Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 30

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< January 29 January 31 >

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 keep. I've tagged for cleanup as suggested below. Proto::► 13:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The River Company

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

I'm concerned about the verifiability of this topic. After quickly searching on search engines for the band information, Wikipedia was the only source listed in top results. The article has no references except for some external links of which none, being written by third parties, specifically mention the band. Additionally the notability is highly controversial. Other than the external links (of no value to this debate) can the authors present any evidence this topic deserves an article? Chupper 05:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- any unverifiable information should be removed, of course, but there's plenty of sources linked from the article that provide verification of key facts. Notability criteria requires multiple non-trivial independent reliable published sources to have discussed the subject -- I count at least three in the external links section. JulesH 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think that the external links do justify the notibility of the band. What sort of evidence other than external links do you want? Notability is hard to judge based on search-engine results. Try searching less generic terms than the band name itself such as the names of the band members. Regardless, WP:Music clearly defines that ONE(1) of the criteria be met, regardless of your personal opinion of how many must be met. And though some of the links have gone into internet archives, and should be removed, there are still several notable publications that feature articles solely based on the band and it's work. Garyleeweinrib 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Of course there is enough notability for this band listed under "External Links". I don't know what Wikipedia's notability rules are, but this article is nearly four months old. Why in the world would it be nominated for deletion after four months of no problem? Really, I find this ridiculous. Michael.m.winters 06:09, 5 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/redirect to Saadat Hasan Manto (of which the current title is either an incorrect or less common spelling). — CharlotteWebb 00:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat Hasan Manto

edit

This page is not worked on often has a topic that is not refrenced often plus the page has no information even if the page is refrenced. Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Cocoaguy 従って contribstalk Get Lost 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge and redirect to [{Saadat Hasan Manto]] as indicated below. Good call. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a 1960s biographical sketch and a 2005 commemorative stamp. That's good enough for WP:RS. Mereda 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters.--Wizardman 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patchy the Pirate

edit
Patchy the Pirate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor fictional character on SpongeBob SquarePants. Only appearred in 4 episodes (and seqways of a SpongeBob marathon). Article has no sources and no notability outside the SpongeBob universe. 650l2520 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 and WP:SNOW, established as hoax. NawlinWiki 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael ganz

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

Suspicious lack of google hits for this child prodigy ("Michalel Ganz" Haifa Basketball = one unrelated ghit. Would surely have prodded this as a hoax if it wasn't for the (presumably spurious) claim of notability. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into New Zealand European --Durin 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British New Zealander

edit
British New Zealander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Term unused in New Zealand - Pakeha is used by the majority to refer to someone of British ancestory. Also look at the references or lack of. --HamedogTalk|@ 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've changed my mind to delete. It's not appropriate to merge this into European New Zealander when what is stated is not verifiable. How do we know it's true? Especially the bit regarding royalists and conservatives. On British New Zealanders talk page, Brian says "In today's world a British New Zealander is most likely someone who has just moved from the UK me thinks." This is completely true, which is why without a ref, this should be deleted (rather then merged). - Shudda talk 03:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you know it's true Shudda? I'm 5th, 6th, 7th generation British and I still consider myself "NZ British". It's what I put under "other" in the census form. There is evidence for a least one other formally considering themselves NZ British - Aidan Work, the guy who created this article - and Bill Wilmot's link to Aidan's speech implies he shares the same sentiment. And we're all conservative royalists. So, tell me, are the three of us real people with real ethnicites or not?? Watch my blog (link on user page) for an essay on the topic. - A.J.Chesswas 08:00, 1 February 2007 (NZT)
  • I don't know whether it's true or not, because it's not referenced. Hence my view to delete. If the only basis you have for keeping those comments up (in any article) are those you've stated above then it becomes an issues of original research, which is just as good a reason to delete as verifiability. So sorry, I'm going to stick with delete. - Shudda talk 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one who did some work on this article I concede as follows. Regarding "NZ British", there seems to be a lack of source material to reference, which is sad, so I'm willing to see that incoporated into NZ European. I suppose it would be fair to even leave it right out, as there only seem to be just a few bloggers using it in common currency. I certainly count myself as NZ British, and know others I share this in common with, but it looks like I'm going to actually have to do some more research and encourage more publishing in the area myself before I can prove its validity as a 21st Century NZ ethnic group.

  • So I vote for merging with NZ European but would like to see a reference retained in NZ European discussing the fact it is used by the likes of myself, Wilmot & Work (conservatives & royalists).A.J.Chesswas 14:55, 30 January 2007 (NZT)
  • Merge with Pakeha for which this is simply an alternate name. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE "NZ British" certainly not equivalent to Pakeha. Apparently Oxford Dictionary has Pakeha = NZ EUROPEAN.A.J.Chesswas 20:29, 30 January 2007 (NZT)
doesn't British (in this context) imply European? You couldn't, (in the context of 19th and early 20th century Britain) be from Britain without being from Europe, but you could be from Europe without being from Britain. In which case, doesn't that mean that British New Zealander does mean Pakeha? Kripto 09:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would only be true if the two races have been thoroughly assimilated. It would be easy to argue they have been assimilated, but in saying that it would be more linguistically and culturally accurate to say Europeans were assimilated into British culture, and thus the term used should be NZ British, not NZ European. It's a political mess, the etymology of NZ European, but I suppose you are right - NZ British and NZ European are the same thing - Pakeha - but for some reason NZ European has become a preferred term. However I will continue to identify myself as NZ British, as do others, and I think it is quite strange that British ethnic identity has been so sidelined in this country. - A.J.Chesswas 08:00, 31 January 2007 (NZT)

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 13:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A1 (Serbia)

edit
A1 (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A1, A2 and A3 are imaginary designations of major motorways in Serbia, which are actually designated only by their European route numbers (such as E-70, E-75 etc.) [1] - this constitutes a case of original research and affects the whole article, as motorway which is designated as A1 here, in fact consists of section of E-70 and section of E-75 motorways. While not disputing a need for original and new designations of Serbian motorways, this article is simply inaccurate and, perhaps, only wishful thinking. Meelosh 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

   I am also nominating the following related pages for the identical reasons:
   :A2 (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :A3 (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Let me try to explain once again if I wasn't clear enough - not only that designations (A1, A2, A3) are imaginary. Real trouble is that real E-75 road in Serbia consists of "A2", part of "A1", and also of a stretch of the road which is not covered by these articles. Thus, a simple rename would just not suffice - only alternative I can see to deletion is merge and rename, which would also require an extensive update to the info in the article. In fact, since these pages are not heavily used on Wikipedia (A1, for example, has only one interwiki link, apart from links to A2, A3 and relevant userpages), I was thinking that it would be better to create a new article and delete these, than to redirect from designations which have never been used in reality. Meelosh 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, assuming the nomination is correct and these are not official designations. If they are simply unsigned, and a reliable source is provided for this, keep or merge into an article like Interstate Highways in Alaska, which covers the unsigned Interstates A-1 to A-4 in Alaska, U.S. --NE2 03:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were verifiable sources, and if the articles made it clear that these are local names for these stretches of highway rather than real designations, then I might have a different opinion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I would like all this to be true, your source is a webpage created by Michal Halabica[5], with Wikipedia as its source - which just makes a better case for deletion, since already websites are coming out with wrong information thanks to our encyclopaedia. Please do check out the only official source, PE Roads of Serbia (formerly State Directorate for Roads of Serbia) [6] and their map in the nomination. All this would just go away if someone made a picture of a road sign with designations A1, A2 or A3. However, that's impossible since they don't exist - would you accept several pictures of signs (without those designations) on these stretches of the roads as proof of otherwise? Or an email from the directorate? Meelosh 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how do you see that the website uses Wikipedia as a source, but OK, agree that a single amateur website isn't much of a source. I'd just want to say that:
  • I have a hard time imagining why would someone make this up completely;
  • the designations are consistent with those of surrounding countries (see [[A1#A1 Roads]]);
  • the designations are consistent with those for other roads in Serbia (M# for magistral roads so logically A# for highways);
  • the fact that they are not used by the PE doesn't mean that they aren't used at all: for example, they may be formerly used designations, which still deserve a mention.
I'd prefer e-mail from an experienced truck driver to that of the PE ;) Nikola 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bamabounce

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

Can't find any trace of this term from any third-party reliable source. All google hits are from blogs etc. So doesn't fit WP:N or WP:V Madmedea 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because this is the DJ that invented the term and I can't find any third party sources that meet WP:BIO for him:[reply]

DJ Taj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (AKA redirect, merge at your lesiure.) - brenneman 10:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain rockhopper

edit

Minor and non-playable character from a Role-Playing game; would advise merging any useful content to main article on Club Penguin and deleting this article. (Or possibly creating a Minor characters in Club Penguin article.) Walton monarchist89 13:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Heartwell Ending

edit
A Heartwell Ending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. Album did not appear to have charted anywhere. Article does not indicate any awards or independent media coverage. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reichsfolk

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

Despite research I cannot verify Reichsfolk actually exists as an organization. I can find no details of membership, activities, or anything else to prove the organization does exist. One Night In Hackney 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Durin 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Fest

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

disputed Speedy for self-promotional sounding resume-like bio on NN-internet entrepreneur delete Cornell Rockey 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This article was substantially rewritten and rereferenced on January 28 2006 - see Break Point below. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Quickbrowse and metabrowsing, since (I really hope I'm not being to crude) this person's idea is more notable than him. To translate the nominator's statement:
This article was tagged for speedy deletion according to criterion regarding non-notable biographies, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Notability (people). In addition, the article sounds like a resume, and due to a conflict of interests this article is also self-promotional.
I don't agree entirely with the resume-sounding-like part, but notability concerns seem significant to me. GracenotesT § 05:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per Kevin Murray's comment, please see > Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metabrowsing Cornell Rockey 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "strong keep" comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metabrowsing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony343 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep Keep & Cleanup As written the article does not yet demonstrate why Fest is notable. The direct references support the notability of his company and provide well supported background informatin on the industry and past competitors which failed. But the link which is missing is why this makes Fest notable. I think that the information is indirectly sourced at http://www.quickbrowse.com/press/metabrowsing/ which is a reference at the article, that leads to a search engine result for Fest, and some of the sources seem to be non-trivial and tie Fest to the notability of his venture --Kevin Murray 17:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I spent some time rewritting and referencing some sources that demonstrate why Fest is notable. --Kevin Murray 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break Point The article was substantially rewritten with non-trivial references to Fest's notability as of this point.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree, but this is definitely not a majority opinion on wikipedia...-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup. — CharlotteWebb 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatless Monday

edit

Article is a polemic essay (WP:NOT#SOAP) and even if it were rewritten it would still be non-notable promotion of a website (WP:N/WP:CORP)  AjaxSmack  01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is not a polemic, but I don't see any assertion that this program is at all notable, nor can I find any. --Haemo 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Physcho-Neuroschlorosis

edit
Advanced Physcho-Neuroschlorosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a probable hoax. To start with, the title is misspelled. Also, none of the following terms have any Google hits except the Wikipedia article itself: Physcho-Neuroschlorosis, Psycho-Neuroschlorosis, Neuroschlorosis Rbraunwa 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definite hoax. (A new mini-brain? Flow of energy? Give me a break. Besides, the name ends in "-osis", which indicates a disease, not a surgery. Try harder next time.) --N Shar 02:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Zazzer

