No value whatsoever. The Talking Mac 16:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Parts of the movie Sixteen Candles were filmed at this school (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088128/locations ), but that detail has been removed from the article.--orlady 18:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more notable than any of its peers. WMMartin 13:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yer pants on. :-) Meets my personal criteria for H.S. notability. 2,300 students? Holy crud, that's a big school. — RJH (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments here. Soltak | Talk 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Here are several changes I've made in the article:
- Sixteen Candles was filmed there partly and I've added back that information.
- For the fifth year in a row, the student newspaper, The North Star, won the "International First Place award from Quill and Scroll" (for the 2005-2006 school year).
- The school chess club is ranked third in the state.
- Niles North High School was named "National History Day Illinois School of the Year" at the annual Illinois History Expo held May 3, 2006, in Springfield.

Even if you thought this high school was not notable before, there is no reason to think so now. The journalism award is particularly impressive. The Quill awards are THE most prestigious journalism awards for high school journalism. I have no idea why they won or what they've been doing to win (perhaps someone from the school can fill that in later, but only if there's an article to contribute to). It may have something to do with the fact that about 30 percent of the student body is "Asian or Pacific islander" but that's just speculation. I'd be in favor of keeping the school even if not notable by the standards of other groups. I think high schools are inherently notable because so much of a community's wealth, interest and hopes are invested in them. Noroton 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually made the change about North Star and the Quill and Scroll. Side note, I can verify all of it since im a current student. Loompyloompy313 02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. That this school was one of 16 northern Illinois locations for Sixteen Candles doesn't make it notable. Edeans 03:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But one of three high schools, as per IMDb. And Edeans' comment doesn't address the rest of my reasons. Noroton 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple sources, seems notable.--Vsion 06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an apparently large and historic school. The article provides an abundance of reliable sources, so I am curious as to how the nominator came to the conclusion that this provides "no encyclopedic value" while failing to explain why. (jarbarf) 00:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above. While consensus can change, I'm not sure why this was renominated on what appear to be false pretenses. Yamaguchi先生 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; if there have been minimally valid arguments for the deletion of this page they have clearly been outvoiced and out-argued by those in favor its keeping. --Nathan Hakimi 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obolon' crater

Is this spelt Obolon crater? If so, write it at Obolon. Montchav 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling is Obolon' according to the Earth Impact Database which is taken as an authoritative source on impact crater names. I've added the crater at Obolon dissamb page. Zamphuor 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I have just added some references etc to the article to improve quality and make the information verifiable, but it remains a stub at the present like many other impact crater entries. Zamphuor 09:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this AfD debate really belongs under Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) because impact craters are geological features. Zamphuor 09:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A 20 kilometer wide impact crater up for deletion? A physical feature like this is inherently notable. A very encyclopedic geological and astronomical topic. --Oakshade 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are relatively few Earth impact craters, as compared to other geological features. Fewer than there are countries. So we've been going for completeness, and slowly filling out the stubs. --GregU 06:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have some notability.--Sefringle 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: more than adequately meets notability criteria. -- The Anome 12:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, several good sources cited. Hut 8.5 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. (Note the Cyrillic apostrophe in Ukrainian replaces the ь sign used in Russian.) --Dhartung | Talk 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:07Z

Paul Keller

Article is a war zone, a mess, and contains little or no information of any merit Andrew walker 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently it can't decide which Paul Keller it's about, and neither is notable. --Huon 15:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no references no heads or tails Alf photoman 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Huon. Neither of these shows up in the first page of Google results for "Paul Keller".--Dhartung | Talk 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable person, people, whatever... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads as more of an advertisement than an article of notability. --Ozgod 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Guano. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:46Z

Phosphate rock island

Stub with no chance of expansion. References don't really support the article, as they're about phosphates but not specifically about phosphate rock islands. Google search for "phosphate rock island" -wikipedia yields 46 results. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to wictionary, seems to be legitamate (if rare) formation. I'd like to say keep, but can't know nothing about geology to make a judgment. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existence of the Guano Islands Act, I suspect "Guano island" is the more usual description. Choess 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki per Smmurphy & merge to guano, which covers the topic reasonably well. --Dhartung | Talk 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to guano, and put in a redirect as this article duplicates the content (in the small amount it has) GB 05:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only sourced statement which claims more than the terms existence is "Originally, the term was used to describe the in influx of Irish, Jews and other ethnic groups once considered non-white in the United States". This is "sourced" in the loosest sense of the word to a racist text, specifically the sentence "whereas the dominating numbers of the cavaliers of our own South were able to escape the racial deluge of Negroes". If what isn't even pretending to be verified is removed, we have "racial deluge is two words that one or two racists have used in sequence". Nothing below demonstrates that any of this material would meet policy at this pagename or any other. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racial deluge

This is not a technical term, but a scare phrase used in an obscure racist publication Orange Mike 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I think it ought to be documented as such... I mean are there any sources? futurebird 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only "source" given for the term is said obscure racist publication from 1922, America's Race Heritage by nativist Clinton Stoddard Burr, which talks of "the Nordic race" and "unstable results of race crossing" and "our Southern cavaliers"! (See John Higham's Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925.) It has no use or place in actual sociology. --Orange Mike 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I added all the sources I could find online. It's a term used only by eugenicists and white supremacists... I don't know if it is notable enough to keep. Though it is good to have documentation of these kinds of things. I may vote later. I'll see what others have to say. I added it to WP:AFRO in the mean time. futurebird 06:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source that the phrase is (or ever was) actually a technical term in sociology. Αργυριου (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not well-sourced; there are sources for two uses of the phrase. The one which I can check is a trivial mention in passing, and only established that the one author used the phrase once. If the other reference is of similar quality, the article is complete bullshit. Αργυριου (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the stub needs expanding. Wenteng 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the term is a "scare phrase", it is one that is in use, at least among white supremacists. The term is POV, but the article is not. Also, it is rather well-sourced (the last sentence on Hispanics should be deleted unless sourced). Oh, and from a historical perspective, a "massive wave of demographic change in a particular area over a short period of time" is what happened when the whites came to North America. -- Black Falcon 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge refs and blurb to White flight or Illegal immigration - inherently POV, one way or the other. - WeniWidiWiki 05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with White flight. -- Pastordavid 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Merge - there is no way I can envision to merge this into white flight without exacerbating the POV problem inherent in the term's blatantly racist origin.--Orange Mike 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to its proper term. The material is relevant and the POV problem could be easily fixed, but the article itself has the potential for being a good article.--Sefringle 06:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea, joseph

a genealogical article about a non-notable person Calliopejen 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unencyclopedic but referenced and surely passes the 100 years test Alf photoman 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Subject held no important religious positions and does not seem to have been involved in any significant historic events. Greatest claim to notoriety is fathering a Congressman. Caknuck 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and watch out. He is one of the many colonial-era figures listed in the genealogical books used as reference. I expect we will be seeing all of the others. Undoubtedly a few will be notable. DGG 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck. Insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:47Z

Salamzaban

Notable? --Hojimachong^talk _con 07:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Let's Dance in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:48Z

Shake It (David Bowie song)

Delete - This is a regular album track and no notable information is given. The Let's Dance article already states that it's the 8th track on the album and that it was a Bowie/Rodgers production. --Pushit 16:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Proto. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:07Z

St. Francis Xavier X-Women and St. Francis Xavier X-Men

I struggle to see how this university team is more worthy of an article than any others. Montchav 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Redirect. No assertion of Notability (and preliminary searches don't indicate that either team IS notable). The X-Women article has had 5 edits in two years, while the X-Men article has had 12 edits in two and a half years. No indication that the article can be expanded beyond it's current form, which has no place on Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:08Z

Sying

This article is patent nonsense. It looks like it was written by someone unfamiliar with Chinese names and naming conventions, gives non-standard pronunciations and unhelpful tips, and is not encyclopedic. --Yuje 09:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article cites the name as "uncommon," and makes no attempt to provide a statement of notability to offset this. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia:Patent nonsense explains, this article is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, not as patent nonsense, but because notability is not asserted. Plus, Wikipedia is not a Chinese dictionary.--UsaSatsui 16:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:54Z

Taiguara

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created doesn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles so it will shortly be removed, if it hasn't been already. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. --Hojimachong^talk _con 07:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I do not see why this article should be removed. The individual in question was a very popular artist that performed worldwide. I can verify that all the information here is correct as the artist is my deceased father. Please be more specific as to why you believe this article "does not belong" (?) Thank you,Imyra

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The details in the article and the Allmusic.com reference indicate that he passes WP:MUSIC. I removed some text which seemed identical to parts of the Allmusic.com article. Additional English-language references would be helpful. --Eastmain 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a possible conflict of interest here, but the Portuguese article at pt:Taiguara has been edited by several different editors and the artist appears to be genuinely notable. --Eastmain 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were no outside links when the article was made, but I see there now are. Anyways, a definite conflict of interest, but the article as it stands seems notable now. --Hojimachong^talk _con 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Commune

Delete. This article overlaps various items covered by Commune. Using a name starting with "The" is bound to cause problems, and it seems to me the simplest response is to salvage any useful content to the existing articles, then delete this one. JQ 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a text version of the disambiguation page that should not exists per WP:D. --Selket ^Talk 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously the precursor to a disambig page. - WeniWidiWiki 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:55Z

The Henchmen

Not Notable. MySpace never works as a reference. --Hojimachong^talk _con 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a band. the Myspace link is to familiarize people with a currently updated reference of band news, events, tour dates, and music.--ZombieSamuraiFromMars 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's not notable. --Hojimachong^talk _con 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Notable Psychobilly acts, the Henchmen were not listed. Since being a notable act i have listed them and given a link to discover more information that i have not listed. I am only trying to add information that was not available previously.--ZombieSamuraiFromMars 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be original research, which there is a policy against on Wikipedia. --Hojimachong^talk _con 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[39] http://henchmenpsychobilly.com/home.html Would this be a more appropriate resource than myspace since it is a link to their official homepage?--ZombieSamuraiFromMars 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure it meets the notability criteria (found here). --Hojimachong^talk _con 05:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since it is their official page with links to contact and communicate with them over anything on this page, i feel it is notable. if I change the link would that fix this problem?--ZombieSamuraiFromMars 05:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)-[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just to point out, certain MySpace pages have been white listed for notability purposes. These pages are usually ones that are "official" pages (must be proven to be official) created by those working on the given media. For example, Iron Man (film), and the new Halloween (2007 film) film have their own MySpace page. For instances like this, I wouldn't simply dismiss MySpace as a reliable source, even though generally it is considered unreliable. Context needs to be addressed, and outside opinions need to be requested. BUT, in regards to what this page is, it seems to lack WP:Notability, doesn't conform to WP:BIO, and violates WP:NPOV. MySpace in this regard isn't about reliability, the fact that they exist is irrelevant, but having a MySpace page does not make them notable. I have a MySpace page and that doesn't mean I'm going to get my own Wiki article. The page seems like it's about advertising, which is not what Wiki is for. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is a complete rewrite to remove spammy WP:ADVERT tone and provide notability in the genre. - WeniWidiWiki 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons and Vehicles of Resistance: Fall of Man

Lists of X for video games violates WP:NOT as well as established procedure in the WikiProject Computer and video games Masem 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't agree that "List of X for video games" is always deletable, but this list is clearly useless. — brighterorange (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real content here, and more complete pages have been deleted in the past. Garrett^Talk 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pointless weapon list. Violates WP:NOT and non-notable. --Scottie theNerd 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps Merge It is just a list of weapons with no content but may be worth putting in the main resitance article. Da Big Bozz 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreed: CVG articles refrain from placing full lists of items and equipment as per WP:NOT as well as following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games article guidelines. Information should be presented in a brief encyclopedic manner and not as a list. --Scottie theNerd 01:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: just expanded it. Personally think that the old one in the R:FOM article should be used, but I'd have to find that in the history.Dboyz-x.etown 04:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the article be expanded? Arguments put forward point out that the article is unencyclopedic and non-notable. Expanding it won't change that. --Scottie theNerd 14:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks independent sources, unencyclopedic information. Wickethewok 14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic information, lacks notability. Wiki's is not a collection of info. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's ugly, small, has no sources and is pretty much unnecessary.DreamingLady 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep: Keep only if it covers new or novel items/concepts for gaming, otherwise delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of items in games aren't notable as determined by countless precedents. Koweja 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Dina . —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:09Z

Weisman Family

This seems like a joke! Postcard Cathy 19:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no sources, no references probably in detriment of living persons Alf photoman 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:BLP and unverifiable. --Selket ^Talk 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10 (attack bio of living persons) and G7 (non-notable), and listed as such on page. There's no need to prolong this. Alba 16:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:10Z

Guns and Dope Party

Non-notable, fictional "political party." It doesn't run candidates nor does it seem to have any sort of formal organization whatsoever. OCNative 12:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Guns and Dope Party" gets about 19,900 hits on Google, there are also several decent articles about the party, such as [40] [41] [42] [43]. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited by notJackhorkheimer. The party is not fictional. -- Black Falcon 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notJackhorkheimer above. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notJackhorkheimer --Selket ^Talk 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert Anton Wilson. Not notable on it's own. - WeniWidiWiki 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wilson ran for governor of California in the 2003 election as the Guns and Dope Party candidate. Given Wilson's following and influence, the party seems "real" enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rasadeva (talk • contribs) 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- He most certainly did not. See http://vote2003.ss.ca.gov/Returns/gov/00.htm OCNative 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alphachimp. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis wolfe

Notability not established; neither Hollywood Records nor Jive Records mention this artist on their web sites. His "Hollywood Records" website is hosted on Freewebs. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 13:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - hoax. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Thsi page is nothing but a hoax. This should be deleted quickly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:10Z

Mental processes of humans

Essay, POV and original research. Contested prod and prod2. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced original research. Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. -- The Anome 13:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Hut 8.5 15:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR --Selket ^Talk 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified, essay. --Vsion 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whistler Skin

Non-notable. - Sikon 13:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. The brief mention of the skin already found in Trillian (instant messaging client) is sufficient. —Cel ithemis 00:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally nn. - WeniWidiWiki 05:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Green Hornet. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:57Z

The Green Hornet (film)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article clearly admits production being at a standstill, and there is no guarantee that this film would ever be made. Mention of Smith's involvement is already included on the main The Green Hornet article, so no need to merge any information. Would not oppose re-creation if production ever gets underway, which doesn't seem to be anytime soon. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. This is a stub that can't and shouldn't grow any further. Wiki-newbie 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Didn't Smith at one point say that he was going to make the Green Hornet because he didn't think he could make a good comic book movie? The main article even provides the link to where Smith says he is not making the Green Hornet any longer, so even that information is inaccurate on the film page. I think it's more appropriately covered on the main article for The Green Hornet. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Green Hornet and mention there that a film was under consideration. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned, the information is already mentioned on the appropriate article, so there's nothing further to merge. In addition, no point in keeping the redirect if the film is not guaranteed to be made. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept nothing to merge, but I stand by the redirect, so that if someone searches for information about the film they heard was coming, they can find where its status is discussed. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, some apparent single purpose accounts disregarded. Even so, no evidence for notability or verifiability was presented. --Core desat 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Fine Day...