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YA Entertainment

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

Sorry, this article was earlier nominated for deletion, under the name YA Entertainment (Entertainment Company) on 12 January 2007. The article was then deleted on 19 January 2007. The results of the previous delete can be found here. Basically, the reasons are very similar. In summary, the original contributor of the now-deleted article was copying text and images from YA Entertainment's web site, and was not providing sufficient information to prove that she indeed obtain permission from YAE to use the material. The behavior of this person was suspicious, where at times she even attempted to socket puppet the editing. To add to the reason, several of us suspect that one or more users have grouped together and are trying to re-resurrect the article for only professional gain of the company. According to User:Oncamera in the discussions page, he's observed similarities between the users working on the article, including the IP addresses, as well as the timing of the edits being so close together. It appears to be a group effort. Groink 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although everything about this article's re-creation is suspicious to me, the reason for me saying delete is the lack of notability. User:Oncamera has made a sound argument for it on YA's talk page. Also, I think List of YA Entertainment Releases should be nominated along with this page as well, for the exact same reasons. SKS2K6 07:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost Island Mine

edit
Outpost Island Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable geological feature and/or Non-notable business per WP:CORP - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cain's Lair

edit
Cain's Lair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V and asserts no claim to notability. I bring this to AfD because I felt it didn't fall under CSD and that a prod would be contested. BJTalk 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete but I will undelete if anyone can show me coverage beyond an op-ed mention. W.marsh 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing is Giving

edit
Sharing_is_Giving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

This article does not appear to show notability. --Alex 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than that it appears to fall foul of Wikipedia:Autobiography and appears to have a dose of spam about it as well - X201 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page removing some of the AUTO stuff and also the related links which are mostly represented in the regiving category and have no purpose in this article. --Razmear 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete article, but a redirect seems useful W.marsh 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedd's House

edit
Wedd's House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys

edit
Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No assertion of notability under WP:MUSIC. Walton monarchist89 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slightly weak keep. The article is a total mess, but they have appeared several times on Dr. Demento's show [14] and on one of his albums [15], which, given the good doctor's importance in the world of comedy/novelty music, may constitute notability. The albums in the article mentioned do exist [16], though I don't think that counts as a major label. Pinball22 20:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - OK fair enough; I know pretty much nothing about this genre of music, so I didn't know whether they were notable or not. As it stands, however, the article itself makes no assertion of notability; if anyone adds clearer information, the article might be OK to keep. Walton monarchist89 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - As the author of this article I understand all about nobility and I cannot prove anymore than what I have given. I would like to mention that this group is unique and should be kept. I don't think that they will ever reach nobility under wikipedia standards, but when everything else has been written that is nobile, all that is left is uniqueness. for you who have to edit and scan these documents that can be a big pain. Delete it if you must, but please consider the uniqueness of the group. Duffylaudick 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman 10:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Horizons

edit

Subject has been previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South horizons, but does not qualify as a speedy per {{db-repost}}. From what I recall, the previous incarnation was a much better article than this. Nevertheless, the subject is just one of hundreds of housing estates in Hong Kong, as these are the "norm" mode for residences in the territory. It is a middling development, probably no more and no less notable than any other housing estate. Ohconfucius 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - appears to be a direct copy of the China wikipedia article which was deleted on September 19, 2005 and recreated in December 2006 - No assertion of notability especially as per the comments here and in the previous AfD that this is not an exceptional development for the area. A bit of searching shows no english news articles and nothing that lends verifyability from reliable sources. Peripitus (Talk) 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAK Comedy Lab

edit
SAK Comedy Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

disputed speedy for NN-comedy club in Orlando, FL. one notable alumnus. delete Cornell Rockey 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Explaination please![reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyMoody

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

disputed speedy for website that fails WP:WEB delete Cornell Rockey 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hellman

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

disputed PROD for NN-artist delete Cornell Rockey 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of references although few quality ones in English. I've added one from Radio-Canada. In any case, Thomas Hellman isn't a "borderline pass": he's gotten plenty of media coverage in Quebec in English and in French. Reliable third-party coverage is abundant and this debate should be closed. Pascal.Tesson 13:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comment I'd also like to suggest that whoever put up the prod tag with the rational "NN-artist" should do his homework next time around. The external links that were there at the time all contained perfectly verifiable references to multiple shows in Quebec and in France, as well as perfectly reliable links showing that he had recorded two albums. Pascal.Tesson 14:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending independent published references provided in article Per above, it sounds like there are probably some independently published articles about this person that can be used as references. However, they should be included in the article. As the article currently stands, it has insufficient independent references within the article to establish notability. Dugwiki 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I added one link in French which is from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is third-party and meets all our requirements for reliable sources. What else do we really need? Pascal.Tesson 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link you added is a start, but are there any published articles or interviews with this guy (aside from blogs, etc)? Also, the link looks to be a short paragraph about the musician but (as my French is lacking) I can't tell if it's something written about him by an independent source or is a blurb submitted to the site by the singer's publicist. Normally you want to have multiple (ie more than one) independent published references talking about the person to verify the information is both notable and not autobiographically biased. Dugwiki 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I really don't have any interest in developing the article. All I'm saying is that there is clearly more than enough third-party coverage to justify keeping the article. We can tag it with {{unref}} if need be. Pascal.Tesson 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're not developing the article, then someone will have to. I'm personally getting out of the habit of using unref tags, though, since technically unreferenced articles are supposed to be deleted. Dugwiki 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you might want to review the deletion policy. If the article is lacking in references, the article should be tagged as such and references added by whomever is bothered by that absence. If, however, it is established that sources on the subject are so scarce and unreliable that the content is unverifiable, then the article should be deleted. As people keep saying: if we start deleting unreferenced content on Wikipedia, you can say goodbye to 50% of the database. Pascal.Tesson 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And saying goodbye to the unreferenced and unverified portions of the database would be a problem because...? Dugwiki 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing. It's not the responsibility of the person tagging the article to add references. It's the responsibility of the author of the information that is unreferenced. "The burden of evidence lies primarily with the editor who adds or restores material" And unreferenced material can be, and often is, deleted. Dugwiki 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, all I'm saying is that the overwhelming consensus and practice is that unreferenced articles are routinely kept and tagged, whereas unreference-able articles are not. You may or may not agree with that practice but that's not what this debate is about. Pascal.Tesson 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the author has a responsibility to provide the references up front as much as possible. The original author does not, however, own the article, and therefore does not necessarily have any special responsibility to monitor the article on an ongoing basis to see if his or her work is being challenged by others. Especially when the original author was an anon IP — you can invent all the theoretical responsibilities you want, but do you really think an anon IP's going to honour them? If you find it insufficiently referenced, then nothing's stopping you from taking on the job — maybe it's not your responsibility to do so, but it sure as hell ain't mine or Pascal's, either. So if somebody has to do it, but nobody has any particular responsibility to take it on themselves, then where does that leave us? It leaves us at "if you see something that needs doing, you may as well go ahead and do it yourself since it's right in front of you", that's where. Bearcat 11:02, 6 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. W.marsh 18:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folly Fellowship

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

Unencyclopedic, previously deleted by WP:PROD, but contested by the author. The original prod nomination was unencyclopedic, non-notable Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This organization seems notable and well-known. They fulfill the requirements of notability. They have been the primary subject of an article in History Today, the president is a published author on the topic, seem to caretake a number of notable "folly" sites (see example) and they appear to be regarded as an authority on the topic (example). The article needs some cleanup. I will put some effort in towards this myself per WP:SOFIXIT. Vassyana 10:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vassyana's improvements to the article do indicate notability. I've added another, covering the "Folly Fellowship Lawson-Price Measured Drawings Award". The website indicates there are two major publications; one a journal. Worldcat returns many listings, notably their journal ISSN 1474-7669 which is carried in four libraries (inc. Oxford and Cambridge) Also Pieter Boogaart appears to be related but I couldnt find a good source quickly. John Vandenberg 13:23, 4 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 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Treble

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

Along with his associate Big Deal (recently deleted), Mr Treble seems to be yet another up-and-coming musician who remains steadfastly non-notable until he's upped and come. Note particularly that he has no record deal. As a full disclosure, I'd suggested that this article be bundled with Big Deal's in the AfD I've linked to. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (AKA redirect and merge at your leaisure.) brenneman 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Swim Action Saturdays

edit

This article is a copy-and-paste recreation of Adult Swim Action, which was turned into a redirect following multiple unexplained removals of merge tags; the subject is a sub-section of a programming block that does not have nearly enough sources itself, and the content is unverified and would be better suited for the main Adult Swim page. —TangentCube /c /t  02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horace mann mock investment club

edit
Horace mann mock investment club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I had prod'd this and would have thought it would be an easy deletion but the template was removed. Basically, a club from the Horace Mann School, which, no matter how successful, is not notable. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay sitges

edit
Gay sitges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Murray Arbuthnot

edit

Non notable person; assertion of notability is having founded a non-notable (redlinked) law firm. Recreated article after a speedy delete. References only to primary author's website. Argyriou (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I beg your pardon? I really do think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself. I voted on AfD's as I felt I should, not because of, or as instructed by, anyone else. Your suggestion of some sort of cartel or conspiracy is out of order. David Lauder 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been quite a bit of canvassing among these editors of late - examples: [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said "block-voting" which is not the same thing. And I have not canvassed anyone. My votes have been my own. I wish I'd never bothered for all the attacks I've had. David Lauder 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster is unaware of any relationship to/with the subject. If Darcy can substantiate this false allegation then several people would be delighted. The article was created to blue a red link. I agree that the article would benefit from additional references and they will be added when time allows (meaning quite soon). The red link was created by another editor and several editors have contributed to the article. I did draw one person's attention to the afd but s/he has not yet contributed. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(talk)20:23,2 February 2007 (UTC).

Complete rubbish. There are a great many untitled notable and famous families. If you look in Scottish Supplications to Rome you will see endless descriptions of people as "of noble race" or "of noble family" or "kinsman to".David Lauder 09:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the sole red link was created by the author of this article. This article was created on Dec 25 and nominated Jan 30, slightly more than five days. Not even the company website claims that the firm is 'major international law firm'. 'This smells of bad faith to me.' Nuttah68 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Check your math. There are many more than 5 days between 25 December and 30 January.

Argyriou (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have been looking at another page's history. In fact, the article in question was created on December 24th, not 25th. I stand by the rest of it. Lack of sources and needing expansion are not grounds for deletion: they are grounds for a template requesting sources or expansion. Laura1822 06:49, 5 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.

Robert M. Arbuthnot was lead trial counsel in the seminal case of Tarasoff v. U.C. Regents, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), which was the first U.S. case to impose liability on a psychotherapist for not disclosing a patient's violent propensities. This has completely altered the landscape of the psychotherapist-patient relationship and privilege, as well as malpractice law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California. See Superior Court of Alameda County, Case No. 405694

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

The result was Delete.Jersey Devil 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Daddy's

edit
Big Daddy's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A bar near Florida State University. Looks non-notable to me, even if all the references actually mentioned the subject (most of them do not). So this fails verifiability as well. Bar apparently did get a mention in Playboy as their favourite bar at FSU. I don't have this article handy, but it sounds to me like a trivial mention (a list of all universities and just naming a bar at each). Also alledgedly got an endorsement by Girls Gone Wild, but again, the linked reference has no mention of the bar. Written by a spa, and already tagged as reading like an advert. Bar did get a couple articles of non-trivial length in the local student papar. Delete - Aagtbdfoua 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. FLORIDA STATE
FEMALE-TO-MALE RATIO: 57 to 43
BEST PARTY: Florida State vs. University of Florida football game
FAVORITE LOCAL BAR: Big Daddy's on West Tennessee Street

"Playboy's Top Ten Party Schools". Playboy. May 2006. p. 115. --75.2.80.38 07:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete... but please, for the love of Peat Moss, don't say "cruft" in deletion discussions. People, real people, edit and write articles and it's pointlessly mean to use derogatory terms. </soapbox> - brenneman 10:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto ninja clothing

edit

This article was tagged {{db-nonsense}}, but it is not patent nonsense. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge Claidheamohmor 03:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge informative, could include the info on the character pages "this character is usually seen wearing xx, a sign of their membership in yy" or something, but as it is it seems rather a waste -- febtalk 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of the endless Naruto related articles. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. -Haemo 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect: Not bad for a first article (you used punctuation marks, which is better than some people) :) I think the info. could be replicated in an existing article, and this topic redirected to it. ◄Zahakiel► 05:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Descriptions of clothes that appear in the show is too trivial to even appear in the main article, unless clothing is a major plot point in the show or if the show is famous for its clothing design. Would be more reasonable if each character bio included descriptions of clothes they wear instead of having a separate list. Saligron 11:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced Ignoring "fancruft" comments (since fancruft isn't actually part of any policy or guideline) the article appears to be entirely unreferenced. Delete unless independent published references can be provided within the article. Dugwiki 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trant Batey

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

non notable actor; bit parts in major movies, larger roles in a few indie horror films; I don't think this adds up to notability. Brianyoumans 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 11:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JSJ Antivirus

edit

This article was deleted through WP:PROD in October. It was recently recreated (as a two-line stub) and tagged {{db-repost}}; that criterion, however, applies to XFD-deleted pages, not prodded ones. The speedy deletion was challenged, as you can see, on the article talk page. Since I can't really delete it as G4, I think the best thing is to list it here. No vote. Chick Bowen 03:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying yea or ney on the revised article at this stage but I don't see any notability from what I can remember of WP:SOFT. --Fredrick day 19:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a product info on the Microsoft Windows Mobile page, which should be considered an independent source, as the company isn't related to microsoft. There is also reviews there.[25]--[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:06, 5 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. (AKA redirect and merge at your leisure.) brenneman 11:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olathe East Orchestra

edit

Delete/Merge, Orchestra for a rather nn highschool, delete or merge to Olathe East High School febtalk 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. DanielCD 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus

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

Reason the page should be deleted Uthipratuma 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reasons for Deletion:

This album is clearly a fake,or unofficial copy with the following reasons:

1) The album has not been on any official sources/announcements such as on Utada's homepage, or any branch of Toshiba-Emi-including Foozay Inc. Or has been announced on Utada's English Record Company- Island Def Jam.

2) The album's track listing is faulty, the "Hotel Lobby" Remix, is a Fan-made remix provided by a fan from Utada-online.net

3) The picture used for the "cover" of the album, was used for promotion of other materials back almost 2 years.

4) The actual official album Exodus was released almost 2 years ago.

5) This album has already been re-released, did not sell in America, there would be no point in re-re-releasing and unsuccessful album.

6) I have been a fan of Utada since 2003, I have kept up with her most recent materials to date, which would be Flavor Of Life- I have never heard of, nor rumor of "Exodus " until I saw this clearly fake article.

7) All of Utada's materials have released on the day countries normally release music, as for US and Japan it's Tuesdays/Wednesdays, this "album" appears to be released on a Monday.All the following was by --Uthipratuma 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to those claims (in order)

1. Yes it has. I uploaded a screenshot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UtadaExodusPlusNews.PNG oh, and PLEASE, Utada Hikaru's official page on wikipedia has SEVERAL missing citations, so should we delete her page too?

File:UtadaExodusPlusNews.PNG
News Confirming "Exodus "

2. Maybe she got a copyright or permission to use the remix, That has happened before in some of her singles (You Make me Want to be a Man is an example)

3. She's probably using old promotion beacause it's a speacial edition of an old album; Many artists use old promotion art for re-releases of old albums.

4. Yes, we all know that, it has nothing to do with the special edition re-release.

5. No, it was re-released for japan. Even if it was re-released for the U.S., making a special edition of an album would make dedciated Utada fans buy the album again, so it's actually a very smart marketing tool. Edit: I MEANT EXODUS, NOT EXODUS

6. I'm glad your a fan, so you should know artists CAN keep information from leaking. Albeit strange that information wasn't available, it would still make sense because she obviously meant this album to be special release; like a "golden ticket". Releasing information as soon as the album comes out might be odd, but is perfectly believable.

7. Remember, it was not "released" on January 28, it was made available with certain copies of Exodus, so maybe editing the article to say "made avaialble January 28" instead of "released on Januray 28" should be done; deleting the article is completely opposite.

I can't speak for Utada, so if she decides to make a special edition of an album, only able to get through certain copies, that's her business. I do think the article needs some editing, but deleting is not one of those edits. --Artistthatneverwas 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Important response

In response to your claims:

Nope, stop with this FALSE information, you just have a bad bootleg then, because I just checked the official site, you, or someone else, just edited that "source". The exact same REAL site has none of that on it, link below. Also having spelled "Certian" and "Januray" wrong. Also to mention the grammar is horribly set with random capitalizations.

As to the comment on Utada's Wiki....at least it has citation's on at least 90% of the article, your Exodus article page on the other hand, does not.

"5. No, it was re-released for japan. --Artistthatneverwas 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

You also said it was only re-released for Japan, if so, why is it on the USA site- to which you gave this as a source, which is proven fake.

http://www6.islandrecords.com/utada/site/news.php --Uthipratuma 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • This release is crap. Completely false, untrue, just get rid of the page.

'Screenshot' of the official site was clearly tampered with. There is nothing like that on the official site. And actually, the newest bit of news on the official site says "Japan Tour Confirmed!". That appears in the spot where the 'apparent news' of this 'release' is seen on the 'screenshot'. Clearly, the screenshot was taken from the site, then the "Japan Tour" news tidbit was edited out, and this 'new news' was edited in. If the site was actually updated with news of any new release, the "Japan Tour" news would have been shifted down to where we see "Utada Featured in American Magazine", like all the news updates have done since the site opened. Sora-kara


http://www6.islandrecords.com/utada/site/news.php --Uthipratuma 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important

  • I'm not exactly sure what to say. The screenshot above is an OBVIOUS fake, none of hikki's websites have any information on it, and the person who started this article (Artistthatneverwas) has also started other meaningless articles, like Emily Grutz (which was deleted) and has uploaded copyrighted photos and pictures that aren't used at all, which have also been deleted. So, when I saw that this user made this page, I would be quick to delete it. The only problem is that one of my friends who recently ordered Exodus also got a different album with it, with the cover art as shown, labeled Exodus . Now, I'm not saying that the Exodus page isn't a hoax, but I don't think that the article should be deleted just yet. I actually went back to the post office where my friend's copy of Exodus came from, and they said it came directly from the sender (at amazon.com). I'm confused. Is this, or isn't it a hoax?

--Omoidaseba 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your only contributions to this project are to this page. See also WP:SOCK and/or WP:SPA Rklawton 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess I am a WP:SPA as you say, because I only made an account so I could put my input on this page. That still doesn't answer my question. Where did the apperently fake copy of Exodus come from? It still can be fake, I would agree with that, I just want to know how it's possible for a bootleg to enter the amazon.com system. --Omoidaseba 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked Amazon Japan,Yesasia-Asian Media,CDJapan,HMV Japan, even Google Japan and Google- all reliable sources for info, and purchases of Asian/Japanese media, none of them had one single reliable result on the Exodus So is it telling me Google, especially the Japanese one- to which the 'album was re-released in', which has no results on Exodus , is false? I think not.
You're forgetting that the album ONLY COMES WITH CERTAIN ORDERS OF EXODUS!!! It is not for sale individually. And you checked all the japanese sites anyway, EXODUS is an American album, so you wont find it on the japanese sites. Exodus is like Willy Wonka's Golden Ticket, it comes as a special album with a 20 page booklet inside. featuring lyrics, and additional pictures. I can scan the back of the album and take pics. would you like me to? It will show the copyright info. THEN they're will be official proof that it exists. Unfortunately, I won't have acess to a camera/scanner until after 3:00 (I'm at school right now). So, I WILL HAVE PROOF SOON ENOUGH. --Artistthatneverwas 10:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exodus was a Japanese,American, and UK release, and you mentioned earlier Exodus was only released in Japan, Exodus has already been released there twice, a third wouldn't be necessary. Your information seems to be inconsistent. Simply taking a picture of it wouldn't be up to Wikipedia Standards, Wikipedia:Image use policy, also the Willy Wonka analogy is a bad one, The Golden tickets were heavily promoted, and in this case 'Exodus ' is not.--Uthipratuma 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS RELEASED IN JAPAN. In fact, I stated clearly that it was an American-only album. --Artistthatneverwas 2:09, 1 February, 2007 (UTC)
Please excuse me, I misread statement 5. --Uthipratuma 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I realized it's misleading and I fixed it. --Artistthatneverwas 2:09, 1 February, 2007 (UTC)
  • My friend (artistthatneverwas) was on a school computer, which allow VERY limited editing programs - the screenshot couldn't have been tampered with - at all. Heck, those computer don't even have Photoshop. As for the meaningless article, 'Emily Grutz', he was only testing it and did it in the 'sandbox'.

Also, the CD is all...er...'fancified'. You know, with designs on it, and not just a silver disc that anyone could get. And I'm pretty sure you can't make a fancy CD design with a sharpie marker and a blank disk. ~~Jessica C. Duck~~

Point is, the source that he/she showed above, IS FAKE. Here's the real site for the 3rd time: http://www6.islandrecords.com/utada/site/news.php --Uthipratuma 15:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'tis not fake. You just haven't seen the news post - however, I'm afraid that the screeshot is the only evidence me and artistthatneverwas (let's refer to him as 'Jacovie' for now) have. Jacovie checked the site just this morning - and the page he took a screenshot of was gone. Of course, he was indignant, as that was some of his only proof, besides his own copy of Exodus (which he now keeps in a glass case). And besides, Jacovie isn't skilled enough to tamper with a screenshot - I know this for a fact. As skilled as he is, he's not good enough to do that. And the school computer he used had practically no extra programs at all.

~~Jessica C. Duck~~

Really? Why would there be information on a Japanese release on her English site, and not her Japanese? --Uthipratuma 19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BECAUSE ITS AN AMERICAN ALBUM!!! --Artistthatneverwas 2:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And you just admitted that there was information in the first place. --Jessica C. Duck 2:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I said no such thing. I am disproving the information on the picture of "news" by basing it on the FAKE picture. The real site has no such information, except the "Stay Tuned" .--Uthipratuma 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How odd that the comment, "My friend (artistthatneverwas) was on a school computer, which allow VERY limited editing programs - the screenshot couldn't have been tampered with - at all. Heck, those computer don't even have Photoshop. As for the meaningless article, 'Emily Grutz', he was only testing it and did it in the 'sandbox'. Also, the CD is all...er...'fancified'. You know, with designs on it, and not just a silver disc that anyone could get. And I'm pretty sure you can't make a fancy CD design with a sharpie marker and a blank disk. ~~Jessica C. Duck~~", which was quoted/edited by 'Jessica C. Duck' is done under Artistthatneverwas. --Uthipratuma 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, me and Jessica use the same account (Artistthatneverwas is used both by Jessica C. Duck and Jacovie Rodriguez). We really don't need two seperate accounts. She signs her name under ~~Jessica C. Duck~~ or ~~7lu~~. I go under --Artistthatneverwas 1:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. --Uthipratuma 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're finally the only other sensible person on here. We'll just wait for more sources to come out, then we'll re-up the page with sources. --Artistthatneverwas


  • Proposed Decision Maybe this should be merged into Exodus. We need to stop fighting!!! Merging it into Exodus would be best, after the proper citations surface. --Artistthatneverwas
I'm sorry, but I have changed my mind, after reading through the whole debate again. We will just see what happens once the conclusion has been reached according to the deletion process' once the 5 days are up. --Uthipratuma 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you mean Exodus (Utada Hikaru album) and not Exodus. I don't think Moses wrote the songs on this one. What you are suggesting is the same thing I proposed above. If we can all agree to delete this and mention it at the album's main article, we can get this done (aka end this early if it's clear what needs to be done). I don't see any KEEP votes at all. Is anyone arguing to keep this? --DanielCD 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted, even if it's real/official/unofficial, the "additional tracks" are explained in the singles, to which they come from, except for the Hotel Lobby FANMADE remix- which has no single/proof of copyright.

--Uthipratuma 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no keep votes, if the author requests deletion, I can go ahead and close the debate here. There's no real argument I can see about actually keeping this article. The debate about what to do with future information can be moved to the talk page at Exodus (Utada Hikaru album). --DanielCD 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can delete this entire article, and mention Exodus on Exodus (Utada Hikaru album), ONCE proper citations have arrived. It's settled!--Uthipratuma 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's hear from the author. That's all we need now. --DanielCD 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the author Artistthatneverwas. I guess I have to agree. After proper citation reveals itself, it should be added under [[Exodus {Utada Hikaru album)]]. Until then, delete Exodus .