Non-notable and unverifiable student/YouTube/MySpace film. The only results Google turns up for "Crippled Tim Productions" are MySpace pages. Failed prod. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Not even a a scintilla of notability set forth in the article. Agent 86 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability - has not even been released. Please wait to recreate article when the film debuts and if it garners any awards, financial success, etc. Right now it functions as an advertisement for as of yet unheard of, unreleased film. --Ozgod 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the harm in keeping up the article. The film seems legit and William Stuart Ross even has an IMDB page. --24.62.249.36 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is not whether the film exists, it's whether it's notable and whether there's verifiable information about it. And what does William Stuart Ross have to do with it? There's no mention of him in the article. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's right, William Stuart Ross is listed under the cast and in the plot synopsis. He does have an IMDB page, although it only has one listing. The film has someone with an IMDB page in it and has two trailers online. --Roninronin 11:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added William Stuart Ross to the article's cast list[44] six minutes before you wrote that comment[45] (the time stamp in your signature appears to be wrong - please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts instead of manually entering names and times). According to IMDb, William Stuart Ross's only role was "Camper (uncredited)" in the film Magic Rock (2001), which scarely makes him notable. A page on IMDb neither confers nor confirms a person's notability. And once again, nobody is doubting the existence of this film or online trailers for it. Show us some evidence of notability and verifiability; show that this film has been documented in multiple, non-trivial third-party sources and you have a case for keeping. ~Matticus ^T_C 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One Fine Day has little notability at the present moment, but it is a legitimate film and a wikipedia page would help in the publicity the film needs in order to gain some notability. I think that this page should stand. -Sarah — 24.61.108.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This is my first post on wikipedia. I've been following these guys's film online for a few weeks and I really think they've got something. Let them leave up the article for a while and see if the film gains some momentum! (Trainspotter7 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)) — Trainspotter7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Films should have an article once they're notable - not in advance --J2thawiki 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At first I didn't post because I was afraid that I would be discredited or banned for this being my first post and therefore right now this might be considered a "single purpose account." But Anyways, I say keep the article. It's not doing any harm really, and the film is already growing in appreciation just from the trailers. It's not like this is a page for something that's completely made up or something that won't get any hits or something like that. And also, when does something become non-trivial? Because with a film like this, it's gonna be tough to get some sort of big label on it. At least give the article and film some time to prove itself before fighting to delete it. (Loki8907 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete for reason stated by J2thawiki. Comment: Many of the keep votes seem to be based on the idea that Wikipedia can be used to increase popularity for the subject, but policy strictly states that self-promotion and advertising is something to be avoided at all costs. --pIrish 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm iffy on whether this article should stay or be deleted, but for now I'd say it's at least mildly non-trivial and appears to have a somewhat established actor in the cast. If the IMDB page wasn't provided I would probably say delete it, but I'm going to give it a weak keep. (Third3rdIII 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semtex in popular culture

Delete - indiscriminate list of every time an item happens to appear in a TV show, movie or video game. Provides no context as to the importance of the item's appearance either in terms of the fiction from which it's drawn or in the real world. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture for precedent. Otto4711 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is there to be a Wikipage for every entry with "in popular culture" tagged on the end? No. EliminatorJR 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- we should not have an "in popular culture" page for every object, group, or person. We should have such pages for some objects, groups, or people, and we could even have one on semtex, but this is not that article. I am also removing the "Semtex in popular culture" section from the main Semtex article. -- Black Falcon 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EliminatorJR. --Selket ^Talk 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminant list. Massively under-populated in its present form and would be a monster if it was filled out. MLA 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it was me who created this article by ripping it from the main text (where it dominated the article). If this gets deleted people will start put this stuff back in Semtex and no one will be willing to rewrite the currently poor text (I live nearby where it is produced and have some clue how lousy it is). I am fully aware how crappy the ".. in popular culture" texts are but they do have some positive role under current model of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; recent community consensus against "in popular culture" articles applies much the same to this article, where "can be verified/cleaned up" protestations are outweighed by the extent to which this article is unverified and messy, and clearly isn't going to be made into a real article anytime soon. This article suffers more than others that have been deleted, if anything, due to the confusion between the Western political emblem and the Eastern religious symbol. The argument that this should be kept around because some of this mess needs to be merged into the featured article is equally unconvincing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swastikas in popular culture

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every time a particular shape, or something that in the opinion of an editor resembles a particular shape, occurs in a TV show, movie or video game. Many of the references are not to swastikas at all but to manji. Strongly oppose any merger of any part of the article to featured article Swastika. Otto4711 14:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Huon 15:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep well sourced miscellany article
Delete per nom - there may well be the germ of a reasonable article here somewhere, but it would have to be extremely well researched and sourced - this isn't it. EliminatorJR 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cedlaod 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
complete rewrite. The subject of the article is notable of an article. SYSS Mouse 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Highly selective Merge to Swastika. This is a notable topic and could have a good article I think, but this listing is not it. Selectively merge content to "Popular culture" section of Swastika. Which content? Only that which is sourced and NOR:

The Pokeman player card in the "Games" section.
Prince Harry in the "People" section.
The building in San Diego in the "Places" section (see [46] for non-OR link). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep WP:Notable. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". --Parker007 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE is a guideline, not a policy. WP:NOT is a policy, which trumps a guideline. WP:OR is a policy, which trumps a guideline. Otto4711 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are unsourced sections, article has multiple sourced areas as well. I've seen far worse. Could use some cleanup to better meet quality standards, but not worthy of being deleted outright. Bbagot 05:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I've seen far worse" is not a valid criterion to keep. And sourcing is not the only issue. Even if every item had a reliable source that there was something resembling the hooked cross in it, deciding that the hooked cross-shaped thing is a swastika and not a manji or some other similar shape constitutes original research. And a collection of every occurrence of a particular shape in every medium, even if sourced, is still an indiscriminate list. Otto4711 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He makes mention of manjis as well. Perhaps what you are actually advocating is a name change to Swastikas and manjis in popular culture? Context also plays a large part and the article appears to do an adequate job in that area. Bbagot 04:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable bits to Swastika. Dump the OR. - WeniWidiWiki 05:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Swastika, and remove any unverifiable original research. (jarbarf) 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is very different from many of the articles with similar sounding titles. The symbol is distinctive and unmistakably recognizable, it is & was very prominent in man aspects of popular culture. DGG 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article does not capture uses of the symbol in popular culture. It captures uses of something that an editor decided looked kind of like the symbol. Otto4711 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every entry is OR. It's easy to speak in general terms, but when you examine the entries one by one, each one is different. Why not just add fact tags for the problematic ones, and if they are not cited within a few weeks, delete them - then if the article is whittled down to nothing it can easily be merged or deleted. Seems like this AfD is jumping the gun to try and solve a problem that will just be re-created. The best solution is force people to make citations - deleting the article won't solve anything, it will just get re-created in a new format (sub-section somewhere else). -- Stbalbach 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the best solution is to delete articles that consist of nothing but indiscriminate context-free items. As I've already said, even if every item were cited, that would still leave this as an indiscriminate list, devoid of any context either within the fictional item from which the sighting was made or in the real world. I am willing to assume good faith and accept right now on face value that every item on the list is a real factual thing. Which leaves the question of "so what"? What does it tell us about the XFL that their logo bore some passing resemblance to a swastika? What does knowing that a character in The Sum of All Fears has a swastika engraved on the back of his watch tell us about either The Sum of All Fears or the real world? Nothing. And I'm sorry, but your desire to keep these sorts of articles because it keeps the information from being in the main article is a poor excuse. If the information is crap in the main article and it's crap here then the information should be removed. And if that means that you or some other editor who's interested has to monitor the article, so be it. I have articles on my watchlist and when people add crap information to them I take it out. That's part of what being an editor here is about. If you're not willing to do it, that's fine, you certainly aren't required to. But please, don't shift the responsibility onto someone else by dumping garbage into a trivia article. Otto4711 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what your saying, I really do. But I know from experience these items will be re-added to Wikipedia by well meaning but mis-guided newbies (who represent the majority of editors). I've done experiments, deleted the pop culture section of an article - watched it re-populate within 6 months. Deleted it again, watched it re-populate again - always different people, anons and one-time editors. Deletion is not the answer. -- Stbalbach 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have people putting junk in the articles I watch too. And when they do, i take it out. And if they persist on putting it back, I take it out again and thrash it out on the talk page. That's how this thing is supposed to work. Otto4711 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we keep going in circles. You on the idealistic side, how people should behave, and me on the practical side, on how things really are. I think in the end reality will prevail, the problem is not new - there are some basic structural issues with Wikipedia that ensure it. Deleting the article and telling editors to be more vigilant won't solve it, just creates a cycle of add/delete. -- Stbalbach 07:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --MacRusgail 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an extension of its parent, and a merge might create a long page. All of this is verifiable, and if the medium was notable, the incident should be included. This is pretty much how it has been done so far as I can tell, but there could be some cleanup to do. This is not 'indiscriminate', in that it is a valid piece of another article. —siro χ o 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable about, to pick some examples more or less at random, "In the Sin City series of graphic novels, the character Miho's shurikens are shaped like swastikas" (the article does not offer any information to explain the notability of the shape of the shurikens either from within the fiction or in the real world), or "The interior roof of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis, Minnesota is designed in a way that comes together resembling a swastika" (not that it is a swastika, but that according to the original research of an editor it "resembles" a swastika) or "In The Sum of All Fears, Alan Bates' character has a swastika engraved on the back of his watch" (without any information as to why that might be important to the story or any sourced analysis of how the swastika on the back of his watch has any real-world significance)? Otto4711 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to be written of someone interested in goth and dark cultures. It should not be so easy to see who have written it. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep per WP:SUMMARY. This has a decent number of references, notable enough topic, and amount of detail here that is too excessive for the main Swastika article. A brief 1-2 sentence summary of Swastikas in pop culture in the main article and a link to this subarticle is a good way to organize the material. --Aude (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY is a guideline. An article that violates a policy can't be saved by a guideline. Otto4711 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a clear violation of policy. -- Stbalbach 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, but my point is that if an article does in fact violate policy then citing a guideline doesn't save it. Citing a guideline does not address the assertion of policy violation made in the nomination. Otto4711 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one would vote Keep if they agreed it violated policy. Many people disagree that is violates policy and can cite other guidelines which support their position for a keep. Many of these AfD's are surviving, there is no consensus in general. -- Stbalbach 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. No one ever votes to keep an article that violates policy? Give me a break. Otto4711 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone in this AfD is operating in Bad Faith by willfully voting against policy - do you? -- Stbalbach 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I always assume good faith... Otto4711 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a tool to avoid this crap being in the main text. In any case please do not merge it back - serious maintainers would leave on spot seeing this heap of ... reinserted there. 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the article to keep the information from becoming someone else's problem is not a valid argument for retention. If the information is crap, it's crap no matter what article it's located in. The proper response to crap is to remove it, not to shift it onto someone else to deal with. Otto4711 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki support to keep and improve quality of articles (like stable versions) has been promised for years and yet, nothing had materialized. This ugly and bad "in popular culture" hack is, IMHO, the only (somewhat) working way to deal with the crap here and now. Frex: I have watched the cruft being removed from Gorilla article and getting accumulated again and again until the Gorillas in popular culture did help with it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find exercising a small measure of vigilance as an editor and demanding that additions to articles meet Wikipedia standards works quite well. Endorsing my proposal to spell out explicitly that this sort of crap squarely outside the bounds of Wikipedia policy would also be a good thing. Personally I don't think it should be necessary to spell out in policy that crap information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and the existing admonitions against indiscriminate information and directories ought to be sufficient. But endorsing a policy change would help put a stake through their hearts, more than complaining about how things can't ever possibly change does. Otto4711 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These lists are messy research notes rather than encyclopedic articles. Greg Grahame 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 04:59Z

TOUR07 Inward Scream

The subject matter has not enough standalone notability, given that is has already been covered sufficiently on Dir en grey and that the band is decidedly less notable in itself than bands on which elaborate tour-related articles have been made (like The Rolling Stones or U2). The article also does not reference any sources and since it is about an in-progress tour, it can be considered advertisement. - Cyrus XIII 14:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can easily be improved to a higher standard to make it look less like an advert. - Beau99|talk 1:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Agree on the potential for improvement, there is a lot of information that can be added which is not covered by the Dir en grey entry. Also the argument that it is an advert ceases to be valid as of 2/26/07. Shaithis 02:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:01Z

Junhi-Online

Not-yet-functional MMORPG. No sources, no Google hits. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Huon 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Selket ^Talk 22:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary A Cappella Society