Case adjourned (hehehe... i just felt like saying that.) --Artistthatneverwas 16:53, 1 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 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpyrotechnia

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

Less than 10 non-wiki ghits, and most of them use the article name as a nonsense word. This is obviously a WP:HOAX YechielMan 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But article needs work, preferably by people who don't know the subject personally. "I was there" or "call me" is not an acceptable source for a Wikipedia article, this stuff needs to be sourced to published articles on this person/incident. Those articles appear to exist, it's just a matter of catching our article up to them. W.marsh 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Elliott Sommer

edit
Luke Elliott Sommer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article needs to be rethought. Reliable sources do exist, though not for much of what is here, which is based on this person's now-removed blog. But when it comes down to it, despite some media attention, this is someone accused of a relatively run-of-the-mill felony who may or not have some very controversial opinions. There is no Wikipedia:Notability (criminals) that I know of, so let's hash this one out. Chick Bowen 03:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually everything in that article is verifiable in reliable sources with the exception of two things:
1.)The "counter argument" to the U.S. attorney's "seed money for larger criminal enterprise" theory. Added by another editor, it may well be verifiable, but I haven't checked the sources yet.
2.)Those things that were directly quoted from the blog but no longer exist.
I know this because I've been working on this on the weekends and my next step was to figure out which sources to cite for which points. I'm also new to wikipedia, and not sure how heavy a citation method need to be employed, citation being very inconsistent over the whole 'pedia, but every section that was revised under my signature can be traced to multiple sources of record that are also readily available online. Again, I'm new to wikipedia, but I find it strange that someone can begin a challenge with an unfounded claim against the article's verifiable matter. Rather than say make a blanket judgement of "much of what is here" why not bring up your concerns of veracity on the discussion page?
As for the "run-of-the-mill"-ness claim versus the participating authors' claim to Sommer's significance, I find the objector's frank dismissal fairly callous. In your book, bank robberies perpetrated by groups consisting of mostly active duty rangers employing automatic weapons allegedly smuggled back from Iraq, possibly under a political pretext (or at least the ringleader is lodging a political pretext as the core to his defense) is somehow run-of-the-mill? At the very least Sommers figures as an illustration of American culture so affected by the Iraq prison abuse scandals and Black site scandel mythology (not to mention the tarnishing of the military's reputation in many eyes post Pat Tillman, and Sy Hersch's journalistic numbers of Task Force 121) that a run-of-the-mill criminal is using that political climate to extradite himself from a extradition, so to speak. In other words, at the very least he's a sort of zeitgeist figure. By the way, there is a List of famous bank robbers and robberies which Sommers could easily fall under, due to his background, media attention, and (at the least) unorthodox extradition defense.
By your logic, I fear all the articles on military personnel facing court martials for run of the mill dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming charges in opposition to the war (Ehren Watada, Jeremy Hinzman, Pablo Paredes etc.]].--Cheesesteak the Impaler 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination was intended to be measured and as neutral as could be under the circumstances. Please note that an article like this (see WP:BLP for the relevant policy) has to be sourced with extreme care; I would recommend using the <ref> markup described at WP:CITE, and connecting everything to established media sources; I don't see how you can reference the blog. As for the general notability, I stand by what I said--I'm not sure whether this person is appropriate for inclusion, and I'd like to get others' opinions on that. This is a request for feedback, nothing more. Chick Bowen 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My contestation of your nomination is also measured and neutral, but does find some flaws in the thinking the nomination is predicated upon. I am aware of the extreme care sourcing requires, which is why I have saved it for another weekend (editing it out of its original form into something that resembled coherence was my first priority). I have no problem ridding the blog section that is no longer verifiable (though I'll poke around archive.org before I do so), though a lot of it has been quoted and encapsulated in a lot of media outlets, but what matter is only in the section of the article that directly discusses his blog. Lastly, I believe wikipedia's coverage of other run-of-the-mill military delinquents as I sighted, and a number of pages collecting perpetrators of noteworthy crimes, including bankrobbery, serves as an initial if not definitive counterargument to your run-of-the-mill dismissal. I'm not critiquing your neutrality, I am critiquing your "measure". That is, your estimation of the article's worth.--Cheesesteak the Impaler 05:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My take is that the bank robbery is almost certainly notable (very few bank robbers have been active duty military), and in that article there should be information about all the accused, including Sommer. The information about his blog is trivial and most of this article is of little interest to someone not following every turn of the case. I'm not sure that AFD was the best choice here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Blog portion was started when the blog was still active. Yes it needs to be updated. But deleting this file is not the best method. Lets revise it and continue from there.
  • Comment. Your right Chick, there may not be a category for criminals. But that is fine, considering he is not a criminal, he is an accused. The bottom line is this: whether he robbed a bank, or not; he is worthy of note because of the impact he has caused. His getting ruled a Canadian resident after being in the United States for three years is case law that will be cited in future cases for tax disputes and future extradition hearings. The fact that his platoon has had SIX felony accusations within six months, and NINE within his company speaks volumes about a larger problem within our military. I personally have interviewed Sommer and I know a lot of the deeper details to the story, but I will continue to provide facts and nothing more. However it is important to remember that unilateral action taken upon an assumption... is what started the war we are in.Powerofhistory 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So when Special Operations Commandos, verified to be a part of one of the most protected military Task Forces since the inception of the war, rob a bank with illegal, high powered weapons... alleging that their former unit was involved with murder, rape and abuse... it isn't notible? I know Sommer quite well, I served with him in Afghanistan and I am glad that so many people have taken the time to update this, but will someone please inform me why this didn't get more media attention? North Hollywood Shootout was famous for one reason... someone pulled the trigger... And you want to pull the plug on this page because unlike the idiots in hollywood, he used intelligence and didn't go in spraying rounds... Well my two, emotionally charged cents. I never saw rape or beating, but I saw people killed legally under the Rules of Engagement that NEVER should have died. Do what you need to man.TFredFormer 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep This is notable, and the key negative info about the subject is reliably sourced. This is major news and there is no basis for omitting it. Even before conviction, this is justifiable BLP, , though of course a good deal will need to be added as the case progresses. DGG 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when are we going to decide one way or the other?24.71.204.118 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't believe for a second the media has not given this story enough attention -- they have, but that should not be confused with the fact that the attention has not turned into more published articles. A very big problem with information available (for the media) is that much of it is not verifiable (a hallmark of good journalism). If journalists are having trouble verifying information (and thus not reporting it), it stands to reason that the question of whether to delete this entry from wikipedia (because of lack of verification) has come up. Personally, after having spent scores and scores of hours with Elliott Sommer, I have to say that this is a most notable story and there will be far more coming of it in due course. Sure, bank robberies are every day occurrences, but you have a situation where five elite Army Rangers were allegedly involved in some degree with this particular robbery, plus two Canadian citizens. This occurred on U.S. soil by two Canadians and one dual Canadian/American. You also have the situation where Sommer made it across the border and is under house arrest, protected by extradition proceedings and claiming all the while that "if he did it", it was to draw attention to war crimes. That isn't notable? Writerdave 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)writerdave[reply]


Comment: If these sources need any credible citation, I and many people I know can give it, for I am a friend of his...don't think for a fact that a military serviceman committing armed bank robbery is not worthy of Wikipedia! User: RikerDelta2 04:16, 4 February 2007

Comment: I have been watching this page unfold for a while, and I have to admit, it's amazing how much people known about me all things considered. I will not state an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not, but I will say that I am willing to give the yay or nay to anything people want to ask. My contact information is [email protected] and my phone number is 8664274660. If necessary I will confirm my information on the phone. RIkerDelta2 there are only a couple people I could think of that would use Riker and Delta in their names... call me.ElliottSommer 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this and a lot of the military vouching is interesting, nonetheless, getting direct verification from Sommer himself, participants in his alleged action, or people who have served with him would pretty much constitute original research and not something wikipedia can vette. The initial ADF call of the article was based on the false claim that many of the article's assertions couldn't be backed by reputatble sources. Reputable sources doesn't mean from the horse's mouth. It means things like "Papers of Record." The deletionist who opened this discussion is right in what an article needs (and the article needs proper citation), he was just wrong in how unsourced the info in the article is. It looks like the consensus here is to allow the article to continue to exist under the understanding that it will be revised to reflect proper citation of verifiable source material (and again, "just call him at this number" or "I was there" isn't a statement of record. It's gotta be in print or online somewhere reputable. This is why everything in the blog has to be pulled out, since with no blog to cite it's just hearsay.)--Cheesesteak the Impaler 02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. In the mean time, let us get rid of the hideous label at the top of this page and someone who knows enough about the situation start editing. I do not feel in good conscious that I can have any part considering that in and of itself would cast serious doubt on "neutral point of view." Cheesteak, I have no idea who you are but you have taken a commanding interest in this issue. If there is information you would like put into a newspaper or another article let me know. Rolling stone is publishing in a week and a half and I may be able to answer a question in it for you if you take the time to ask ahead of time.ElliottSommer 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in touch with a more experienced wiki editor, who has some more administrative clout to make sure we're removing the tag in accordance with wiki policy, and also mentor us in proper citation formatting (I've seen footnotes, I've also seen just lists of works cited, we'll see what the "right" way to do things is to keep the article's nose clean). Also, as we start editing the article in good faith, I'll be using the discussion section particularly for source citations of various points. A lot of editors seem to have a lot of info on Sommer, I'll see if I can keep an eye on when we need to corroborate what is put forth in the article with a "reputable source." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheesesteak the Impaler (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 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. Tawker 06:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Speech

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

It's not an article, it's just the text of a speech. There's a possible copyright concern, since it was lifted wholesale from the website attributed in the article, but one could easily argue that public speeches by heads of state aren't protected by copyright. Ignoring that, though, doesn't some part of WP:NOT say that Wikipedia isn't a repository for speeches? adavidw 04:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzanna Brzosko

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

Non-notable athlete. She only competed as a junior and never internationally. Lannamichaels 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Shyam Bihari as "(CSD A7 Not notable article". Agent 86 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gindis

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

Fails WP:WEB. janejellyroll 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MuchTopTens: "Top Ten Out Of This World Videos"

edit
MuchTopTens: "Top Ten Out Of This World Videos" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One countdown aired one day on one music video channel without any other sources does not an article make. Author blanked article once in the past, so I don't think prod'ding would have had much effect, but it's not speediable. JuJube 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mathmo Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g12, copyrighted song lyrics. NawlinWiki 15:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dystentery Gary

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

The song initself is not notable the current article is orphaned and just consists of lyrics. Should be deleted under WP:NOT#IINFO Ferdie33 04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Makemi as nonsense. BryanG(talk) 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube verb

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

The article admits that it's a neologism, and that the use of "YouTube" as a verb took place less than 24 hours ago. At best, this is a dicdef. eaolson 05:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy Chase Pavilion

edit
Chevy Chase Pavilion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mall of questionable notability; reads like an ad. It has a hotel and a bunch of stores. Big deal. YechielMan 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 Seconds 'Till Sunrise

edit
10 Seconds 'Till Sunrise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Speedy tag was removed by an IP editor, so I'm bringing it here. Fails WP:N and there are also no sources. janejellyroll 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people against the Iraq War

edit
List of people against the Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


Delete - the wrong template was put up - there is a fine (like country sized) line between lists (which are non-encyclopedic) and patent nonsense (which would be if he said, Shitty McFuck is against the Iraq War) - but either way, violating wikipedia standards.--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 04:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, this could be a decent category, and it looks like that was what the creator was going for ...--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't list in general unencylopedic, as mentioned above I think that the only alternative to deletion would be a category.--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:List of lists JChap2007 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A)The first and only category I looked at had about 12 entries, all but 2 had been deleted - but either way, I stand corrected. But in an instance like this when a category can be used (I mean really all this list is doing is grouping people together) - WHY NOT use a category?--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since categories are less targeted by vandals--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 07:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep PeaceNT 09:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omega point (Tipler)

edit
Omega point (Tipler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A segment of an argument point forth by a math professor to further a religious agenda. No sources. Not a convincing subject. Rejected by science, it lacks any scientific criticism. FGT2 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent, related prod, was redirect here[27]. FGT2 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with a quality notice, there is many results on search engines for Tipler's omega point, if we have big mac for mcdonalds, this most certainly should be left or merged, but perhaps modified to rid of the slight breathless hagiographic tone. A "under-standard" written disclaimer or perhaps neutrality questioned notice would be the choice perhaps. As a wikipedia reader i found this article to be worth in singular one million fiction plots written out entirely, do not delete, but put up a funny notice questioning quality instead.Book M 10:29, 4 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 Merged and redirected. Non-admin closure due to unambiguous outcome. Serpent's Choice 11:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septuplet

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

Merge into Multiple birth for consistency. There are no articles for triplets (set of 3 babies born together), quadruplets (4), quintuplets (5), sextuplets (6), or octuplets (8). They all redirect to Multiple birth. Doczilla 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but sourcing should be improved W.marsh 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit
List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is one of those times when the first sentence of an article provides the best reason for its deletion:

"The main article on the early-2000s Internet phenomenon All your base are belong to us contains only occurrences/incidents that obtained media coverage; this list is intended to provide a broader inclusion of AYB cultural references."

In other words, the main All your base are belong to us article contains those references to the term that are notable and can be verified This list copies those and adds trivial references. I really don't think we need to document every sign someone holds up at Wrestlemania. Normally I try to avoid using "cruft" in AfD, but this is a textbook example. JChap2007 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All your useful content are belong to the existing article All your base are belong to us. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for great justice. The point in the nom is pertinent; this seems to be not a POV fork, but a V fork. Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are welcome to handle this sort of thing if they want. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is on the way to destruction. JuJube 08:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know what I doing -- lucasbfr talk 08:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (zomg, someone !voted keep)! Yes, I think this is a helpful list. This is a very culturally significant term, and many of the listings are interesting, encyclopedic, and useful (e.g., In the Futurama episode Anthology of Interest II, a space invader speaks the phrase.). Per WP:LIST: The list may be a valuable information source, I believe it applies (I know, you don't think it's valuable, but is this any less valuable then Santorum (slang) or Stanley Steamer, which the community has decided are encyclopedic?). Unfortunately, we don't have any guidelines on what a list should be, but I think this falls under it, as much as many other lists we have, and have set a precedent on WP for notability: (e.g., much more valuable than List of Ace Mystery Numeric-Series Single Titles). Keep in mind, this was a very culturally significant term in the early 00's (<-- how does one pronounce that?), and the list is pertinent. If you wish to trim out unverifiable terms, I say go ahead, but keep this list. Part Deux 10:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cultural significance of the term is what paradoxically would make this list an indiscrimate collection of information. There would be just too many references to make this article useful. Saligron 11:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, What you say !!? Many of these items would have been left on the root article without much debate, but the size of that article warranted splitting. I think the list as a whole should stay, but needs to be further referenced, and perhaps pruned. — xaosflux Talk 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repurpose. The article's current mission is to include less-notable and borderline notable cultural references to AYB: this is a bad idea. However, if it were repurposed and pruned per Xaosflux's suggestion, it would be a good article. (If not a Good Article.) -Toptomcat 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Well the introduction sentence of the article clearly implies it is intended for cultural references that did not get Media coverage. Isn't it that original Research? -- lucasbfr talk 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Prune As annoying as the AYB phenomenon is/was, the content listed is verifiable, and follows guidelines for encyclopedic content. Some may question the usefulness of the article, or like me may just not care for the subject, but these are not valid reasons to delete, as per WP:AFD. Some pruning and consolidation could be done to keep the size manageable though. Arakunem 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, if we do as you suggest and prune all those that are non-verifiable and the product of original research, we wind up with a copy of the list already in the main All your base article. JChap2007 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edison 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom provided an excellent analysis. That this might be "interesting", "helpful" or "useful" does not make it encyclopedic or change the fact it's trivia and an indiscriminate collection of AYB..."cruft". There is also nothing to back up any assertion that this is a "very culturally significant term". Whether or not one can measure its "value" is questionable, especially by comparing it to other articles. We're not discussing those other articles and whether or not they are encyclopedic does not affect this article. Agent 86 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced As the nomimator correctly points out, the introductory paragraph tells all. This list is the unreferenced uses of the phrase. Delete this entire article as unreferenced and unverified. Dugwiki 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They're somewhat referenced, and it was a notable internet phenomenon. Although some might have to be pruned, I'd suggest a fair bit of this could be salvaged with a bit of effort. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater :P --TommyOliver 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misunderstand. The article All your base are belong to us is fine. The problem is that the article in this afd is an attempt to take all the unreferenced information that didn't belong in the main article and put it in a single list. That's why this list needs to be deleted, but the main article is ok. Dugwiki 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't if the list is "interesting" or "relevant". It's that the entire list is unverified and unreferenced. Keep in mind that most or all of the referenced items already appear in the main article. Dugwiki 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace I'm persuaded by the argument that such a list might be useful as a standalone page. I suggest deleting the current page (an exhaustive list is still indiscriminate collection) and extracting the list of notable references from the main article. Saligron 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support that suggestion, assuming the number of such verifiable references is large enough to warrant a subarticle. If the verifiable list fits comfortably in the main article, then in that case there's no need to split it off. Dugwiki 17:27, 2 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 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smidi

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

Non-notable, plenty of unverifiable hoax claims. 29 unique Ghits, and he shouldn't be confused with Eric "Smidi" Smith who is actually more notable One Night In Hackney 06:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ah, Unless we can get some reliable sources, this appears to be a hoax. Part Deux 10:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either my Google-fu is weak today or this guy is non-notable. I did a bunch of different searches - "Michael Smith" songwriter, "Michael Smith" "Bryan Todd", "Michael Smith" Smidi, etc., and came up with zero references to anything in the article. Unless someone's got better sources than I came up with, delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this has got to be a hoax, right? How could someone with all this claim to notability be so unverifiable? delldot | talk 02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 07:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Album (album)

edit
Live Album (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable album no reason to have this on hereOo7565 06:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomOo7565 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (with a possible rename to "Live Album (Grand Funk Railroad)" as bad faith nomination... Looking at the Nominator's discussion page, it appears that this is close to a SPA for bad-faith prodding and AfD's. SkierRMH 06:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:MUSIC, which states "the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Sufficient notability of the artist is clearly not an issue here, and I am having trouble AGF myself. -- Satori Son 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Satori. I might point out that Oo has engaged in several discussions now, and has !voted keep on several (just to WP:AGF). Part Deux 10:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks so much for the update. I do have faith that they can become a good contributor once they understand the intricacies of the inclusion guidelines. -- Satori Son 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete this article. But due to the volume of incoming links, I will redirect to List of professional wrestling slang where this term can be covered with improved referencing. If the referencing issues are addressed, this article could be recreated. W.marsh 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark (professional wrestling)

edit
Mark (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As this article lacks third-party sources for some time now, we have to assume that this is either unverifiable or original research or both. See also the AfD on its counterpart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smark. Sandstein 06:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether a merge to Mark (victim) might be appropriate as it has the same etymology. MLA 16:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any reliable sources for this meaning of the word in wrestling? Also see WP:WINAD. Sandstein 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references provided I can personally verify that I've heard the term "mark" used in professional wrestling circles in pretty much the way described. Unfortunately, though, I'm not a source you can reference. The article will have to be deleted unless published references can be provided to verify information in the article. My suggestion would be for an interested editor to copy-and-paste the article to their user space as a draft article, then recreate the article once good references are found. That way you keep the information around in user space as an unverified draft, and can easily recreate the thing once the reference problem is addressed. Dugwiki 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In reply to MLA above, I wouldn't be surprised if this is indeed related in origin to the use of the word Mark (victim) in a con game. In essence, a mark in professional wrestling would be a fan who "buys into the way the promoter wants them to feel". A mark for John Cena, for example, would be someone who genuinely cheers for John in the ring and genuinely boos and dislikes his "heel" opponents. I would bet that the word dates back to the days when many people didn't understand that professional wrestling matches are "fixed", and thus were in a way marks of an elaborate act.
I've also heard the term used as a verb meaning "to buy into the act", as in "My friend was totally marking out when he watched the return of Bob Backlund on the TNA pay-per-view last week." Dugwiki 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ermin Nurovic

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

I'm not entirely sure this would pass WP:BIO to begin with, but this article's claim to notability is completely unreferenced, and a Google search provided nothing useful. Possible hoax? BryanG(talk) 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I'm pretty sure that image was only being used for vandalism to the page (not by the original author), but for whatever reason my speedy deletion request on it was declined. BryanG(talk) 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, you'd think that it would qualify under WP:CSD G3, I3, I4, I5, I6, or I7 ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The World Famous *BOB*

edit
The World Famous *BOB* (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

del nonnotable. No reliable info on the internet `'mikka 07:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A reasonable argument was made that this meets WP:WEB. Article should be pruned of OR and so on. W.marsh 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Farm (comic)

edit
Funny Farm (comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural relisting from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24#Funny Farm (comic) and undeletion. Originally deleted as an A7, but overturned at aforementioned DRV debate. Abstain as procedural. Daniel.Bryant 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to say Weak Keep here. Keenspot gives it some exposure, Google turns up a number of links. --Dennisthe2 09:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it does get some links LazyDaisy 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from the dubious claim to notability that it is listed at Keenspot does not seem a particularly notable form of the genre. No reliable (e.g. non-blog) independent reviews or sources. - Francis Tyers · 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent published references provided It appears that the only references in the article are not independent published ones suitable for verification or notability. Delete unless such references provided. Dugwiki 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research with no independent sources at all, let alone reputable ones even suggesting notability. -- Dragonfiend 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity article for a seemingly non-notable webcomic. Krimpet 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The comic in question is hosted by Keenspot (invitation only for it's featured content and unrelated to the author) and published by Keenspot press as well [29]. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Dread Lord CyberSkull does make a good point. That gives me reasonable confidence on a decent article being able to exist regardless of its current state. Mathmo Talk 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the keenspot exposure makes this notable enough wiki is not paper yuckfoo 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also not an indiscriminate collection of (POV, original research) information on websites of no impact or historical significance. -- Dragonfiend
  • Keep per CyberSkull. Keenspot is a definite notable (and prominent) independent host. I believe WP:WEB's relevant criterion was first made with it specifically in mind.
    Dragonfiend's extremely strict interpretations of policy classify this as OR, but looking at that policy page, the article draws from the primary source - the comic - without "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories," without independent "analysis or synthesis" of material, without "advancing a position," without a "novel narrative interpretation." Aside from the brief fandom coverage, the facts in the article are unambiguously visible in the work itself. If we must blind ourselves to a work while making an article of it, then every plot description of every book, play, TV show or game on Wikipedia is immediately suspect. --Kizor 09:50, 6 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, strong indication to merge. I have added the merge tags, editors experienced with this topic should do the actual merge. W.marsh 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OZ-06MS Leo

edit
OZ-06MS Leo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OZ-07AMS Aries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
XXXG-01S2 Altron Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mobile Suits of the Maganac Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MMS-01 Serpent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OZ-02MD Virgo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
XXXG-01H Gundam Heavyarms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
XXXG-01SR Gundam Sandrock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All "articles" are completely unsourced. Non-notable fancruft and/or original research. There is not one assertion of a connection to the real world as per WP:NOT#IINFO or notability on the show, for that matter. They are just merely plot summaries. All were deprodded by an IP spa 88.104.240.51 (talk · contribs).