Non-notable a cappella organization (WP:MUSIC). There are no non-trivial, third party sources confirming its notablity. There is an external link to an article written by its founder which is only available online and a link to an article in American Music Teacher which constitutes a trivial reference (a quote from the founder). Was kept in a confused, multi-article first nomination which was marred by IPs and new accounts. Savidan 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 references. A third was added by another user. Vocalvt 20:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd argue that WP:MUSIC is the incorrect category in which to determine notability for this entry, as CASA is neither a musician, musical ensemble, composer, or lyricist, but rather a community organization, similar to the Barbershop Harmony Society. CASA and CASA's programs have been instrumental in the advancement and growth of the genre. The CARA awards are the primary arbiter of success in recorded a cappella (witness the number of groups, student publications, etc. proudly displaying their nominations and/or awards in this search); the CASA website publishes articles, commentaries, and blogs from notable figures in the field; the CASA songbooks are invaluable in assisting new groups in getting off the ground. Contemporary a cappella is clearly a niche genre at this time, but CASA is the central organization contributing to its growth and advancement. JavaTenor 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:MUSIC is the wrong guideline, name any notability requirement that you think CACS meets. Savidan 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NLU despite new evidence.--Holdenhurst 13:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The additional references are credible by any journalistic standard and are therefore noteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.136.217.234 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep seems to be a notable industry org, references just barely clear the bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets standards for notability by multiple independent coverage in reliable sources. Edison 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable references, significant importance in this genre. Totalvocal 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Organization serves as the principal umbrella organization for artists in notable genre of music, and thus is notable. Iangoldstein 05:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable organzation which contributes strongly to the a cappella world through education, articles, seminars, awards, online music libraries, a membership of over 2,700, etc. LCMike 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Non-Commercial organization, the Wikipedia Guide to Deletion states that Non-Commercial Organizations are "usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." CASA is legally filed as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, has over 2700 verifiable members around the world, has a team of Ambassadors around the world, holds a national convention annually, etc, etc. These are all international in scale. vocomotion 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well-respected organization with national stature and participation, particularly among students; holds frequent and verifiable events; and its publically available IRS records on the web date back to at least 1998. I'm not affiliated with the organization but as an a cappella performer I recognize how CASA's activities regularly and significantly affect me, my peers and the stature of a cappella music. Not sure why there's even a controversy here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taytoe (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio and no credible assertion of notability. Kafziel ^Talk 18:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carharrack and st day silver band

Subject is a local band of unclear notability; prod removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am sorry but two new tenor horns were bought is not exactly of worldwide interest. No links to critical acclaim within Cornwall let alone within England. -- RHaworth 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Plus, it's a copyvio, although the creator could probably resolve that by following the proper procedures. -- Butseriouslyfolks 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 17:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Renata 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pumper

completely non-notable actor. The current version of the article seems to have been vandalized by someone excising material, but even a few edits ago wasn't worthy of an article Nardman1 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, no references. Delete. Alba 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak article. Too short. No sources, links, etc. Manzhivago— Manzhivago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:12Z

Medway Highschool

Notability not asserted, no sources provided. Seinfreak37 15:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments here. Soltak | Talk 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to say I despair of these articles: as seems to be traditional for school articles, notability is neither asserted nor demonstrated. I don't see why standards for articles on schools should be lower than for articles on other subjects. WMMartin 10:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~I think their notability is inherent, as per my totally convincing, overwhelmingly persuasive, incisive, etc. etc. etc. arguments conveniently ensconced here, which actually answers WMMartin's objections. Noroton 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only scanned the last part of the article before, but DGG's sharper eye caught what appears to be, at least in part, a hoax. This one isn't worth keeping.Noroton 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm of the opinion that every school is not inherently notable, just as every person, every company, and every product is not inherently notable. -Seinfreak37 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever administrator looks over this should note that Seinfreak37 is both the nominator and the editor voting just above. Seinfreak37, you could just label your comment Comment and make it less confusing for the administrator. In response to your comment just above (as I mention in my linked-to argument), high schools are very different from the other entities you list. Because of what high schools are, nearly every single one of them has a large impact on the lives of students and very often on whole communities. That can be said for hospitals and maybe a few other classes of entities, but not for all persons or companies or products. Noroton 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no confidence that the dramatic events described in the article are real. My suspicion was aroused by the spelling of the first line "Medway Highschool is a secondary school located in the town of Arva, in the Middle-Sex-Centre."DGG 21:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be raised in the next few days that show this is not a hoax. Yamaguchi先生 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yamaguchi. --Myles Long 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:02Z

James A. Stroud

This article was created by and almost exclusively edited by a user with the name Wbstroud, which seems to indicate a conflict of interest (the name of the subject's son is William B. Stroud). The article subject seems to be non-notable. I've given Wbstroud more than 1 week to verify certain article facts and to explain the notability of the subject in accordance with WP:BIO. sthomson06 (Talk) 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a perfectly well written article on a notable enough subject to me (although I personally haven't heard of him). I would question edits made by 'Wbstroud', but the article seems to be NPOV to my eyes. --Steve Farrell 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regardless who wrote it it seems verifiable and neutral in tone. If there is a problem with WP:COI it is not evident Alf photoman 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The article does have a primary sources problem, though. Note that wbstroud (talk · contribs) was also the author of the speedy deleted William Beattie Stroud article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up the article somewhat; there was a lot of unnecessary transition language & puffery. Looking at it now, there is actually not much in it about his business career, which is what makes him notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natalie 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bluechattin'

non notable, unsourced, gets exactly 0 ghits. Natalie 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arruzzo 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Hello Natalie and other Wikipedians, I'm new here. I added the Keep Bluechattin' software to wiki and I have my reasons for this. Yes, the first corrector was right it was not at that time in Google (s/w was not listed by G), but check it now, or better tomorrow. As many other software provided by AXYZ Mobile (yes, I do work there) it's very valuable and high volume product. And guess what, it's free, as wiki. So, 19 February is it's launching date, it's very fresh and one of it's kind. Isn't it great that wiki is so much up-to-date that on it's release date, it's already on wiki?[reply]

Cheers, azzurro

Speedy Delete As if it wasn't already obviously spam, we now have an explicit admission. Anyway, no sources cited, no google hits. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arruzzo 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) OK, guys. I'm deleting the page.[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - no challenge by deletion advocates to the sources offered. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AtTask

Spammy article created by a single-purpose account, alreadyu speedied as WP:CSD#G11 twice, external sources are one review and two evidently based on press releases. No data on turnover, not a public company, not fortune 500. WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - it isn't advertising per se, but the external sources don't seem sufficient to prove notability per WP:CORP. However, the fact that independent third-party sources exist means it may have a claim to notability, although this isn't clear at the moment. Walton monarchist89 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this company does fit the notability criteria per WP:CORP. I am the editor who added the references. AtTask has been covered by several third parties, however I had trouble finding all of them online. In addition, the two that JzG says are "evidently based on press releases" aren't press releases, and weren't issued by the company itself, so I don't see how they should be excluded per the source criteria in WP:CORP.

Also, this article existed for quite a long time before JzG deleted it. Compared to several other related articles, such as 24SevenOffice (which has no more reliable sources than AtTask, but has been left alone because substantial effort has been put in to making it a legitimate article), and others like AceProject which have no notability assertion, the only crime that it seems AtTask has committed is landing on JzG's watchlist as spam. I'd be happy to rewrite some of the copy to make it less like an advertisement, but I want it to be clear that this is a notable corporation per WP:CORP. -- Vms37 19:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The multiple sources added by Vms37 and these ([47][48]) sufficiently demonstrate notability. -- Black Falcon 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vms37 seems to have made an adequate argument for keeping the article. --JJay 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Another few references for notability. [49] and [50] and [51]. AtTask is project management software. There is a legitimate wiki for Project Management Software. AtTask is a well-known participant in this industry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.193.186.130 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: I combined two "keeps" above into one, since they were from the same anonymous user -- Vms37 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falco Systems

Delete non-notable corp, article WP:COI by its founder single-purpose account von Spengen Dicklyon 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:CORP; no independent coverage by external sources; only link is to their own website. Delete unless further sources are added to demonstrate notability. Walton monarchist89 18:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me Amadeus. According to their site, the company was founded in 2006. Unlikely to pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Skip (container) in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:04Z

Skip hire

Article with no discernible notability and reads pretty much like spam Janarius 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like an attempt to write an encyclopaedia article on the history of skips in the United Kingdom, discussing the legislation that affected them, the changes in relative economic costs over the decades, the first company that leased them, and so forth. Uncle G 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested that the author provide sources for this. I'm leaning merge, but without sources I'm not sure I want to. --N Shar 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, unverified, essay. Could in theory be cleaned up and sourced, but I'm not convinced that this article is encyclopedic. Walton monarchist89 18:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently unsourced and as mentioned, reads like an essay. I disagree with the opinion that it looks like an advertisement/spam however. Suriel1981 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote. Pea ceNT 11:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daya Bay

Nothing here except the reactors. Ideogram 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ling Ao. As far as I can tell the only thing at this location is the nuclear power plant. I don't think it's necessary to have articles for both the nuclear power plant and the location (I don't think there's even a town here). --Ideogram 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is also a major industrial park on the bay. It isn't actually hard to add more to the article if you just do a cursory Google search to figure out what exists there. This seems to be the (Chinese only) government webpage. But the stub is worthy on its own (about a real location), and interwikilinked to zh:大亚湾. Kusma (討論) 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet quite figured out whether Dapeng Fortress overlooks Daya Bay, but there is certainly enough in the immediate vicinity to write about. It would help to get someone who parses Chinese text faster than I do, though. Kusma (討論) 17:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kusma. Even as an important geographical location it's inherently notable. --Oakshade 17:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a notable geographical location. JameiLei 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information Kusma has provided, I will withdraw this nomination. Kusma, please do put that information in the article. --Ideogram 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, verifiability questioned and no reliable sources provided. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII comic

HTML Comic was nominated for deletion on 2006-03-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML Comic.

Minor concept, simply a webcomic drawn with ASCII, unsourced, likely unsourceable and with few chances of expansion. It should be redirected to ASCII art bogdan 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - to ASCII art. Please make sure there is no reference to nerd boy, an ascii comic already deleted via afd. After deletion, the content was added to the article ASCII comic and Nerd Boy was redirected to it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can there be no reference to Nerd Boy, when it is the most popular ASCII art comic? When an article is deleted, it doesn't mean that its topic cannot be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. This is just ridiculous. Grue 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess i have no personal preference. I just wanted it to be know that the article had been deleted via WP:AFD. There was no consensus to merge or move the content elsewhere. Re-creating it in a different article does not make it more keepable than the original article (that was nonetheless deleted) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does if the article was deleted for being unverifiable, which was the argument made by several editors in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerd Boy (2nd nomination) and not refuted with a citation of a single source, either then or in this re-addition of the same content. Unverifiable material does not belong in any Wikipedia article. Uncle G 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be a continued crusade to delete ASCII-art related content recently. It is just convenient to have this article on its own page, because it is related both to ASCII art and webcomics. It could be easily expanded with sections on various notable ASCII comics, such as "Red Baron", the first ever ASCII comic, legendary "ASCII Art Farts" and so on. Just because nobody bothered to do that up till now doesn't mean that it will stay stubby for eternity. Grue 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd fare far better by showing that the assertions that the article is unverifiable are false. You've nowhere addressed verifiability in your entire argument. Uncle G 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, first I need to know, what statement in the article do you find nonverifiable? Grue 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if they are verifiable, verifiability is not the same as notability. I can't see a reason why this can't be a Merge and redirect into ASCII art, either EliminatorJR 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it's unverifiable, which has been the challenge levelled at this content without answer since 2007-01-03, it cannot be. Uncle G 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that you read what I wrote again, and start to address verifiability. Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerd Boy (2nd nomination) it appears that people have been pointing out to you the lack of sources for this content (which is little different to what was written in the now deleted Nerd Boy) for at least a month and a half, now. You could save yourself a lot of trouble by citing sources to show that they actually exist. Uncle G 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of the content that is currently in the article is verifiable through the primary source (official website). You could save me a lot of time by pointing to which exact statements need sourcing. This stuff is pretty old, and a lot of web links are already dead. It's pretty hard to search for sources in this area. For example about 4 years ago I was doing ego-searching and found an article in Polish magazine with very thorough coverage of ASCII art (written by Blazej Kozlowski, no less, one of the greatest artists of the scene). It mentioned Nerd Boy and other popular ASCII comics. I can't find the link now. The printed version is probably stored somewhere, but the web version is dead. A lot of ASCII art references are in printed form and their Internet versions have phased out. Grue 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I found it, here it is: http://nnmag.net/NoName26/dane/122.html. Note how Joaquim Gandara is mentioned as "creator of greatest, most interesting and most funny comic strips". Would that be enough for you? Grue 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ASCII art per bogdan. - Francis Tyers · 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete for lack of independent reliable sources to prove notability. Edison 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That which is verifiable only from primary sources, we call original research. One source in a language I can't read is not a good basis for an article on the English Wikipedia, especially an article on a subject which has already been deleted through proper process. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? This article was never previously deleted on AfD. In fact, it was kept. As for the fact you can't read Polish language, well I can't either, but there are online translators such as http://www.poltran.com/. I also find the fact that you think that English Wikipedia should have different criteria of inclusion than other Wikipedias extremely disturbing. Grue 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to ASCII art, Do not merge Nerd Boy, this was deleted previously and should not have been recreated in this article in my opinion. One Night In Hackney 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What should and shouldn't be included in articles is not a matter of AfD. Leave it to editors. Grue 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nerd Boy was deleted by process, if you wish to recreate the article take it to deletion review, don't take over what was previously a stub by inserting non-notable content. One Night In Hackney 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note to closing administrator: during the cource of this AfD, this article was properly sourced and expanded, thus rendering the original nomination statements false. Grue 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Delete and Redirect to ASCII art. - Francis Tyers · 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an existing phenomenon, and it warrants an article. BTW, what do language skills of particular users have to do with whether an article should be deleted? Zocky | picture popups 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Esp re: above with sources not in the native language and re: not deleting all mention of something just because its article has been deleted not being a reason to delete the article. Could use some expansion though, and more sources would be nice. Balancer 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable style of webcomic. - Peregrine Fisher 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless fancruft, fails WP:NOTE, lacks third-party sources according to WP:V. Xihr 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable webcomic genre. Oppose merge with ASCII art as that article is already long enough as it is, and would benefit from further fragmentation like this. RFerreira 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; discarding links back to the subject, blogs, and unsubstantiated claims that the subject may have been mentioned somewhere (which even if true would not constitute notability), absolutely nothing appears to suggest that the subject has become notable outside the Youtube community/geek subculture. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd (2nd nomination)

Delete I believe we should look at this article not so personally, but with a/an professional/encyclopedic view. For those who like the article, we must set aside articles that represent a more personal 'page' and a more biographic (sp) page backed by notability and supporting resources. Remember this "no evidence of independent external sources; nothing to demonstrate notability outside YouTube" -Walton monarchist89. If this article were to have these two items INSIDE of the article, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion....--AJ42 11:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many or probably most of the people who said KEEP, are just fans who do not know wikipedia terms in biographies. (Pleasantview 12:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This person is not famous at all outside of youtube.Therefore, this person is unencyclopedic. I vote Delete. Pleasantview 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasantview

Procedural nomination -- ~~no vote yet~~. User:Pleasantview originally tagged this page db-bio but this was declined, so she added the entry to the AfD log but did not add a template or rationale. Please see the previous AfD discussion, whose consensus was "delete," for more information. N Shar 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After careful consideration, I vote delete as the nominator. The person's notability is not established, and though he may be well-known on YouTube, well-known is not always the same as notable. Appears to fail WP:BIO, though there may be sources out there -- but this is not apparent from the article. --N Shar 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomOo7565 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless reliable sources are provided to establish notability. utcursch | talk 18:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of independent external sources; nothing to demonstrate notability outside YouTube. Walton monarchist89 18:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been around the deletion block a couple of times. It was restored (by me) due to additional citations of notability, but now that I've taken a closer look, it seems like it has slid back into the shitter. I'll see about digging through the history and finding some sources. A cursory Google search turns up a fair number of hits, though it remains to be seen how many of them are wortwhile. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepof course it should be kept... don't bash the gay man7—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.160.194.85 (talk • contribs).