And if you vote keep for this article, make sure you do provide some evidence of real world significance or notability, otherwise you're not addressing the concerns raised. MER-C 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real world connection of these fictional mobile suits is that they were the primary vehicles used by the characters in a 49 half-hour episode anime series based on the successful Gundam franchise, and which in turn has a 3 episode OVA series that was later compliled as a single anime movie, three multiple-issue manga comics, and several model kit releases directly resulting from this series.
From WP:NOT#IINFO, point 7 (Plot Summaries) - Topics within a work of fiction however may not have a real-world context, and should be referred to their parent articles. (Mobile Suit Gundam Wing, which while not the best, could be improved with the addition of further information proving it was the first Gundam anime to be translated, dubbed, and displayed into English with a mainstream release [as far as I know, I could be wrong]). I interpret this (quite liberally) as meaning that "If the parent topic can prove its importance, subarticles derive their real-world importance from the parent article, as long as the subarticles are written from an out of universe perspective". If POV is a problem, that can be fixed through editing as opposed to deletion, see this edit from XXXG-01W Wing Gundam as a possible example. Wing Gundam derives its real-world importance from being the primary weapon and vehicle of fictional character Heero Yuy, who derives his real world importance from being a major character in a anime from a major franchise that has been released in at least ten countries and dubbed into at least three other languages.
From Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), point 1 (major characters) - Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. By the time you include the basic information and an image for visual identification, each 'suit' would add at least a screen-length to whatever article they were merged into. So, as a practical matter, it should be included in an individual article.
I would like to keep, pending a rewrite, but as the majority of the information would come from interal verification (episode/manga citations, info released by the prodictng company and/or the company producing the models), this may not be possible. If so:
  1. Merge all content verifiable through episode and manga citations to two holistic lists; After Colony era mobile suits and After Colony era Gundams Mobile Suits in Gundam Wing, with Gundams in Gundam Wing as a subpage. (edited -- saberwyn 00:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Or, merge Leo, Aries and Vigo to an as yet uncreated Organization of the Zodiac article (currently a redirect, fleshed out with material from After Colony Nations and Factions and List of After Colony characters), merge Serpent to an as yet uncreated article on the Mariemeia Army (fleshed out as above), merge Maganac Suits to an as yet uncreated article on the Maganac Corps (currently a redirect, flesh out as above), and merge Altron to Chang Wufei, Heavyarms to Trowa Barton and Sandrock to Quatre Winner.
Then, provide equal treatment to all articles in Category:After Colony mobile suits to ensure consistency across the subject. -- saberwyn 09:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and make appropriate mention in the article on the show of those things which are of highest importance to the overall plot arc of the show. If these fictional devices have articles that are too long for the original article, then by all means edit them down. It is not necessary or desirable to write lengthy original research pieces which are the editor's description of what he sees in a TV show, to tell us every detail of what happened in the show. If someone is that curious, they can rent a DVD and watch the show. Does not meet WP:N, WP:FICT WP:V or WP:RS. Edison 18:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single article List of Mobile Suits of Gundam Wing or some such title, which would serve the purpose of collecting this information in one place, which I believe would be more convenient usage for everybody. If you want sources on the mobile suits, believe it or not, Bandai does produce this information themselves. Not to mention the various guidebooks to the Gundam universe. The existence of which, I think serves to establish notability as well, at least as whole, even if not in part. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, you've only nominated a few of the entries in Category:After Colony mobile suits, is there a reason you didn't nominate the others, or was that your own oversight? FrozenPurpleCube 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Rewrite: Merge articles together and remove the history information from those articles since only the Characteristic data on this suits is whats needed and the history information is already stored on the character pages and if possible to avoid too much information such as too much detailing on a mobile suits abilities. One Idea I had is to put the main characters on it's own page and the minor and grunt mobile suit information on another such as List of Minor Mobile suit in the After Colony Era. -Adv193 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to their pilots, where those pilots are noteworthy enough to have their own article. Also merge to a List of mobile suits in Gundam Wing or something along those lines. Shimeru 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't like the idea of having a mobile suit article on a character page it would be more respectful to move the Gundam Technical info to their own combined page. -Adv193 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Adv193. Info is not notable enough for its own page. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 22:53, 5 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 a redirect can be created if it's shown that this is a plausible search term, e.g. that a source shows people actually do call it by this name. W.marsh 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Bar Crunch

edit

I can't find any sources that use this term. Note that if this is deleted the incoming links should be too. --NE2 07:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Nihonjoe (non-notable). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 09:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Phillips Exeter Academy Exeteras

edit

I had my {{prod}} removed on this by an anon IP so I'm bringing this here. In my opinion the article makes no good assertion of notability per our inclusion policies, and from what I can make out one seems unlikely. Whilst Phillips Exeter Academy is most certainly notable, I'm not sure the same can be said about their "only all-male a-capella group". The biggest assertion of notability made is that they "have performed with many college groups" (which I'm sure is true of many non-notable groups) and "gained standing in the high school a cappella community" — a fact which is unsourced. It's been advert tagged by another user, with a comment on the talk page for some time, yet few changes have been made. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jason Evert. Merge any content as appropriate. W.marsh 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If You Really Loved Me

edit
If You Really Loved Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

May have been created by book's author, has been edited by same. No assertion of notability, Google turns up only links selling the books, no reliably sourced discussion of it. Seraphimblade 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G4) and protect from re-creation as a re-creation of Camila Janniger. --Coredesat 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Janniger MD

edit
Camila Janniger MD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a rather flattering biography, written by someone whose only other edits were to link to this article elsewhere (the links of which have been removed) and is completely unsourced. There's a link to the physician's website, but no verification (or assertion of importance) of her family history or education. It reads like a personal profile and is orphaned to boot. Milto LOL pia 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - looks like it's been deleted before [30].

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satyr (Dungeons & Dragons)

edit
Satyr (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft. The references section being bigger than the article rings alarm bells. Contested prod. MER-C 08:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge. The fact that it has references is grounds for deletion now? We have an entire category for Dungeons and Dragons creatures, and all of these things are verifiable by sources whose authority within the D&D context is impeccable. Personally, I'd prefer that this be merged to the satyr article, since the D&D satyr is obviously derivative of older mythology; but then we'd see complaints when gaming material showed up in those articles and they began to be listed in D&D related categories, so separate articles for D&D related critters may be for the best. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Properly categorized, well referenced by external non-related sources. What are the specific grounds for deletion here? Arakunem 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A stub, absolutely, and in needs of expansion, but I can't see a need to delete. I'd be happy with it merging to satyr but given the complaints mentioned above, I guess it needs its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending independent references The references are not indepedent of the fictional source itself, and the article provides no real-world context or analysis. This would seem to fail to meet guidelines for minor characters in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (and in essence minor monsters in D&D are the same as minor characters in fiction). I should also point out that this same complaint probably applies to a number of monsters under Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures, most of which only have references from the fiction itself with no outside references to establish real world notability for purposes of WP:FICT. Thus while I'm an avid D&D player, I'm not conviced this article follows the guidelines and should probably be merged into a "list of D&D standard monsters". Dugwiki 21:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that might have problems as there are lots of creatures in D&D. Listing them all would lead to a rather long list, and while there are some, like Beholders and Owlbears that I think are unusual enough for coverage, I suspect this one wouldn't have an article if not for its mythological derivations. Though it does make me wonder if maybe List of D&D creatures derived from mythology might be a worthwhile list. FrozenPurpleCube 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, it would be a long list article, or possible a couple of list articles, of minor characters/monsters, but that's still preferable to a large number of actual articles about minor character monsters with no references outside of the game itself. Dugwiki 22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, as far as it goes, there are relatively few monsters of D&D I'd suggest having articles, as most are not iconic enough to really matter, and possibly some directory concerns with a listing of D&D monsters. That might be something outside the scope of a general purpose encyclopedia. FrozenPurpleCube 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. The article is obviously a stub waiting for expansion. If the vote is to merge, I would urge that it be merged into the [[Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) article instead.--Robbstrd 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a stub. There are dozens like it, and it makes no sense to single this one out. Robbstrd has made an admirable effort to improve this one. BOZ
The fact that there are similar articles probably just means that those articles probably should also be discussed in afd also. I do agree that the articles should be handled relatively consistently. So if this article is deleted or merged to a list, then it makes sense to do the same for the other articles. If this article is kept, then it makes sense to keep the others. Dugwiki 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, 2 for delete, 2 for keep/merge, and 3 for straight up keep. Delete doesn't seem likely to me. I suspect you'll get a similar response trying the same thing on a lot of other similar articles. BOZ
Too early to tell. Keep in mind that these aren't decided as a vote, but rather are decided based on the arguments presented. If the admins feel the deletion arguments are valid, and the keep recommendations are similar to WP:ILIKEIT, then it could be deleted. Dugwiki 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether or not the article is well written. It's whether or not there are independent sources outside of the game itself that refer to the information included in the article. Dugwiki 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are allowed. - Peregrine Fisher 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they're primary sources. It's that the article is only constructed of material from the primary source of the game itself. Per WP:FICT, though, there ought to be some external sources to provide an article about a minor fictional character with real word context or analysis. I'm not saying you can't use the game rules as a source - I'm saying they shouldn't be the only source. Dugwiki 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added another source, want to change your vote? - Peregrine Fisher 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I really don't think that a trivial fan poll run by Wizards of the Coast, the creators of Dungeons & Dragons on the official Dungeons & Dragons website really counts as an indepedent source, especially as the satyr came 6th. If it had come first, it may have some bearing, but not there. Secondly, nobody can change their vote, as AfD isn't a vote. Cheers --Pak21 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT as Pak21 said. No encyclopedic content here. - unsigned: BreathingMeat
  • Delete Appears to be a copyvio from the D&D Monster Manual, although there's just enough conversion of tables into prose that it might squeak by. Still fails WP:FICT, though. Furthermore, a satyr in D&D is nothing more than the legendary creature represented in terms of the D&D game system. I doubt that this article could be expanded, unlike more original creations like the Beholder. At most merge as a small section to satyr. Shimeru 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia is not paper, plenty of references, article is only a stub (it is at the moment, anyway), plenty of potential for expansion. No actual deletion reason given (notability is established) and "fancruft" is of course the nominators opinion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually external notability has not been established within the article. The only references are from D&D rulebooks themselves. To establish notability outside the game, though, you would need published references external to the rules that talk about satyrs in D&D. Dugwiki 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example of what I mean, compare this article to the Beholder article that Shimeru mentioned above. D&D Beholders are mentioned in published sources outside of the D&D game rules, and even have appeared in some popular media or been the inspiration for some non-D&D related creatures. By contrast, it's not clear from the Satyr (D&D) article that the D&D version of satyrs has any notable mention outside of the game rules. So the level of notability for the Beholder extends beyond just the game rules compared to this article about the Satyrs. So Beholder probably does meet WP:Fiction guidelines, but this article about D&D satyrds probably doesn't. Dugwiki 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ecology of the Satyr" from Dragon #155 is a non-rules article that discusses the satyr, and is also not in a rule-book.204.153.84.10
That's an interesting question. Is Dragon magazine actually a publication that is independent of D&D? It is an official source magazine for D&D, and devoted mainly to D&D rules, adventures and source material. Should a magazine devoted almost entirely to D&D be treated as a source for purposes of showing real world notability outside the game? Dugwiki 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, Dragon was still published by TSR, if I'm not mistaken. It's one of the pre-eminent publications on D&D, and should certainly be a reliable source, but I don't think it's an independent one in this case. I could be wrong, though, as I don't have the issue in question to check. Shimeru 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is it actually a rule that independent sources are required to "prove" notability? If so, how many are required? One? Two? Five? I have seen suggestions that editors should try to provide them, but not that it's a requirement for inclusion. 204.153.84.10 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily, but it's actually a somewhat trickier question than it looks. All that's needed to satisfy verifiability is a reliable source. If none of the sources are independent, they are all effectively primary sources. This is acceptable if no extraordinary claims are being made (those would require stronger sourcing). However, it's easy for articles based entirely on non-independent sources to fall into bias or original research, which is one reason secondary sources -- independent sources -- are stressed. Notability suggests that the article topic should be the primary subject of "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." This is, however, a guideline, while the earlier ones are policy; therefore, there's more room for flexibility. As my general rule, if notability is being questioned, I'd want at least one truly independent source among those listed -- if there's one, it's easy to imagine there might be more. Two or more would be even better, of course. Is there anything anywhere outside of D&D/TSR/Wizards of the Coast publications that talks about satyrs as they're presented in D&D (not merely as the mythical creature)? If so, that would be an excellent source. As it is... it's not unknown for an article to be founded entirely on non-independent sources, but it's not exactly ideal, either. Dragon may be judged enough, but the article would be stronger if a wholly independent source (or several) supported it. I hope that answers your question. Shimeru 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it does.204.153.84.10 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, all of this scholastic wrangling over various policies and guidelines is interesting, in a way. My understanding is that primary sources are perfectly valid sources provided that the article simply describes what's in the primary source. Secondary sources are needed only for analysis or interpretation, and I see little of that in the article at issue. As to notability, the Pokémon test is a perfectly valid analogy here: D&D critters are notable for the same reasons that the several species of Pokémons are. As to whether there are secondary, independent sources that discuss D&D satyrs as opposed to other satyrs - since the concept of satyrs predates D&D, this would be a matter of interpretation that's hard to judge. (Need a secondary source for that. :) (There are instances where the D&D mythology added non-traditional elements that were borrowed from nameable sources, and that found their way into later works: the D&D troll is an example.) - Smerdis of Tlön 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the reason we need the sources specifically about the D&D version of the creature is that the article is specifically about the D&D version of the creature. Nobody's suggesting that satyr should be deleted. The base question here is: Do we have enough material about satyrs as they specifically pertain to D&D to sustain a separate article? My feeling is, we don't, and this would therefore be better left to a subsection of satyr or Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) or Satyrs in popular culture or something similar. Shimeru 09:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative view would be that the majority D&D monsters are just as non-notable as the majority of Pokémon, the Pokémon test is a mistake and as such this article should be deleted. That's the view I subscribe to :-) --Pak21 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to the comment about the WP:POKEMAN essay, note the essay is merely a discussion of why some Pokemon monster articles are kept. However, one could argue that Pokeman monsters also frequently have cross-media references outside of the game itself, since they appear on television or films for example. Also note that the essay is not a clear defense that all the pokeman monster articles should be kept. It correctly states that there are currently articles for all the pokeman monsters, but note that many of these articles have not been reviewed in afd. It's certainly possible that a broader review of Pokemon monster articles could result in some of them being deleted. for lack of suitable references or meeting WP:FICTION guidelines. Dugwiki 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all it needs is to be expanded... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added some independant references. It isn't really that hard to find them with a bit of googling. They may not be the best refs in the world, but refs do exist. Let this page live, and more refs can be found. Delete this page, and it's back to sqaure one if the page is recreated. This is our best chance to have a well cited D&D satyr page, let's take it. - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - No reason to delete it just because of what you think of as missing references. If that is indeed your problem, just ask for them to be added, don't start a VFD. Also, I really think the word fancruft is used too often as an argument for deletion of these kind of articles, so much that it has nearly lost its meaning. Keep and improve, or merge with the Fey article. --Ifrit 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the burden is on editors wishing to add or keep material to show such references exist. Nobody has yet shown there is a single independent reliable source that makes a non-trivial mention of the Dungeons & Dragons satyr. --Pak21 08:27, 5 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 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNC Charlotte Books