We are not bashing on the gay man. We are talking about an article that should be deleted. Pleasantview 7:16, 20 February 2007

Comment. This is not a vote -- you should state the reasons for your opinion, not simply the opinion. --N Shar 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know this isn't being done right, but check the last post on his YouTube -- He was mentioned on the View by Christine Ebersole. (Delete this comment but someone else please repost it.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.81.118.114 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete yet another youtube member article, chock full o' cruft and totally free of references or sources except for two links to youtube videos. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone who's a star on Youtube, which has become one of the most popular entertianment outlets in history, is notable. Another story about the subject added to the article [52]. --Oakshade 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is not a notable star and he is not famous outside of youtube. Pleasantview

Keep If William Shedd's article is to be deleted then you might as well delete the YouTube article, too. It is my feeling that anyone in favor of deletion does not recognize the internet as a valid media, therefore is not broadsighted enough to contribute to this discussion. Also, Pleasanview made the comment that he was not a notable star outside of youtube. He has been mentioned on a television talk show and Instinct, a mass media magazine. James Allen Starkloff [[53]]71.30.243.92 10:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woman's Wear Weekly has also mentioned him. He's obviously gained notoriety outside of youtube. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.209.199 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Stevieryan/littleloca who is also famous on youtube appears on TV and on Magazine covers. she doesn't have a wikipedia page. Plesantview

Pleasantview 15:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, even if the person was encyclopedic, this article is not written in a biography form. Pleasantview 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your concern is cause for improvement through editing, not deletion. (jarbarf) 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The non-trivial third party coverage outside of YouTube suggests to me that this person is notable beyond the realm of YouTube. Please. (jarbarf) 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is your third party? He isn't famous at all outside of youtube. Well at least there are some users on youtube that are a lot more famous than he is. (Pleasantview)

Delete per nom. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 13:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's the link where you can see for yourselves where William was mentioned on "The View" a television show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oypnpnMWzSE

That is not to say that one must be mentioned on a mainstream television show to be famous. It's just that William was mentioned. youtube is making new stars everyday. Pleasantview, if you want to start a Stevieryan/littleloca page, it wouldn't bother me in the least bit. James Allen Starkloff[[75.89.17.161 15:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he does not meet WP:BIO. Being mentioned on The View in this form does not constitute non-trivial coverage. GassyGuy 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The YouTube phenomenon has made Time magazine, he's probably one of its most notables. The social phenomenon and its most notable players are worth documenting...even if I'm too old to "get it" personally. I do agree the article needs worth though. Reboot 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. further proof of notoriety: he'll be in an upcoming issue of elle magazine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.209.199 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your Right, I could make a stevieryan/littleloca page but im not. The reason why is because I am highly sure that the page will be deleted and while this stuck up selfish humans page is still up. (Pleasantview 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Irrelevant article Emerald807 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Drive Copy

Has been speedy deleted twice (as adspam) and re-created. Tagged for references and notability since January. No assertion of notability -- seems to be one of the many such software. Delete as non-notable, unless references are provided to establish notability. utcursch | talk 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of notability, only external source is the product's own official site. Delete unless further sources are added to demonstrate multiple independent coverage. Walton monarchist89 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I know it exists because I have a copy of it and used it a few times, but I fail to see why it is more notable than any other drive copying software Alf photoman 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Zombietime. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:07Z

Zombietiming

Non-notable neologism. This is a contested prod. Vectro 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into zombietime. JameiLei 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per JameiLei. Doesn't carry much notability, but what does should be merged to Zombietime. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is fine with me, though I should add that Zombietiming doesn't explain any relationship to zombietime. Vectro 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:08Z

Lakeview Manor Nursing Facility

I PRODed this questioning the facility's notability. PROD was removed, and the entry was listed as the place where a certain supercentarian died in 1993. Sorry, but this still does not seem notable to me, so it's AFD time for it. TexasAndroid 18:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. JameiLei 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kafziel. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto rulez

Non-notable biography about a group of YouTube actors. No reliable sources that would verify any kind of notability. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page was speedily deleted (CSD A7) while I was in the process of nominating for AfD. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:13Z

Barney Wharton

A research assistant of no particular notability. Speedy tag removed once by author, then by IP. ... discospinster _talk 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I see no notability, and rather than trying to assert notability they just remove the tags. Could someone do a IP comparison of the author and the IP that removed the second tag? Improbcat 19:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Edits made by Mhmp (a likely acronym of "Mark Harper, Member of Parliament"), a single purpose account that smacks of WP:COI. Caknuck 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:V Alf photoman 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio. I just had to put the AFD tags back in again. AlexTiefling 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable. the Authors don't seem interested in improving the article or proving notability and rather only remove tags they disagree with. Doesn't even have the correct link to the MP he works for. Improbcat 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. At least one IP definitely editing from inside Parliament: good to know that my taxes are being well-spent. — mholland 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Steel 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. (Mrs.) Tara Singh

Has been deleted a number of times but never had a proper AfD. An edit summary on a previous version said this information is entirely about myself. Is she notable? -- RHaworth 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTO. There seems to be some evidence of notability, but the article is a hideous mess in its present form. Caknuck 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck. SriKorange. Strange that the person who have started/wrote this article call herself the same name as the person in the article. In Google you can find some inforamtion about her, but soooooooooooo messy article. — Mannfred5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Hideous mess per se is usually not a reason for deletion, but rather for cleanup. However, as User:Tarasingh seems to be the only one who thinks she is notable enough to have an article, there's a strong assumption that she isn't. There may be arguments that she is, but then the editor who wants to add information has the burden of presenting those arguments in an intelligible manner... Henning Makholm 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 pointed out, all relevant information (and probably all that is verifiable) is contained in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show), no merge necessary. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Smith (game show contestant)

Delete - being the first person to win a million dollars on the syndicated version of a game show does not strike me as establishing notability. Otto4711 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. At best, it could be merged into the "Who wants to be a millionaire" article. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Who Wants to be a millionaire article. --MacRusgail 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern with a merge is that Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) is already pretty long and there is already a list of all the million dollar winners there. Otto4711 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is already sufficiently included in the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, so nothing to merge. Agent 86 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - WeniWidiWiki 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The stub gives quite a bit more information than is contained in the main article. Notability is a judgement call, but being the first contestant to win the million dollars and viewed by millions as it occurred would appear to qualify. Bbagot 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't the first person to win a million dollars. He was the first person to do it on the syndicated version. Otto4711 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bbagot, although if this content already exists in the main Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) a redirect might work as well. (jarbarf) 18:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As of right now this is the only information that exists in the main: "Kevin Smith (First winner of the syndicated version), 18 February 2003" Bbagot 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all that needs to be said. Otto4711 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:14Z

Creating filters in photoshop 5.5

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, especially not for out-of-date software. Article was prodded, but creator removed tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki somewhere. bogdan 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt anyone would want it. Filter Factory doesn't exist in current versions of Photoshop, so this guide wouldn't be particularly useful to anyone. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This info exists in thousands of more appropriate venues on the web. - WeniWidiWiki 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N (minor feature of out of date s/w) and WP:OR (no sources). meshach 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikibooks. Storm05 15:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want it - it doesn't apply to any recent version of Photoshop (by which I mean any version released within the past five years or more). Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Descendall 06:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Interesting debate, but ultimately very little of it pertains to the bio in question. This decision to delete the bio on Denny Klein is based on a lack of independent assertion of notability and is without prejudice to creating articles on the technology—whether the technology is valid or not (and my take on this is that it is not—reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion claims in its combination of science, scientists and lack of verifiable and independently reproduced results). I will make the deleted material available if someone wants to pursue a neutral article on any of the rest of this. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Klein

Delete This fails policy on several levels.

Notability: Google returns 769 hits on this person.[54]
Most likely a hoax,[55] see discussion on AfD's below (point 4).
Violates WP:RS, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM
Numerous articles that did not survive AfD in the past are recently recreated as redirect to this page.[56] Sounds like this is done to circumvent previous AfD's. Please, include the following articles (redirects) in this AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO Gas - HHO Gas-[57] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO - HHO-[58]-[59] - Hho-[60] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen - Aquygen-[61] - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination) - Brown's gas-[62] - Brown's Gas - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond - Magnecular bond Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another deleted article.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this article has already been deleted twice!.[63]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent recreation. Edison 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be deleted because Wikipedia clearly has no person qualified nor knowlegable enough on the topic to make it compliant with Wikipedia standards. Although HHO, Brown's Gas, and Oxy-Hydrogen are viable and scientifically published technologies, this article does not represent the underlying science. This article should be deleted to maintain the scientific credibility of Wikipedia unless due dilligence and significant scientific investigation is conducted on the part of editors with regard to HHO, Brown's Gas, and Oxy-Hydrogen technologies. 24.193.218.207 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the underlying technology involved here is "common ducted electrolysis", which produces the allotropes of hydrogen and oxygen, an article should be created to especially show the distinction with Oxy-Hydrogen. Common Ducted Electrolysis is pure science and has no spam, and much third party citation ranging from academic publication to patent application dating back to the 1960's. 24.193.218.207 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, obvious keep:
1. The Google test is not a measure of notability. "Dennis Klein" water gets 3,000 results, for instance. He's been featured in several televised news programs and his "invention" featured in scientific journals. This clearly meets our notability criteria.
2. Um... "most likely a hoax" is not even close to a criteria for deletion. We have lots of articles on hoaxes, and for good reason. If you think it's a hoax, help me keep the article neutral and accurate. If you don't think we should cover hoaxes, you're going to have to protest more generally.
3. Not criteria for deletion. If you think the article needs work (it does), help work on it. Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process.
4. The fact that several Wikipedia articles have been created and re-created about this subject (and inappropriately deleted) demonstrates significant notability, if you ask me. Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article. I think the related information should all be contained in one or two articles for maintainability purposes. An article about the hoaxer himself is a pretty neutral way to present it, though other possibilities can be discussed on the talk page. — Omegatron 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (updated 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The article itself is not a hoax. It is a verifiable article about a well documented hoax. Doczilla 17:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand how to read chromatography graphs? If you have any questions about the graphs write me a private message and I will explain them to you. This technology is clearly not Oxy-Hydrogen therefore it is not a hoax, understand the chromatography graphs and you will begin to understand why fuel enhancement is a viable technology. While HHO is manipulative, because it is Brown's Gas, Brown's Gas itself has been around for decades and is the allotropes and isomers present in the chromatography graphs. Do what you want with the article, but the chromatography graphs are the end all be all means of proving, showing, and rationalizing why HHO, Brown's Gas, Rhodes Gas, Green Gas, and Hydroxy (which are all the same gas) are not hoaxes and are simply the result of a common ducted electrolyzer design. 24.193.218.207 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who made the chromatography graphs? Which journal were they published in? — Omegatron 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Hydrogen Energy Technology, published by controversial physicist Dr. Santilli. Although the manuscript is a complete crock in its assertion that HHO is somehow not Brown's Gas, the data is some of the first scientific material ever published in a peer review jounral about common ducted hydrogen and oxygen gases.24.193.218.207 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact chromatography graphs have been extracted from the article and published on the website listed in the references section of the "Denny Klein" Wikipedia article. Check out those graphs, they clearly show that the result of common ducting is not just H2 and O2. Oxy-Hydrogen is only pure H2 and O2, therefore because of the different molecular configurations (proven by chromatography and published in peer review), common ducted hydrogen and oxygen cannot be Oxy-Hydrogen. If you want to get into schematics, technically common ducted hydrogen and oxygen contains Oxy-Hydrogen, because common ducted hydrogen and oxygen does indeed contain predominantly H2 and O2, but because of the existence of H5,O5,H1O2,H1O4,H2O4,H2O2, and a variety of other molecules it simply cannot be stated factually that common ducted hydrogen and oxygen is Oxy-Hydrogen.24.193.218.207 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact name of the Scientific Peer Review Journal, and the published volume, issue, and date are: The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 31, Issue 9 , August 2006, Pages 1113-1128 24.193.218.207 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact on the website where the chromatography is published the graphs are actually on a page titled "What is Brown's Gas?". 24.193.218.207 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how respectable it is, but that looks superficially to be a real peer-reviewed journal. That paper actually discusses the actual "HHO gas" created by this company, compares it to Yull Brown's gas (which is said to be distinctly different), and includes links to Denny's company website. Regardless of whether it's a truly reliable source, this is another major notability point. Here's a proper reference:

Santilli, Ruggero Maria (August 2006). "A new gaseous and combustible form of water". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 31 (9): 1113–1128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006.