edit
UNC Charlotte Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merely an indiscriminate list of books by a publisher that fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG (whichever applicable). Contested prod. MER-C 07:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom (indescriminate list). Perhaps categorize as well. Part Deux 10:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this can be turned into an actual article. i.e. establish notability, historical context, important publications, etc. --Tainter 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article does not claim to be a list of books published by the university or its press, but a list of books by faculty, staff, students, or alumni of the university. And not all the entries even appear to be books; some seem to be articles or contributions to conference proceedings. This could easily become, and probably already is, an indiscriminate list. --Metropolitan90 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. We do not and should not have articles of this sort for universities. (& if we actually do have some, its time to remove them) They are much too encompassing, . We have many articles for notable scholars at the universities, which mention their books. . We have individual articles for the very most notable among their books. We have categories to group these articles. We don't need this. Imagine what such a list would look like for Oxford or Harvard or Berkeley. DGG 00:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Kathy A. 01:50, 4 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. W.marsh 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Chillingsworth

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

Delete article on character of unsufficient notability. Article has had almost no content since last May. This is a supporting character in a video game spinoff of the movie The Chronicles of Riddick. Redirect to the game's article at The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury.. Doczilla 08:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and reorganize per Serpent's Choice below (early closure, consensus reached). Duja► 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Servian (disambiguation)

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

It's a mess. OK, here we go. There are 3 related articles:

  • Servia, small Greek town; (dab notice put on top)
  • Servian, French village (dab notice now put on top by myself);
  • Serbia etc. It turned out that "Servia" is an archaic (pre-1920s) English term for Serbia (found in e.g. Catholic Encyclopedia and 1911 Britannica etc.). See related talk on Talk:Serbia. Now, R9tgokunks (talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved things around quite a bit, which I attempted to fix by reverting and putting dab-notices at top of Servia and Servian.

In my opinion, that fixes the issues, and this article has turned out as unnecessary and orphan. Now, I didn't want to stretch WP:CSD G6 (housekeeping), as the article was subject to a revert war. (Plus, there are potential COI issues of mine: the attempts to use term "Servia" in Serbia-related articles were taken as trolling rightly or wrongly). Duja► 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceball

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

Tagged A7 but not strictly speediable. Unquesitonably something made up in school one day. May be worth completely rewriting with the subject of the arcade game of the same name, if that is notable. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continueing from the talk section of the page, how are individuals "not a reliable source of information"? That is like saying what can George Lucas possibly know about Star Wars. To be fair, if I created the sport three years ago, wouldn't I be considered the expert on it? I also want to convey the point that this sport runs like a well-oiled machine, gains members every year, and is well organized. I just dont see the logic in deleting a page that broadens a person's horizons from an encyclopedia. regardless i would like the opertunity to keep this page and I will makes corrections to fit your sites needs, again, thanks for your time. Amadaus 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No, indidividuals are not themselves a reliable source. Secondary articles about what the individual says are. See WP:RS. Not to mention if you created the game, there's a conflict of interest to consider. And, as the nominator pointed out, something made up in school one day is not encyclopedic nor notable. -- Kesh 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • dodgeball was made up in school one day, some food for thought. I still dont see how I am not a credible source due to the fact that even if I created the sport, why would I write false information about it? I can also have my other co-creaters verify that the information is factual if that is what you need. Regardless do as you are going to do i guess as i will try to make this legitimate enough to meet your needs. and if indivivduals aren't reliable sources, newspapers wouldn't be able to function, you need interviews and information from the creator in a news story to make it factual. Amadaus 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please re-read my comment and WP:RS. We need secondary sources about the subject, not primary ones. We don't want George Lucas to log in and edit the article about C-3P0, we want published articles from reliable sources quoting George about the subject. Those are verifiable in a way that first-hand comments are not. Wikipedia cites other sources to verify that the statements exist. Dodgeball has become notable over decades and sources can be cited about it. This is a random game with no notability whatsoever. Hence, it currently has no place on Wikipedia. If, in the future, your game becomes well-known, then it would qualify for an article. -- Kesh 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i saw a typo in your last post and took the liberty of correcting it. Amadaus 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have thought it was funny to edit my comments, but that's a bad idea. Especially since anyone can see exactly what you did. -- Kesh 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article fails to provide adequate references per standard guidelines. If references can be found by the close of this debate I'll change my opinion ( but I'll bet they can't ). WMMartin 14:48, 1 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 16:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pallipurup

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

Helping to complete incomplete nomination. My opinion is neutral. delldot | talk 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, the title is misspelled, it theoretically should be "Pallikurup" ->
"Pallikurup" is a non-notable neighborhood in Palikur ->
Palikur doesn't have an article yet, so nothing to merge to... so->
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skylion

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

Contested A7. Completely unsourced, Skylion Aslan gets about a hundred ghits, no sign of a reliable source in there either. Album released on cassette - probably tells you all you need to know in these days of recordable CDs at a few cents apiece. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on evidence presented here, but article needs work. W.marsh 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telecast (band)

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

No assertion of notability, article is only 2 sentences long, no sources aside from the official website. Candy-Panda 10:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per improvements since nomination and consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy olcott

edit
Roy olcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy but notability is asserted. Unencyclopaedic tone, no references. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was. Speedy Delete as re-creation of deleted content. utcursch | talk 14:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar K

edit
Manoj Kumar K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiography (created by User:Manojkumark). Does not seem to meet our standards for articles about people. (Note: deleted once as a PROD and recreated; PROD tag added, then removed without explanation. FreplySpang 10:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeTel

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

Non-notable company in Cyprus, fails WP:CORP. Prod notice - "Spammy advert, questionable notability" - was removed without explanation. Mereda 11:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus PeaceNT 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheapTickets

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

stub with little encyclopedic content, appears to exist solely as a marketing aid Phaedrus86 11:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 31 Jan: it looks like I have misunderstood the guidelines for commercial site notability. Sorry about that, I will go study WP:CORP so I don't waste your time next time. Phaedrus86 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the company meets WP:CORP as it has had multiple non-trivial published works written about it. See the articles linked in the references section. I also disagree with the assertion that it exists solely as a marketing aid -- the first paragraph states what the company does and summarizes their product offerings, while the rest of the article summarizes the company's history, which I would consider encyclopedic. Are there gaps in the company's history? Probably. That's why its a stub. Which, by definition, doesn't have much encyclopedic content. As far as it existing as a marketing aid, you could probably make that argument for virtually every company article, possibly except for those with a Criticisms section. -- Hawaiian717 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concur with Hawaiian717. If the marketing angle is too much, prehaps some POV cleanup could be done to keep it encyclopedic.
Forgot to sign again... Arakunem 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis "shady" richardson

edit
Dennis "shady" richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Wrestling promoter and gospel rapper? All we need is Flash cartoonist to fill the unholy trinity of vanispamcruftisement subjects. No Wikilinks to his supposed wrestling tournament, probably significant. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Stool (band)

edit
Black Stool (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but contested. No sources. Needs multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, obviously. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progarchives.com

edit
Progarchives.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but contested. Looks awfully like generic website spam to me. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kerr

edit
Andrew_Kerr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

I don't see how this managed to make the cut as far as meeting the standards of WP:BIO. It is clearly a vanity page. How does being a fast food restaurant crew trainer and a high school actor in three productions make you notable? Postcard Cathy 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of Muslims

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

This article is just a bunch of links. Wikipedia is not a directory. It would be better if we move List of Muslims by date of birth to this article and delete the content currently on this page. Sefringle 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. It looks to be identical to List of Muslims.--Sefringle 04:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Telugu Brahmins with which this should have been deleted with in the first place. If anyone disagrees, Deletion review is this way.--Isotope23 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Telugu Brahmins.

edit
List_of_famous_Telugu_Brahmins. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

This page is like other caste based pages that were deleted "List of Famous kapus' list of famous reddys" etc that can detoriate communal harmony in India and state of Andhra Pradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksubhash (talk • contribs) 09:31, 30 January 2007

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

The result was Speedy delete as obvious copyvio ~ trialsanderrors 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porter/Brayton cycle

edit
Porter/Brayton cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There appears to be no such thing. Article created by user largely to link content from website. If anything merge with Brayton cycle. Nposs 05:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of syntax error going on here - the AfD should be for Porter/Brayton_cycle NOT Brayton cycle. Can someone help sort this out? Nposs 05:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've tagged for cleanup as suggested below. Proto::► 13:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The River Company

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

I'm concerned about the verifiability of this topic. After quickly searching on search engines for the band information, Wikipedia was the only source listed in top results. The article has no references except for some external links of which none, being written by third parties, specifically mention the band. Additionally the notability is highly controversial. Other than the external links (of no value to this debate) can the authors present any evidence this topic deserves an article? Chupper 05:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- any unverifiable information should be removed, of course, but there's plenty of sources linked from the article that provide verification of key facts. Notability criteria requires multiple non-trivial independent reliable published sources to have discussed the subject -- I count at least three in the external links section. JulesH 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think that the external links do justify the notibility of the band. What sort of evidence other than external links do you want? Notability is hard to judge based on search-engine results. Try searching less generic terms than the band name itself such as the names of the band members. Regardless, WP:Music clearly defines that ONE(1) of the criteria be met, regardless of your personal opinion of how many must be met. And though some of the links have gone into internet archives, and should be removed, there are still several notable publications that feature articles solely based on the band and it's work. Garyleeweinrib 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Of course there is enough notability for this band listed under "External Links". I don't know what Wikipedia's notability rules are, but this article is nearly four months old. Why in the world would it be nominated for deletion after four months of no problem? Really, I find this ridiculous. Michael.m.winters 06:09, 5 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 deletion criteria G11 Gnangarra 13:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