— Omegatron 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, you are probably the first Wikipedia editor to actually pursue this technology scientifically. Your current edit to the article is professional, not biased, and scientifically accurate. You have clearly expressed what is stated in the academic article, and have taken into consideration information that is obtainable from other notable sources; simply well done. I am happily in a stupor. On a side note, since you have absorbed this HHO crock, you will be happy to know that the only reason HHO is claimed to be different than Brown's Gas is to avoid the stereotypes associated with Brown's Gas. Although there is no peer review article that directly states the clear and obvious link between HHO and Brown's Gas, it will emerge publicly over time. As the HHO article published chromatography a simply chromatography test of Brown's Gas will reveal consistent quantities of particular molecular masses establishing an emperical link between so called HHO and traditional Brown's Gas. HHO is simply the most current effort to take Brown's Gas technology to the next level, as it has been around for decades in a stalemate with the status quo. Please uderstand Omegatron, this technology is simple, Oxy-Hydrogen (H2 O2) is produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer, Brown's Gas (allotropes, ect...) is produced in a common ducted electrolyzer; it is this simple design criteria that dictated how the molecules in the product hydrogen and oxygen form. 24.193.218.207 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not absorbing anything. I saw the Fox news program being passed around the net and thought "BS. Another 'invest in my water powered car!' hoax. I wonder what Wikipedia says about this." It didn't say much of anything because these people are trying to delete any articles related to it instead of writing neutral scientific ones.

I'm quite surprised to find that anything related to this guy has actually been published in a real journal, so now I'm doubly curious, and I'm trying to figure out what his company actually claims and what is actually happening. — Omegatron 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look over www.waterfuelconverters.com. 24.193.218.207 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of this is the wrong damn argument. This is not the place to debate to what degree Denny Klein's claims are truthful or fraudulent. Is his story noteworthy and verifiable? For AfD, we don't care if his claims are verifiable. We care if it's verifiable that he made those claims at all and to what extent they influenced others. Whether he pulled a hoax or not, the fact that he made said claims is not a hoax. You can truthfully report that someone else is suspected of mistruth. Doczilla 08:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you misundertand wikipedia. I am not denying X said Y. The point is X can make the claim he wants to yet there is no independent scientific article supporting that claim. SO, if we allow every claim to be made on Wikipedia, which through lack of RS cannot be refuted we automatically allow blatant advertising for any scam available. Further, the fact there is a very limited number of Ghits we can conclude that this person is also failing notability. Unless you can provide independent sources (other than simply mentioning its existence, or the overt promotional sites currently used) either supporting or debunking its credibility we fail WP:RS, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's made claims on several televised news broadcasts, and an independent physicist has made claims about his device in a scientific journal. Seems perfectly notable to me. — Omegatron 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, without prejudice as to whether the subject is a scientist or a charlatan. This person does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:PROF, because I cannot find two independent sources to rub together. The only reference given in the article which seems to be independent of the subject, and not a result of self-publicity, is the paper from the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. That paper focuses on a device developed by HTA Inc. and the associated scientific principle on which is is alleged to function: it is not substantially about Denny Klein and its author, Ruggero Santilli, is himself not notable according to our standards. I can find no other independent sources in support of the subject's notability. — mholland 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, because you haven't bothered to look for independent coverage, it doesn't exist? The primary criterion of WP:BIO is:

primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person

This is easily met by the coverage in CNN (WTVT?) and Fox News television broadcasts [64], articles in the Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, WAVE 3 local news, etc.

Even if he himself is not notable, his company and the "HHO gas" certainly is, so that article should be re-created if this one is deleted.

Santilli is notable if he meets any one of the criteria on WP:PROF, including the origination of an important new concept (valid or otherwise), and publication in refereed journals with subsequent citation. It looks like he fits this pretty easily, and deserves his own article. — Omegatron 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have taken offence. Please don't. And please don't assume that I haven't looked for sources establishing notability. I'll admit, I didn't stretch to searching FOX News. The newspaper articles you've linked to all seem to be the same story retold, and I believe (with as much authority as my own journalistic hunches may carry with the closing admin) that they are essentially obliging pieces in response to self-publicity on Klein's part.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, when you say that "Even if he himself is not notable, his company and the "HHO gas" certainly is, so that article should be re-created if this one is deleted". My secondary concern is that this article is about Klein's company and his fuel source, thinly masquerading as a biography. Look at Template:Biography for the sort of thing that a biography should include; then compare with Denny Klein. There's almost no biographical material there at all (the unavailability of which tends to confirm my assessment of his notability). I infer from the nominator's comments above that this article is being used to shelter material which has been deleted by community consensus - that's poor form, but I'm still not basing my opinion on that. I remain of the opinion that this person is non-notable.

If you would like to see one of those other articles undeleted, then move for a deletion review. It's not relevant to my assessment of Denny Klein's notability. Best wishes — mholland 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just shown you how Klein and Santilli meet the notability criteria. We should put the other articles up for deletion review, as well, as they would be the most appropriate place for most of this information. — Omegatron 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. Please note that those claiming this is not an advertisement for a scam are and have been involved in editing this article. Further, they have recreated articles as redirect which through consensus had been deleted. All non-involved editors seem to think this should be deleted for violating WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SPAM, WP:BIO, WP:PROF.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing us of being part of a scam? — Omegatron 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply merely observing 1 there is no non-promotional source discussing this person, 2 contrary to consensus you (among others) recreated several articles as a redirect and this article was recreated although it too has been deleted twice, despite the fact that deletion occured based on the exact same arguments as I used for this nomination, 3 there is a limited number of editors on this article who comment here to keep.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown above that there are many reliable sources discussing this person. I don't know how you can say otherwise.

Are you trying to claim that creating a redirect is the same as re-creating an article? Are you trying to claim that re-creation of deleted articles is prohibited? It's not. Our deletion policy clearly says, "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article."

??? One of the article's editors has voted "delete", while another (me) has voted "keep". No one else commenting here has ever edited the article. How is this important or relevant? — Omegatron 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who says that this technology is a Hoax has clearly not pursued due dilligence. Frankly its disturbing how the general public subscribes to the prevailing stereotype without conducting an investigation prior to making conclusions. This is the very reason why the status quo in America is practically impossible to change. Omegatron has conducted due diligence and has uncovered one of the more recent peer review publications on the topic, albeit there are not many, and most only indirectly reference Brown's Gas and HHO, but the simple fact that the editors of the peer review journal chose to accept the material for publication deems the technology to have a certain degree of merit. Frankly the chromatography is the smoking gun for the credibility of the technology. Obviously the information currently contained within the article clearly does not belong in a Bio, but the information is indeed credible, verifiable, and peer reviewed. I personally have voted delete because there is simply no one editing this article other than myself and Omegatron. I strongly urge anyone that does not understand this technology to at least review the chromatography posted on the Sanilli article exerpt @ waterfuelconverters.com . Also anyone who believes this technology is a hoax do review waterfuelconverters.com thoroughly and you will clearly see that the technology is currently being installed for fuel enhancement applications across the USA in very public applications including commercial diesel trucking enhancement, personal vehicle enhancement, and power production facility enhancement. 24.193.218.207 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason that Nomen Nescio has labeled this technology a hoax, is why this technology has not progressed publicly for the past 40 years. This technology has been around since the 60's, and electrolysis has been around since the early 1800's and is barely used in viable applications other than Oxy-Hydrogen torches and chemical production systems. I would like to clarify something. Electrolysis is less, way less, than 100% efficienct therefore the hydrogen and oxygen output has less energy than the input. If you put in 100 watt-hours, and the electrolytic cell is 80% efficient, you get 80 watt-hours of energy output in the hydrogen and oxygen. Who in their right mind would rather use the hydrogen and oxygen rather than the electricity directly, as it is more efficiency to use the electricity directly rather than convert it into hydrogen and oxygen. The status quo is that making hydrogen and oxygen is futile because it will have less energy than what is input (this is 100% correct, the dam status quo is correct). But because the general public cannot think past what is put right in front of their close minded shallow faces this is where they stop. Hello everyone, welcome to the idea of on-demand (no storage, produce it then use it) fuel enhancement. Produce hydrogen and oxygen, but not use it by itself because of energy lost due to efficiency, and use of the hydrogen and oxygen as a carbon fuel enhancer. This is viable, as because Brown's Gas and HHO has fancy molecules other than just H2 and O2, when used as a fuel enhancer there is a direct BTU contribution and a catalytic effect. Because of this dual effect the concept of fuel enhancement is indeed viable, marketable, and emerging extremely quickly in light of carbon fuel prices and the consequences of pollution emissions. Why use only carbon fuel when you can mix in a quantity of hydrogen and oxygen to make the same quantity of carbon fuel release more energy, burn more completely, and produce less emissions. I feel like I have to spoon feed the concept of fuel enhancement to the general public. I sooooo deeply appreciate the due diligence of Omegatron, and its time for some other Wikipedia editors to put in the time and effort that is required to understand the technology. There is no excuse for perpetuating stereotypes. Grow up people, don't subscribe the the status quo, investigate, research, and make your own decisions. 24.193.218.207 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen Nescio actually said "this is most likely a hoax". Most likely? What does that mean, is that your opinion or are you repeating what you have seen. Have you investigated the tech? Have you read the Santilli article? Have you seen waterfuelconverters.com? Such an ambiguous statement implies that you have done nothing except make an "unsubstantial" statement. What proof do you have that "it is most likely a hoax"? The word of other people? What other people? What was their claim? What was their proof? Where was the claim posted, on a forum? 24.193.218.207 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to this discussion. Please stop cluttering up this page with stuff that belongs on the article's talk page. — Omegatron 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, ok. 24.193.218.207 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE: This article should be kept, as it describes something possibly notable and verifiable, but the article is about his Hydrogen process, not the person, so it should be moved so that the title of the article reflects the process. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HHO gas was deleted. I would be in favor of this content being in an article like HHO gas or Common-ducted electrolyzer or electrolysis welder or something. See Talk:Denny_Klein#Related_articles_deleted_along_with_their_history — Omegatron 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page I mention that Electrolyzer Welder as being appropriate, but Common Ducted Electrolyzer also expresses the main distinction with Oxy-Hydrogen electrolyzer design. 24.193.218.207 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole thing is clearly nonsense, and there are no proper sources whatsoever for the article, just a load of dubious weblinks NBeale 16:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense for the actual definition, which this is not. Here are the sources, as mentioned above:
- Santilli, Ruggero Maria (August 2006). "A new gaseous and combustible form of water". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 31 (9): 1113–1128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006.
- CNN (WTVT?)
- Fox News [65]
- Tampa Tribune
- St. Petersburg Times
- WAVE 3
- local news
The water-powered car is obviously bullshit (or, technically, just a hydrogen-powered car being used for dubious marketing purposes), but we don't delete articles just because they're about hoaxes. — Omegatron 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the links are reporting his promotion, they are not article describing this technique in a neutral journalistic fashion. Second, how is discussing this technique so important it is overshadowing what is supposed to be a WP:BIO? Clearly, a bio is not meant to pose as advertisement for a product! Either create an article on the subject and risk an AfD for the reasons I mentioned above, or start making this into a bio.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you wish to pursue an editorial-based merge in the future, it does not require AfD anyways; see WP:MERGE for how to propose one. - Daniel.Bryant 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Cricket World Cup Umpires

Unneccessary, as the information provided in this article would be better off placed in the 2007 Cricket World Cup article. AMBerry 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not a cricket fan, but I can see no reason to delete this. --MacRusgail 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM a cricket fan, and can't see a reason not to Merge this into 2007 Cricket World Cup EliminatorJR 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2007 Cricket World Cup. The information is of no use standing alone as it now does, but of considerable interest as a subsection of the WC article. Loganberry (Talk) 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just before I make my comment Im a cricket fan also. I see this as a pointless article. What use does it actually serve? All it is is a list of info - granted all linked up but I dont know why anyone would come searching for this data on wikipedia, and by the time the cricket world cup is over the article would be of no use anyway. If someone was looking for info on an umpire, they would search for the umpire directly, not come via this list --PrincessBrat 13:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merging at current time would make the 2007 Cricket World Cup article too large and unwieldy. Being as the Cricket W/C is soon due to take place I would rate this article as notable and relevant to current events. After that event has taken place then maybe we could look at simplifying/merging. Suriel1981 11:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Bell

This person is not notable

I am also nominating the following related pages because they seem to be vanity/advertising by the same person.

MacRusgail 19:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this imposter! He's obviously not notable. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirm my delete based on the new "updated" page. Maybe will be notable in the future, but not now. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry if I gave you a fright! ;) All the best! --MacRusgail 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Bell hasn't achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. I couldn't find any independent sources to verify the notability of the magazine. Caknuck 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both) - nn. - WeniWidiWiki 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both) per nom. --Mais oui! 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unsigned!) Comment This profile (Douglas Bell) has now been updated. Everything has been entered carefully to be statements of fact. Achievements of particular note (to date) include being a publisher of books and magazines from the age of 23. His day-job includes editing of one of Europe's largest youth culture magazines. Douglas has won an international photographic award - although this has not recently been acted upon publication/exhibition wise. He has two books in production (under his own authorship) which will be out this year - one is highly political and will circulate internationally. He has a degree from one of the most respected academic departments in the world. He is also also politically active - despite his age (now 25). Are there any other young people in the world with such a CV?

Fat Controller Magazine is re-launching in April '07 with a projected readership of 500,000/month (abc audited) - having proven itself as an enormous success already. What is so remarkable is that it is entirely independent of IPC/EMAP (who have something of a duopoly in the UK publishing market). The company is embracing new technology in a way which was simply not possible even a year ago, and has hundreds of young contributors involved from all over the world including Thailand, Egypt, Canada, China, Russia, Peru, Ecuador, India, Japan, South Africa, The USA... the website www.fat-controller.com does not (at this stage) fully reflect this, as a re-launch is imminent and updates are tied to this schedule. Like Wikipedia, Fat Controller Magazine affords the public an oportunity to be involved in media production (on a huge scale). It is possibly the first user-generated (print) magazine of is kind and/or scale in the world. The company (Fat Controller Media Ltd) & Arthur Bell CBE still need profiles uploaded.

The magazine's Wikipedia profile needs updating but it is factually correct (in all that it states). Look-up Fat Controller in media directories such as BRAD/Mediadisk if you have access to them - they are expensive/exclusive but extremely valuable. Perhaps a PR drive is required by the publishers, but with a larger circulation and an April re-launch, it is fair and right to wait for further press coverage before any hasty (and undue) wikichat ends up deleting these valid and relevant entries, just because the complainants haven't ever picked up a copy themselves. (unsigned comment by --81.154.112.212)

- Comment - I have never picked up a copy of the Lundy Gazette, but that does not make it is notable! --MacRusgail 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:15Z

Lenny Solomon

Blatant conflict of interest. The author of the article was almost certainly Don Barry, a member of Solomon's band, and he copied the article text directly from here [66]. I rest my case. YechielMan 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G12. ConDem^Talk 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G12. Caknuck 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Please relist seperately for individual consideration where necessary. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Alessi

Reality tv cruft - not notable!

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons. Some didn't even win the programmes:

MacRusgail 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge into a page of contestants for each season.--Limegreen 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Marianos, Keep Alison Irwin, Keep Kandice Pelletier, Keep Tyler MacNiven. No Comment on Ron Young. Delete the rest. I have tried to pursuade MacRusgail that a group nom is not the way to go here, per previous train wrecks, but did not succeed.
- Marianos - the "ultimate" reality-television couple. The fact that they have compete (and so successfully) on so many CBD shows and were invited to appear on the All-Star versions of both Survivor and the Amazing Race brings them, for me, above the general lack of notability of Reality TV contestants.
- Alison Irwin - as with the Marianos she has been involved in a number of different reality television show and gained notoriety as such.
- Kandice - keep because her competing in the Amazing Race is peripheral to her notability as Miss America state titleholders and Miss America national competitors .
- Tyler MacNiven - notabile for a number of other different things - see article.
- As for the rest - well I've tried to get rid of them myself (See here, but I'm not going into that now). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - notable for being on reality tv? Sorry, these people are non-entities who disappear after two/three years, unless they appear on another show. Then they get four/five years of fame. Your fifteen minutes are up! --ImpartialCelt 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion in no way applies to this nomination. Otto4711 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Ummm, many of them have appeared on another show.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as individuals or Keep. Some of these may indeed be cruft, but some of these are not. I haven't looked at each article, but some of these people are notable for more than just being on one TV show. Some of these people have appeared in multiples of Survivor/Big Brother/Amazing Race, plus all-star editions. Kandice Pelletier has also appeared at Miss America after winning her state competition. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all as too mixed of a bag of nominations to reasonably consider as a unit. Some of these are TAR winners, which IMHO confers notability in itself. Some are notable for achievements outside of TAR and need to be considered in light of those achievements. And frankly, anyone who thinks that Rob and Amber are not notable has no conception of the reality television genre. Finally, if no better reason for deletion than "reality tv cruft" can be offered then there is no justification for the nomination. Delete !votes are coming off very much as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Otto4711 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close all This is absurd. The Marianos each have appeared in five editions of three different series, one of which was completely about them. Tyler MacNiven is arguably notable completely outside of his participation, which, it should be noted, was a victory, in The Amazing Race. To compare these individuals to the average reality TV participant is absurd. Even Ron and Sarah, partners on the show they participated in, deserve separate AfDs because of Ron's possible notability from his time in Iraq. I'll say it again: This is absurd. --Maxamegalon2000 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as individuals, other keep all. While some are strong keeps (for instance, Rob and Amber Mariano), others might well qualify as deletable. Unfortunately, as Maxamegalon2000 and others, voting for this many in this fashion will only cause confusion. Tabercil 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. It is obvious that no consensus will result from this mass nomination, please relist seperately any subjects which need to be reconsidered for deletion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carpenter (game show contestant)

Delete all - I question whether winning a million dollars on a game show confers notability, even if that win translates into one or two appearances on other game shows later. Otto4711 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Re-list individual articles separately if you feel there's no notability. Nardman1 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kim_Hunt--Nonpareility 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - their fifteen minutes will soon be up. And the money gone! --ImpartialCelt 20:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and renom each individually; this was already debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Hunt (where it was also mentioned that a mass nomination wasn't appropriate). Cmprince 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the previous AFD but in reviewing it, it appears that most of the keeps were based on the form of the nomination, not the substance. However, I disagree that a mass nomination of people notable for the same thing (winning a million dollars on the same game show) is automatically invalid. And "keep"s based on the existence of the previous AFD need to take into account that consensus can change. Otto4711 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Carpenter, delete the others. Carpenter has notability for his accomplishment. I don't believe he should be lumped in with the others. 23skidoo 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Except John Carpenter. It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant. Carpenter barely passes the threshold as he was the first to win, which was notable. The rest are already listed in the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) article, which is more than sufficient. Agent 86 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John Carpenter, Weak delete the others - Carpenter has enough notability. Chupper 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John Carpenter as sufficiently notable per others, keep Kevin Olmstead as obtaining a record at the time of broadcast ($2,180,000 won on Millionaire), weak delete the others as insufficently notable. As an alternative, a page detailing all Millionaire $1,000,000 winners was proposed some time in the past. I'll approve if such a page is (re)created and the nominated pages are redirected there. Tinlinkin 01:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I completely agree with the WP:NOT#DIRECTORY argument, and was ready to go with the delete arguments on that basis. Normally, arguments based on "keep because we have article X" are not relevant. However, in this case, I find those arguments do hold sway. If we're going to have lists of many other country's postal codes, then there is no basis in the arguments to delete the postal codes from Nepal. Seems to me they should all go, but no basis for singling out only a single country. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Nepal

I really feel bad about this, because somebody spent a lot of time creating this table. I just haven't seen this kind of list for other coutries in Wikipedia, and I don't think it belongs. YechielMan 19:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~WP:NOT#IINFO~~ WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. ConDem^Talk 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory; the WP:NOT#DIRECTORY policy was tailor-made for this situation. And if it makes the nominator feel any better, the comment on the first edit of the history log states that the info was copied from [67] so it probably wasn't a lot of back-breaking labor. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not seeing similar articles is not a reason to delete. Just take a look at this list of similar articles. Information is useful, and should be kept. See also: Category:ZIP codes of the United States by state. auburnpilot talk 21:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These should all be deleted, IMO, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. And while some information is useful, WP:NOT#INFO. ConDem^Talk 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be right on the border for zip codes in the U.S. or England, since this is the English Wikipedia. But zip codes in China or Nepal just seem to be out of the question to me. The information might be "useful" to some minuscule subset of those who search wikipedia for encyclopedia information, but that is not a reason to keep it (see WP:USEFUL - an essay, not a policy, but reasonable in its content) and so I don't think that warrants retaining it... and of course, similar articles are neither a reason to delete or to keep per "What about article x?". The issue as I see it is the clear violation for this article of the WP:DIRECTORY policy. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you say, this is the English Wikipedia; not the US or England Wikipedia. People around the world speak English, and as we are attempting to create the "sum of all knowledge", we shouldn't be limiting ourselves to information only relevant to US and England. Useful to a " minuscule subset of those who search wikipedia" is still useful. The article is sourced and meets the requirements for inclusion. auburnpilot talk 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But just because something is useful, it doesn't mean it warrants being here. For example, how-to guides, or the phone book. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO. This is an encylopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. ConDem^Talk 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think it quite out of the question to delete this list and keep the lists for the USA and indeed all the others directly or indirectly linked from Postal code. It is clearly not NPOV, favouring some countries and not others. I suggest that this list be kept and a debate started somewhere about the value of all these lists. In such a debate, I might well favour deleting the lot of them, but I would like to see what the creators of them say. --Bduke 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Auburn Pilot. --Selket ^Talk 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Keep Unless we could transwiki it somewhere. WikiSource?? First we should dump all the major-nation postal codes, starting with the United States, because this can be found online. I can't find Nepal postal code information through Google. Noroton 02:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my opinion to "Delete" because PrincessBrat (see her comment below) demonstrated that this information can be found on the Internet. I see no reason why Wikipedians should be maintaining something that's not especially encyclopedic and available elsewhere. I think all postal code lists should also be deleted. Noroton 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Transwiki would be a reasonable alternative, having the info. available without it being in the main encyclopedia space. The article's original creator indicated that he obtained the data here: http://www.nepalpost.gov.np/download/hulakpincode.pdf. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: My computer isn't set for whatever alphabet the Nepalese use, so maybe that's probably why my search didn't come up with this page, meaning this list could be useful to anybody wanting to get that letter or package off to just the right spot in Nepal. As it is right now, I can't read parts of that page, including the title. My original reason holds: This information is hard to find. I'd prefer to send it to WikiSource if they'd take it.Noroton 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is he kind of thing that should be put on WikiSource maybe? LordFenix 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck a question at the Wikisource help page and maybe they'll come to the rescue. Noroton 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems a reasonable beginning of an article; also we have the US example. Carlossuarez46 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per auburnpilot and US example; part of coverage of postal service. --Vsion 06:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since its founding Wikipedia has been declared a place for encylopedic and almanac-type information. This type of information is made available in many categories and lists for English-speaking countries. There is absolutely no reason the same should not be done in English for all countries. (PS Wikisource does not host this information.) Dovi 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dovi is right, the Wikisource front desk tells me it doesn't fit there. I've left a message at the Wikibooks front desk. Noroton 23:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an editor said above I suspected the list was obtained via a post office site or somethign and I did a google search to prove. Its really unnecessary - if I wanted a postcode I would not look for it via wikipedia, i would go to the Post office website and do it there. Better still, there are websites [[68]] which do this for you as well and I think most people would go either of the two ways I listed to find a postcode. --PrincessBrat 13:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral "I just haven't seen this kind of list for other coutries in Wikipedia, and I don't think it belongs." See Lists of postal codes. There are many, and the "what links here" button is your friend. Salad Days 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue School, Wells

non-notable school ConDem^Talk 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prod removed with no explanation or improvement. ConDem^Talk 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - While Wikipedia:Schools is still a work in progress, it incorporates guidelines for notability similar to the other established criteria... and this school makes no attempt to establish any degree of notability. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Better sourcing has been provided since the beginning of the AfD process that cites more than just the age. ◄Zahakiel ► 02:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Founded in 1641 seems like an assertion of notability to me. It needs expanding and referencing, not deleting. --Bduke 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Bduke above Bbagot 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The article has since had information and sources added. This should remove the deletion concerns. As far as age equaling notability, at least in America those structures that have stood the test of time are given a special place of prominence. During our Bicentennial celebration, houses that could be shown to have been around before a certain time period were allowed to be marked and tours could be given. Bbagot 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the links make it notable. The press release doesn't count, because it's not independent. There are thousands of buidings from around that time in the UK - a little cottage I lived in dated from that time, and that was in no way notable! (Not that that counts as evidence fot my argument, I know.) There's not claim that the school is still in the old building, anyway. ConDem^Talk
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. The assertion made above that just because something is old it is automatically notable is just silly: imagine applying the same reasoning to people - my grandmother would immediately get her own Wikipedia entry. Just possibly the "oldest" of a category may be notable, but to claim notability for being the "umpteen-th oldest item" is very peculiar indeed. WMMartin 11:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Old Schools are notable. They are not your grandmother. You are missing the point. --Bduke 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite the contrary: my grandmother is old, but she is not notable because she is not adequately documented by independent sources. Here on Wikipedia notability is not subjective. This is a well-established principle. Simply because something is old, or big, or small, or young, or you happen to like it does not make it notable. It bears repeating in virtually every debate on schools articles: a topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable to support an article about it. Every other article in Wikipedia has to stick to these principles, but in every school debate we get variants of the line "all schools are notable", or "I think this is notable", or "I like it". This is fine, and if anyone wants to set up a directory of all schools on the planet they're very welcome to do so, but the criteria we have here are different: we have a technical definition of notability that is independent of your preferences, or mine, or any other editor's. But there is a small, vocal, number of editors who think that their preferences should over-ride this fundamental principle, simply because "they like it". One of the great tragedies of Wikipedia is that the "pro school" people think that there's a bunch of people out there who are "anti school": I'm certainly not, as my record shows, and I'm highly confident that neither are most people. All I want, and I suspect all that most people want, is for the same rules on notability to be applied to the subjects of all articles. We can indulge in technical quibbles about whether school sports results in local newspapers count as adequate references if you like, but the bottom line is that what I want is fairness, and not to have the particular preferences of one group imposed on the project as a whole. You say that I am missing the point, but it is you who is missing the point: Wikipedia is a shared, collective endeavour in which we all agree to be bound by common standards. When you try to impose your views by claiming that all X are per se notable it is you, not I, who is breaking the social contract that unites Wikipedia editors, because you are not accepting the general principle of notability that guides and binds us, but imposing your own. To say "I like this, so it must be so" is not the mark of someone who wants to be part of a larger commonweal, but the mark of the unco-operative, the petulant or the dictatorial. WMMartin 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying that this article needs sources, but I still say that a School with a history of over 350 years is asserting notability. That history needs verifying. The guideline you quote "is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable" is all very well, but in my opinion it is confusing notability with verifiability. Something can have lots of sources which are reliable, in the sense of reporting something correctly, but they can be sources about something that is trivial. I am not saying "I like this". I know nothing about the School. Nor am I saying "All Schools are notable". I am saying that very old Schools are at least asserting notability. People should be adding reliable sources and developing this article. A very old School will have had many notable alumni and will have played a significant role in its community. --Bduke 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very old school need not have had any notbale alumni. If there are notbale alumni, then this is very probably a notable school. But this doesn't follow on from the fact that it's old. Something can very easily be old and not notable. Basically, a mention of notable alumni would be an assertion of notability. It doesn't mention any. Simply being old is not enough. There are no other assertions of notability. Therefore, it doesn't assert notability. ConDem^Talk 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based upon what? I agree with WMMartin that age by itself is not a sufficient element of notability. I'd definitely alter my opinion if I saw anything else (in the article, or about-to-be-included in the article) that said why this particular school is notable. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of notability in either the article or in any of the 'keep' !votes above, besides 'Well, it's old'. Would someone explain to me why they think that that is valid? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that the school is 350 years old, there should by now have been amply time for anything that might have made it notable--but it hasn't. DGG 05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That this school is 366 years old and the largest in Somerset confers notability. (jarbarf) 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are not operating on any kind of WP:DEADLINE, and any school aged over 350 years is historically important. Yamaguchi先生 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Wikipedia:There is no deadline suggest that we can afford "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." ConDem^Talk 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it actually works against the "keep" vote that the citing editor gave... no time limit means we wait until something is clearly notable before including it. The press release used to establish the school's status as "largest" is not an acceptable third-party source according to WP:Notability: ""Independence" excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias." If third-party coverage for the school cannot be found, it shouldn't be included, despite its age. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not operating under a deadline to make each and every article perfect, this one already demonstrates notability and contains non-trivial third party sources, such as the one from SusTrans. Silensor 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The press release is indeed form a 3rd party source. The school is not run by the Somerset County Council. It is a voluntary controlled school run by the CofE - it receives state funding but I don't think that makes the press release non-independant.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies the bastardized WP:SCHOOLS guidelines and cites multiple non-trivial sources, satisfying our core policies. Silensor 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The press release about it being the largest is not from the School but from the County Council as far a I can see. I think that makes it third party. I found it on a blog from an alumni also, but that is not a reliable source. --Bduke 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor, et al. --Myles Long 15:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an institution which has survived more than 350 years is notable--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar schools, ie Voluntary controlled schools dating from the seventeenth century or earlier are Marlwood School from 1606, King Charles I School from 1636, William Parker Sports College from 1619, Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Ashbourne from 1585. Also Earls Colne Grammar School from 1520 - a hundred years earlier and now closed. There is nothing less notable about the Blue School. A free school from that era is interesting - I hope somebody will write more.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silensor et al. AntiVan 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Largest school in Somerset, long history, high academic standards independently assessed. TerriersFan 00:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asha'man

Article is completely unsourced and constitutes Original Research in its entirety. There aren't multiple non-trivial reliable published sources about Asha'man. Delete - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge but rewrite. I do see some problems with this article, but The Wheel of Time is notable, and as an important aspect of it, the Asha'man should be covered. I wouldn't object if this was merged into Organizations of The Wheel of Time or some such article though. FrozenPurpleCube 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The appropriate response when coming across an article without necessary sources is to insert a tag for the need for sources, not flag for deletion. As part of a larger series especially, it would be inappropriate to just delete it instead of allowing it to be cleaned up. Bbagot 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is part of a larger series, detailing a major aspect of the The Wheel of Time. It should include references to the book pages, though. --MPorciusCato 08:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite with references: the references do exist, the page authors have just been too lazy to include them. There may be unsourced inferences that would constitute original research as well. Alba 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICTION which requires a secondary source (to establish notability and at least some 'out-of-universe' material) for a separate article. Notability of The Wheel of Time is irrelevant as to whether this article should stay. Willing to change vote if secondary sources are presented. --maclean 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I love TWoT, but I'm not really sure about this one. I did find [69], [70] and [71], as well as [72]. Is it enough to keep the article and make it non-OR? Maybe. Daniel.Bryant 08:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable and can be verified back to the book; the editors can discuss merges and content on the talk pages. John Vandenberg 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seem to be no non-trival sources or refs. NBeale 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; it's not hurting anything as a redirect, and it's not a far-fetched search term. Obviously someone thought to search for it in the first place. Kafziel ^Talk 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese musical instrument

Useless redirect. Ideogram 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments rather than delete - this is a useful redirect to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments. When someone types "Chinese musical instrument" in the search box (a logical search term rather than the cumbersome title of the actual page), they are brought to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments, getting the information they came for. It's a no-brainer. Badagnani 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list. If they type that, they aren't looking for a list. --Ideogram 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not an outlandish search term. Kafziel ^Talk 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese instrument

Useless redirect. Ideogram 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments rather than delete - this is a useful redirect to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments. When someone types "Chinese instrument" in the search box (a logical search term rather than the cumbersome title of the actual page), they are brought to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments, getting the information they came for. It's a no-brainer. Badagnani 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list. If they type that, they aren't looking for a list. --Ideogram 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, article created in place of redirect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:14Z

Chinese instrument classification

Useless redirect. Ideogram 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments rather than delete - this is a useful redirect to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments. When someone types "Chinese instrument classification" in the search box (a logical search term rather than the cumbersome title of the actual page), they are brought to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments, getting the information they came for. It's a no-brainer. Further, the list is broken up according to the ancient Chinese musical instrument classification of "eight materials," and explains this system, so it's the logical destination for a WP user wishing to find this information. Badagnani 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this one didn't get speedied. Note that the search term you are advocating is already pretty long, and if someone types it they don't want to wade through a long list to find what they are looking for. What you should be doing is copying the relevant information from the list into a new article. If you're too lazy to do it I'll probably get around to it eventually. --Ideogram 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've done it. It needs expansion pretty badly, but I think this AfD can be closed. --Ideogram 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the 八音 is only one classification system, and that others have existed at various times in Chinese history. This is documented in reference books, but not necessarily easy to find. Badagnani 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that work. You'll have to do it yourself or wait for someone else. --Ideogram 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:16Z

Starfleet's safety protocols

Collection of material that is covered in components' ind. articles, e.g. holodeck and replicator. Generally unsourced with reliable secondary sources. Whereas the technologies described are notable for their role in various episodes, the safety protocols themselves are not notable. --EEMeltonIV 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with reasons given above. Picking holes in plots may be OK as minor content in an encyclopaedia article, but it is a major element of this one. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft. ShaleZero 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original synthesis based on broadly unrelated episodes of a science-fiction franchise. Conclusions given in the article are not supported by referenced sources, reliable or otherwise. -- saberwyn 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Memory Alpha wants it, but I'm not sure it even meets their standards. Alba 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, seems to be fan-made. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:16Z

Kakeru I (Ape Escape)

No sources, and does not appear to meet the notability/importance guidelines for inclusion. NMChico24 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to List of Ape Escape Characters where it is already listed (no extra content to merge). It would require a secondary source and out-of-universe material to get a separate article per WP:FICTION. maclean 05:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Renata 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faber (band)

Faber has now been renamed Faber Drive, and a new page has been added with the new name. - User:Incompetentfriend. I am fixing the nbroken nomination -- saberwyn 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC) -- saberwyn 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to the new name to preserve contribution history. No stance on the band itself, or its ability to meet the notability inclusion guideline for music-related articles. -- saberwyn 23:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More information added to Faber Drive, such as images, and information to be added as others with information of the band contribute. Incompetentfriend 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect (Faber (band)->Faber Drive). No position of Faber Drive itself. -MrFizyx 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:16Z

Duke Nukem 5

WP:CRYSTAL. Article is mostly speculation on a game that may or may not be released superapathy man 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel to a game (Duke Nukem Forever) that has been "in development hell" (under development but not released) for ten years and counting. Delete per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", with option to recreate when a verifiable article can be produced from reliable attributable sources per Wikipedia:Attribution, not just in-house interviews posted on the company's website. -- saberwyn 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No. Just no. JuJube 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sequel to a game that will probably never be released? ARGH, MY HEAD!!! Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kill it. Kill it now. :( K1Bond007 05:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth. When Duke Nukem Forever finally gets released, we can consider unprotecting this article and working with it. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Duke Nukem Forever (and redirect). Crypticfirefly 06:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do hope this was a joke... BJ^Talk 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making The Misfits

Delete - almost tempted to speedy. Incomprehensible, no assertion of notability, no sources, reliable or otherwise. Otto4711 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a listing for this title at AMG [73]; this article, however doesn't reflect the details accurately. Probably should be re-created, or better, a mention of this made at The Misfits (film), just like the book. SkierRMH 04:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; incomprehensible. Coulda been speedied. --Quuxplusone 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. (Meaning I redirect, anyone who cares to can merge from the history.) - brenneman 06:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCTV logos

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussions for BBC One logos and Logos of Viacom. —tregoweth (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RCTV. Why is it unverifiable? I'm pretty sure such information can be found in the "About us" or "History" section of most major corporate websites. This is likely a fork of the RCTV article. However, the length of the two articles does not justify two separate articles. -- Black Falcon 05:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge onto RCTV. Responding to the nominator, "does not establish subject's notability" isn't a valid argument. RCTV is clearly notable.--Jersey Devil 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBS idents (2nd nomination)

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussions for BBC One logos and Logos of Viacom. —tregoweth (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Survived Afd successfully just over a year ago; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents. Georgia guy 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it survived AFD once means that the article is automatticly kept Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? Consensus can change. (No strong opinion on this particular article myself, though.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant doesn't mean, apperently i got reverted [74]

as for me Delete until valid sources are found Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is clearly notable. Something seen by millions of people on a daily basis is notable.--Hobit 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is probably a fork of PBS after the main article became too long. It is most certainly verifiable. The fact that each of the logos is on the article as a picture attests to this--somewhere there is information about this. I also don't understand the OR claim--I think it is conflated with the WP:V argument. -- Black Falcon 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve too. I mean, didn't Black Falcon mean "conflicted"? Anyway, yes it is notable. We just have to keep watch for hoaxes - that's all. --Addict 2006 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was many, many years ago, but I swear that there was even a mini documentary about this subject (yes, on PBS idents)! (jarbarf) 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually because nobody bothers to provide references establishing the historical importance of logos. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because I don't want this page's first survival to be for nothing. --Ryanasaurus0077 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It really helped me to understand a few vague childhood memories. That means a lot. --Jnelson09 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBC logos

Original research, unverifiable, does not establish subject's notability. See also the AfD discussions for BBC One logos and Logos of Viacom. —tregoweth (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference. Very well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was forked from NBC in October 2005, so we should probably check the parent article for pertinent references. Notability shouldn't be a concern, as it is a corporate mark for one of the world's largest multimedia conglomerates. Caknuck 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the NBC article, no reason to have its own article. TJ Spyke 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The NBC article is already 42KB. The reason the fork was done was to adhere to WP:SIZE. Caknuck 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a policy. TJ Spyke 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per User:Caknuck and/or User:TJ Spyke. As long as the content is not deleted, I personally don't much care where it ends up. However, if the creation of this page was the result of consensus at Talk:NBC, then keep and reference. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference. The subject seems notable enough to me. --TheSlyFox 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reasons as TheSlyFox WAVY 10 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos? -- azumanga 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Very nice article. Rothorpe 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grove high school

Notability not asserted, read like advertisemnt Alex Bakharev 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my arguments here. Soltak | Talk 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as high schools are inherently notable. Noroton 02:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see why high schools are "inherently notable". Notability for our purposes has a clear definition, and right now this article doesn't demonstrate this. I'm entirely resigned to the fact that when this debate is closed the closing administrator is simply going to count up opinions and go with the flow, because the truth is that closing administrators are never actually "bold", and the number of schools AfD debates that are closed by "keeping" articles that don't in any way meet our criteria for notability is legion, but now and then I do just want to ask: why should the rules on notability for schools be any different for our rules on other subjects? Notability is not, in Wikipedia, a matter of opinion. But, heck, little by little we're destroying the value of a Wikipedia entry, and that gets on my nerves. Just for once I'd like to see an adminstrator close a debate by actually sticking to our rules, not by counting opinions. WMMartin 11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would you delete all small non-notable towns and villages as well? If not, why not? Noroton 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief summary on the Grove, Oklahoma page for now. But I'll be happy to change my preference if the page gets better developed. — RJH (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per RJH. High schools are as notable and important as small villages and towns, I agree, but this content would be best served from the Grove article. (jarbarf) 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the town. I'd be delighted to keep a HS article about a notable school. But this one is a rather good example of what is not sufficient. DGG 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grove, Oklahoma is an acceptable compromise for right now. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Yamaguchi, et al. --Myles Long 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All schools are notable. Could use some work though. AntiVan 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove POV and original research.--Orthologist 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW, nomination withdrawn and no arguments to delete. --Core desat 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Government: NationStates

~~Not Notable per WP:WEB. There are no independent or verifiable sources that mention the site or even link to it.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDiamonds (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 February 2007 The link that GulDan showed that it was notable and had reliable and verifiable sources. Perhaps they should be added to the article ? BlackDiamonds 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search shows there are independetn sites that talk about it: [75] TJ Spyke 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps it could be better sourced (most of what is there is self-referential or random blogs) but it's been around long enough and should be notable enough that some useful information exists to back up the article. Arkyan 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Arkyan. Canadianshoper 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, bad-faith nomination by unhappy CyberNations people. – Chacor 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is a major website linked to widely with tens of thousands of verified separate participants. PeterSP 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, evidence in the following link of CyberNations players openly suggesting having this page deleted out of spite. [76] gasponia 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep,This is the most stupid idea I have ever heard of. NationStates has been in existence for over three years and warrants several wiki pages.
Strong Keep NS is notable and as per above Brian | (Talk) 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NS has been around for several years and covered by several different news sources both online and in print (I happen to own a South African Cosmopolitan, April 2006 that mentions NS one of its articles). It is also used by several educators in teaching their classes. I will continue to look for articles mentioning/covering it, but with the ephemeral nature of the web, it can be tough to dig them up. One such is: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/statesofmind.html GulDan 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arkyan and GulDan. --Goobergunch|? 08:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please provide credibility, or Wikip. Policy. This is not a vote. Jeff503 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...so says an unhappy CN player. Seriously, please stop trolling Wikipedia~~, all of you. When CN becomes notable it'll get an article~~. – Chacor 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I have been on wikipedia for a long time. That was just a friendly reminder, but thanks for being mature about it. Now lets stop.Jeff503 12:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One example of NS in the news is here, where it is mentioned (though not by name) as well as CN. And no, I'm leading the effort to restore CN's article and I didn't endorse this. Don't blame the CN community, this is one person acting on his own. I would, however, recommend adding a section on NS in the news. - Pious7 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has no outside sources for it. All the links are either to Nationstates own news pages or to its forums. The ones that aren't go to the site of a fan of nationstates. If not deletion, the article is in need of links to outside neutral sources of people who do not play Nationstates or who are not biased against it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.22.228 (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I found one neutral source: http://www.straight.com/article-68225/winds-snow-lead-to-perfect-storm-of-sites but it doesn't say much.

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

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, and this certainly has the look of a vanity article. The references, as noted, are very week. The failed political career is not notable. But still, it was a close call...almost a no consensus, but in the end, there just wasn't enough of a case made for notability for the article to stay. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie Stewart

Non-notable wrestler, and his only claim to fame was being mistaken for the comedian Jon Stewart due to their similiar names. TJ Spyke 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Also, some of his "sources" are pretty dodgy: "Official Jonnie Stewart bio at the AWA headquarters." -- Scorpion 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although you have to admit it's mildly comedic that such a non-entity has his own page, and a rather wordy one at that. Suriel1981 02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is self created vanity project. If you look at the edit history of the creator [77], you can see statements like "Photo rights owned by myself, Jon Stewart." -- Scorpion 02:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That should speed up the deletion process, right? Suriel1981 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup It looks a good size article. I've never heard of this person and I think it really needs to get cleaned up as well. Davnel03 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So your saying keep just because it's a good sized article? I could write a good sized article on myself too, but that wouldn't be a reason to keep it. -- Scorpion 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He asserts notability: a former wrestler, political career (even though it failed) and so on. A vote with just "who" isn't being helpful. Remember people: it's not about the votes, it's about the arguements for and against the article. RobJ1981 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be a former wrestler, but a non-notable wrestler. Just running for politcal office isn't notable either. Lrrr IV 03:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His heyday was the late 80's, he did manage to get some national media attention and does own part of a national indy promotion, I do remember him on ESPN. Figurefour1900 21:19, 27 Feburary 2007 (UTC)— Figurefour1900 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- He doesn't own any part of the current AWA, he just helped start it (and it took 9 years it to really get going). TJ Spyke 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete W.marsh 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rulebook (2nd nomination)

WP:DICDEF This page had previously been nominated several months ago and was kept as a no consensus decisicion. The keep votes suggested the article had potential for expansion - it has languished unchanged as a 1 sentence dicdef ever since. Arkyan 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely has potential! I am surprised that the article is a stub! --Nevhood 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a dictionary definition. -- Whpq 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content. It is the second nomination, so potential is not a good arguement anymore.--Sefringle 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki To wiktionary. But with a better definition that the current one. - Denny 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Sefringle. "Definitely has potential!" might have been a persuasive argument in the first AfD discussion, but more than six months have now passed with no expansion or improvement. Seems unlikely to ever be more than a WP:DICDEF. -- Satori Son 13:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Income statement. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:17Z

Trading and Profit and Loss Account (UK)

not encyclopedic, no sources. I really can't see this becoming a legit article. Akradecki 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to income statement -- Whpq 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to income statement --Richard 16:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:18Z

Katmandu (comic)

Prod contested with "Seems to be a well known furry comic". Article is about a Furry comic but it makes no claim to notability and does not appear to be able to substain enough (or any) reliable sources for verifiability and notability. Also clearly fails the attribution policy. The article has been tagged for sources for several months now. NeoFreak 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Long-running print comic. Notable artist, notable writer, fairly notable publisher. Needs sources though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Do you have any realible sources to back those assertions? NeoFreak 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mary Fleener wrote a review of it in The Comics Journal for their "Women in Comics" issue. As for longevity, it's reached 34 issues in 14 years, as well as several annuals and an adult spinoff title. Also, though I dunno how much this counts for, it's apparently in the Michigan State University Libraries comic art collection: ( link )Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A print comic title that's had three publishers (Antarctic Press, Vision Comics, and Shanda Fantasy Arts), three dozen issues (plus annuals, specials, and spinoffs), and has a notable writer and artist most likely has reliable sources via industry publications, even if they're not online. One online source I did find was ComicBookNet's e-magazine, which called it a "key title" of Shanda Fantasy Arts [78] -- one of two, the other being Shanda the Panda. Current article appears to be sourced from the webpage, and requires cleanup. Shimeru 06:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt's a long-running comic with notable people behind it. (Third3rdIII 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with no prejudice regarding any future nomination. Next time, how about giving someone more than 5 minutes unless you want to argue that the basis for the article is flawed. Don't nominate an article based on its content after 5 minutes. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kirby series characters

Just links to other articles Magistrand Sign Here! My Talk 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously right now it's a stub that's being worked on. It's not just links to other articles, some of the content is in this article itself. Nardman1 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean come on, you put this up for afd 5 minutes after it was created. Nardman1 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good faith nom, but I do not think it should succeed - it is a very stubby article, and it was intended to be expanded, not to be a list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A little hasty and harsh on the nom, but it's another list that seems to be better served by a category, anyway. Arkyan 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kirby franchise is one of the biggest in gaming. Deserves an article no less than the list of Mario, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, or Zelda characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, categories are of no help for the majority of the articles; for instance, the category doesn't give a description of Marx. This is a list of characters with detailed information, the category argument doesn't apply. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable franchise, the list has a lot of potential and is under the process of development, and KIRBY IS AWESOME!!!! --Nevhood 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I really want to redirect a bunch of those minor characters here. Nifboy 05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is already forming into far more than a list. I don't understand the preoccupation to jump on new articles at their inception because they do not yet meet full wikipedia quality standards. We should encourage development; not seek to destroy it. Bbagot 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's "Wikipedia:New pages patrol", not "Patrol pages made a few days ago." Nifboy 15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but the goal is to guide and help mature. What are they doing here under deletion? Improvement is mentioned before deletion and even then under deletion it says "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." Bbagot 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Who keeps remaking this page? It took me WEEKS to get it deleted last time! There is already a category listing all the Kirby chars. We don't need a huge, ugly, bloated page of information that is already listed several times in other places. We have Template:Kirby_characters and Category:Kirby_characters There are simply too many characters too list them all on one page. That's why you divide it up.
There is NO need for this page, it's nothing but redundant. It's too much of a hassle to keep the information consistent between pages. We have a page for enemies, a page for bosses, and certain characters already have their own pages. Every character already has it's own listing. Don't over complicate things. Ivyna J. Spyder 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what name was it listed earlier and what deletion process removed it? Nardman1 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was called Kirby_series_characters then. The discussion for deleting it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kirby_series_characters It was just as big and unwieldy! It just makes so much more sense to have things organized into smaller sections instead of LISTZILLA here. Ivyna J. Spyder 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ Keep Eliminating some of the more unnotable characters will eliminate the initial confusion I had regarding the significance of the article. --ArrEmmDee 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly I'd rather wipe some of the more catalog-esque lists above and redirect them here. Take a page from Monsters of Final Fantasy, which used to look like this until it was spread across three pages, and ultimately cut down to something like a quarter of what it used to list. Nifboy 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's the point of this list if most (all of them, actually) of these characters are already on other lists? Not to mention that this list seems to created on the basis that these are 'major' characters, which is rather unecessary and pointless when there are already five other lists of characters, as ArrEmmDee stated. - DisasterKirby 03:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This treats several main characters(like Dedede, Tiff, etc.) like minor characters. I think they're good with just their main articles. I think another list should be made with the REAL minor characters. BamYap 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what are you talking about? This list is particularly SHORT in comparison with many other video game character lists. How in the world is this even remotely long? We don't have lists of bosses for other games, and we definitely don't have one for mini-bosses. We don't need one for animal friends, since only six characters apply to that label. The only two lists that are of any worth are the list of enemies and the list of characters. And considering that you are fighting me tooth and nail over me shortening a list of enemies (which has to be twice the size of this article), I'm shocked you're saying "Delete this article because it's too long". How can you call this listzilla and oppose its existence when you are all for a list of enemies which you refuse to allow the removal of less-notable enemies to shorten it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And not to be rude, but are you quite sane? This is done in ALL character lists. Legend of Zelda character list has Link on it, Mario list has Mario on it, Chrono Trigger list has Crono on it, Final Fantasy VI list has Terra on it. There is NOTHING wrong whatsoever with listing major articles on a list of characters just because of importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to me that most, if not all of the data listed here is already available in other locations. You may argue that a list would condense unneeded categories into a single area. This is absurd, nay, preposterous! There are far too many characters, enemies, and bosses to be placed in a single list. You may claim that all of the information is not needed on this website, but you would still be incorrect. Is Wikipedia not an attempt to place as much information as possible in one website. Man cannot be the judge of what wisdom is declined and what is accepted. This video game franchise has as much of a right as anything else to exist. - Izzyisme 08:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering Wikipolicy says that Wikipedia is not an attempt to place as much information as possible in one web site, it's not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well. I assumed so based on the articles concerning the Legend of Zelda. If this article is to be kept, then all of the "Characters from Legend of Zelda (Insert game title here)" should be condensed into a single "Characters from Legend of Zelda" article. - Izzyisme 07:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see a need to delete it. A suggestion: Figure out what you want the focus of the article to be. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 09:18Z

Finagoo

Only found a few English hits. 1 is from Urban Dictionary, and a few others are from Wikipedia mirror sites. The non-English hits come from 2 websites: some Slovakian message board and a Slovakian blog. Sahmeditor 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Storm05 15:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has just enough sense in it to avoid a speedy delete for patent nonsense. Nonetheless it is blatantly something made up in school one day. Sorry, Charlie. Alba 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to be a pretend language along the lines of pig latin but with no references and none findable from googling. So fails WP:NFT and WP:V. -- Whpq 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content, but I suggest a move as discussed below. W.marsh 17:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands

Unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a repository of probability tables. Very long; content doesn't stand on its own as an article, is too long to be accommodated in another one. Is named as a subpage, which articles should not be. Should be deleted, transwikied or moved out of article space. – Qxz 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The amount and detail of the information provided here is useful and can't be found elsewhere. Move to Derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em. S0ulfire84 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it can't be found elsewhere, then does that perhaps mean it's a problem, rather than a reason to keep it? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, but if the decision is to move the article, I think a better name would be Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per S0ulfire84. Mgiganteus1 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, seems to be original research. TJ Spyke 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - however should be shortened and sourced, and moved if that turns out to be consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either a sub-page that shouldn't be (a curable problem) or Original Research (a much more incurable one). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not an Omaha player, but it looks useful to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not in itself a valid reason for the inclusion of this article in an encyclopedia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The parent article seems to have a bunch of these tables too. They must be from somewhere; actually, there may be WP:COPYVIO issues here? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hadn't thought of it that way. As I understand the rules, though, it would be a copyvio only if the tables existed somewhere else first, since I don't think anyone can claim copyright on something which turns up here first. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I left a note on the parent article's talk page, and on a user page of someone involved in splitting the article in the first place, who may have made the tables. It's not exactly WP:OR because it's not really research; I wouldn't demand a ref for 2 2=4. But maybe someone from there will show up and explain. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't claim to understand the mechanics of card games, but I think it's still close to OR if not in fact over that line. Essentially, the article's talking about a series of outcomes and the probabilities that these outcomes will occur. That's something which requires a higher level of mathematical work than 2 2=4, so it's either been done by someone somewhere else (in which case it needs to be appropriately sourced before we talk about anything else) or done by the author/s of this article (in which case it's naughty). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (edit conflict) I do understand the mechanics of card games; I think the calculations fall under the realm of common knowledge among "professional" Omaha players, in much the same way basic math is common knowledge among grade-schoolers. I can tell you what these blackjack charts say from memory, for example. Omaha is simply one of the most complex games, where the amount of esoteric knowledge is high. A lot of the card game articles are fairly ad hoc in respect to citations, but I imagine they attract a fair amount of expert attention. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I created the article in question I'll abstain from voicing an opinion. But I thought I'd copy here my response to the question "Did you make the tables in the article up for deletion?" from Kendrick7 on my talk page:
What do you mean by make? Yes, I made the tables. No, it's not my original research. However, I don't know of any reliable source that contains all of the information, probably because it's voluminous. The sourcing is from papers and discussions in probability forums, but those wouldn't be considered reliable sources and most of it has not been "published" in the proper sense. All of the information in the tables is easily verified because after all, it's just math. The "verification" is that the probabilities add up to 1.0. I included a note on the talk page regarding the reasoning behind including the tables, which in part is specifically to provide verification for the tables in the main article. To avoid a conflict of interest, I intend to stay out of the deletion discussion. Hope that helps. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Doug Bell ^talk 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hardly Unencyclopedic, a very well done article on the mathematical probabilities in Omaha. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's what I'm saying. Sure it could be better sourced — and sourcing is something I'm picky about on liberal arts-ish articles — but I think WP:SENSE comes into play here. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've seen some of this information before, but nothing so usefully organized and comprehensive. I don't believe that this is original work, but I don't know anywhere I've seen it laid out so well. Ron Howard 08:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Completely objective and verifiable (use combinatorics and a calculator). This is not original research; from WP:OR: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." In this case the data are the rules of the game. The lack of comprehensive sources raises the value of this article. The question becomes whether these probabilities are encyclopedic, which I think they are. Pomte 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ yo-yoll.net / magazine - World of Tolkien / Immagini dalla Terra di Mezzo

[1] yo-yoll.net / magazine - World of Tolkien / Immagini dalla Terra di Mezzo

[1]