BreadFish

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

This page fails to meet the WP:WEB standard of being a notable project. Utopianheaven 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 08:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Tom

edit
Jason Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete: Autobiography about non-notable beatbox person. Fails WP:MUSIC by a large stretch. Made his YouTube debut last year (along with 80 zillion other people, no?). I speedied once but it was fleshed out so I wanted to give it a fair chance here. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, the article that was originally posted and was deleted by someone on this page was not an "autobiography" and the YouTube info was simply a way to familiarize with people who may not be aware. Non-notable beatbox person? I'm sorry that you feel that way, but there are notable accomplishments that was not posted up as of yet. Wikipedia is about sharing information with others and building a source together. An online encyclopedia. There was more details that was edited out so others may contribute in the future, so if you feel you cannot add anything at the moment, don't feel discouraged in the future. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about? Building a source of information together.Jasontom 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No persuasive expression of notability. --Dweller 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's because this wikipedia page was getting tags that it was an autobiography when it isn't. A lot of content was taken off to encourage others in the future to contribute. Currently there is very little information to grativate from, be patient, it just begun! Give it time and space to breathe.Jasontom 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since when does a "debut on youtube" constitute any sort of notability? too local for wikipedia. --Tainter 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of stuff originally up were edited out because there seems to be members here that feel that what is written is an autobiography when it wasn't. Information is simply shared with Wikipedia members, but a member wanted to speedily delete the info. The YouTube debut is far from a notable accomplishment, it was merely a way to introduce people like yourself who may be unfamiliar. Thank you for the feedback.Jasontom 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't follow the argument that this isn't an autobiography, by the way. A large portion of the edits on the article were by an editor whose user name matches the name of the subject. The article will have to go unless WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC can be met. janejellyroll 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello Jane Jelly Roll, argument? Who said this is an argument? This is a discussion taking place. There are friends and supporters that have provided information for this article. Is it illegal for supporters to present and share such information? I thought Wikipedia was about sharing information together and I don't mean that by means of creating personal websites or whatnot. Would you prefer another username be used to prevent confusion for editing purposes for this particular Wikipedia article? That could be done in a blink of an eye. Problem solved!
    I believe much unneccesary attention have been given toward this article, but I thank you all for your input and whatnot. I will say this again, if anyone feel that he or she can contribute to this article than that would be greatly appreciated! It's nice that many of you want this article to be deleted, but that is due to a great misunderstanding. Jasontom 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean argument in the sense of "fight." I mean it in the sense that this discussion consists of people presenting their "arguments" for or against deletion. It certainly isn't illegal for friends and supporters to present and share information, but Wikipedia might not be the place to do so. There are policies to consider such as WP:COI and WP:NPOV and WP:N. Are you the subject or not? Your user name makes it appear as if you are and if I misunderstood that, then I apologize. Usually though, editors don't take the names of people other than themselves. You say that there is a "great misunderstanding." What is the misunderstanding exactly? If you could demonstrate how this article meets Wikipedia policies for notability, then it would help a great deal. janejellyroll 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well I'm sure Jane Jelly Roll isn't exactly your real name or people with aliases such as wknight, etc. It's just an alias. For example, how many Michael Jackson supporters have aliases with "Michael Jackson" or "King of Pop?" Countless! It isn't against Wikipedias' terms for parties involved with the party that the article is about to edit or post either. It is limited though due to the NPOV terms. That is understandable. The article was already as neutral as can be, but obviously from reading this discussion here people want more info than what was vaguely presented prior. So there is definitely great interest for this article to grow contrary to the "Delete" requests. But to stop any more confusion, you may change this username to JanesNumberOneBuckethead. I would gladly have your guidance since I am relatively new to editing Wikipedias. If you wish to assist me in improving this article, I would appreciate it! It definitely deserves a chance! Trust me and thanks! Jasontom 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out all but one keep !vote from Jasontom. Please, make your !vote once and only once.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underwear theory

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

Contested prod. This appears to be either original research or someone posting their personal essay on Wikipedia. Also, it appears to be unverifiable, and no reliable sources have been cited. SunStar Nettalk 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 2007 in New Zealand. There's really no useful content in this article yet. W.marsh 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in New Zealand television

edit
2007 in New Zealand television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurieston Villa F.C.

edit
Laurieston Villa F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN amateur football club - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricket topics

edit
List of cricket topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page has become unwieldy and redundant and seems to be no longer maintained - last edit was in November. It was created just before Wikipedia's categorisation system was implemented mainly for (I believe) using the "related changes" function associated with entries on the page. That facility is now offered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Articles which is updated regularly by User:WatchlistBot. Several editors have discussed AfD'ing the page previously (see Talk:List of cricket topics but this has not been actioned. —Moondyne 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom after article was remade into a dab page. --Fang Aili talk 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunce

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

WP:ISNOT a genealogical directory. There is nothing notable about this name, and most of the article content is erroneous - unsourced because unsourceable from reputable sources, presumably. This was originally PRODded but User:Bunceboy removed the tag in less than 12 hours without explanation, so to avoid a long wrangle I have brought it here instead. HeartofaDog 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Since the article is now effectively a brand-new disambig page minus all the flannel, I'll withdraw the nomination (but will be keeping a close eye on it for seep-back).HeartofaDog 18:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Retract delete comments now that the article has been cleaned up and is appropriate disambiguation. Arakunem 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indywood Films

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

Notability and ProD tag have not been adressed, but simply removed Tikiwont 14:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some evidence that is verifiable and has reliable sources turns up, there is (at this time) no reason to keep. --SunStar Nettalk 12:54, 1 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 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Corley (conspiracy theorist)

edit
Mike Corley (conspiracy theorist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We deleted this once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Corley (I was the author back then, I merged the history back in). The problem, then as now, is that there are no reliable secondary sources. Corley continues to be a pain in the arse to many British-focused newsgroups, remains to this day a paranoid schizophrenic homophobic spamming bigot, but the only sources are things like Iain Hotchkies' Corley FAQ from the uk.* Usenet hierarchy. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no independent reliable reference sources. —ptk✰fgs 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless bought up to standards i.a.w. WP:V and properly sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent references provided. (Hmm, or maybe I'm just part of the conspiracy to get him? ... Nah.) Dugwiki 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I can't comment on the quality of the article, there should be some reference to this phenomenon in Wikipedia. Having suffered the consequences over several years, I find it odd that anyone would look for "independent references". A quick search of google groups will verify the authenticity of the article. 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Interesting, but there are no reliable sources. If this man caused so much trouble, wouldn't he have been mentioned in the press or in published articles at some point? EdJohnston 07:16, 5 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 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan criticism of George Lucas

edit
Fan criticism of George Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced original research. Soapboxing by those who dislike the newer Star Wars movies. Seems more like a collaborative effort to write an essay than an encyclopedia article. Massive inherent POV problems. MartinDK 14:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lostune

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

Contested prod. Creator Atommy 90 (talk · contribs) has created a number of pages related to this DJ and his production company EchoEntertainment (now deleted). This has the look and feel of a spam campaign although talk page comments following the removal of the prod tag claim that this is an unfair characterization. In any case, 25 Ghits (most of them myspace) for a techno DJ is a surefire sign that the artist in question fails WP:MUSIC. Pascal.Tesson 14:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Edward Caruso

edit
Anthony Edward Caruso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A businessman of marginal notability per WP:BIO, and an admitted WP:VANITY article ([42]). The editor in question has repeatedly created the content and had it speedily deleted, but those speedy deletions were invalid (a founder of a multi-million dollar business = a clear claim of notability). Despite this, in the spirit of Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies, I hope this debate will focus on the article topic and not the user's behavior other than the WP:VANITY issue. This is somewhat of a procedural nomination for me, I myself am neutral. Mangojuicetalk 14:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of zines

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

Was created as "THE BEGINING OF A NEW ERA OF ZINE DOCUMENTATION!", but the creator lated nominated it for AFD. It was closed as no consensus. This page has become an utter mess, and is not useful for navigation or development (see WP:LIST) because of the high frequency of dubious links. Punkmorten 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP is not for lists of unverifiable information. I published a postal game zine for several years, so I'm sympathetic to the subject matter, but I'm not aware of any gamezine, music zine, fantasy/SF zine, or other publication of this type that has had multiple non-trivial coverage by reliable sources enough to meet WP:V and merit an article. WP is not for lists of content that's not verifiable. There have been hundreds of each type of zine that I mentioned, and most have never been documented or even mentioned by reliable sources, so there's no chance of making this list complete. Barno 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Per WP:LIST. Subject matter provides for near-infinite list. Most listings not notable. Horrid mess. Vassyana 13:14, 1 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. W.marsh 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don James Alto

edit
Don James Alto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Has been up for AFD before, but was kept because he "He won the Cadet Boys Singles category at the 2006 US Open Table Tennis Champianship" [sic]. However, unfortunately for mr. Alto, winning boys' tournaments is not enough to satisfy the WP:BIO guidelines. Punkmorten 14:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Consensus was reached previously on keep. Vassyana 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Have you read the AFD? Secondly, that's irrelevant for this case. Punkmorten 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have read the previous AFD, please assume good faith. The result was keep with three editors weighing in against one. Per WP:BIO he is notable. "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." He not only played in the US Open Table Tennis Championship, he won in his category. This places him above the requirements for notability. Vassyana 11:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He fails the central criterion for inclusion though, as he hasn't been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of him. Furthermore if the unverifiable information is removed the article becomes "Don James Alto is a Table Tennis Player who won the Cadet Boys Singles category at the 2006 US Open Table Tennis Champianship". One Night In Hackney 11:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • He seems to have been very active in the table tennis circuit, including playing for the US national team. As examples: He placed 4th in the 2004 nationals[1] and won the bronze in the 2004 California State Games[2]. He also placed 2nd (Finalist) in the 2005 Sandiego Open[3] and placed the same in the 2006 Berkley Open[4]. He was also part of the 2005 U.S. National TT team[5]. It at least seems to me that he is clearly notable in his sport. Of course, that is just my opinion from the research I have done. Vassyana 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough source material to create an encyclopedic article, the only thing that can be verified is that he won a tournament. One Night In Hackney 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - WP:BIO is a very sensible guideline, however the sections being quoted are currently under discussion. In my view, the central criterion approach is viable, however there should be some flexibility. This article has 7 references that cover every statement in the article. Also, given his age, I can't help think if we delete now, someone is going to have to spend unnecessary time recreating this information. Addhoc 16:00, 5 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 for now, but if anyone wants the content to do a merge, I will make it available to them. W.marsh 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in The Legend of Zelda series

edit
Animals in The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced listcruft/fancruft. Articles like this belong on a Zelda and/or video game wiki. Animals in a series aren't that notable. Just because Zelda is a popular series: doesn't mean listcruft like this should be allowed for it. RobJ1981 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 per author request both here and on the talk page of the now-deleted article. - Daniel.Bryant 09:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Publications

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

Notability issue. Request by author for speedy delete Chris 15:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. But I will make the content available to anyone who knows where they specifically want to move this to, in compliance with the GFDL of course. W.marsh 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of The Elder Scrolls

edit
Architecture of The Elder Scrolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While initially prodded for reasons of OR (due to the initial concern of this discussion), I'm willing to admit that wasn't the most well thought-out rationale, but it isn't the whole picture, either. This is a sub-article whose subject is discussed almost exclusively in a single secondary source. Nifboy 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The use of mostly one source for the information does make it seem like the author is trying push just one point of view, plus there could well be copyvio issues if the article is just a single source rehashed for wikipedia. The Kinslayer 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/move This article has been discussed at WikiProject The Elder Scrolls and it has been determined that this particular article does have problems, and that it is best deleted or moved to a TES-specific wiki. The other suggestion is a major revamp and (not or) changing the name in order to eliminate OR and single source issues. That one's a great deal of work though. --Niroht | Smoke signals 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a member of WP:TES. All of this article is OR. The sources that it depends on are OR themselves, only on a fansite. There is no way to salvage it that I can see. --PresN 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is getting complicated. It appears that UESP, the largest TES Wiki and the only one I'm familiar with, cannot accept the page due to copyright/copyleft concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geuiwogbil (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I added the sources with the intent that whomever eventually came to work on the page would use them. This content of this page has not been changed since then. This page was written without the aid of those sources, and is thus completely OR. The only way this could become a valid article would be if it were to be started from scratch. I'm not willing to work on it, so it's best that it just be deleted for now. Relevant, cited information could probably still be kept on the Morrowind (province) page, nothing substantial can be salvaged here. Geuiwogbil 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Projectify/Userfy I'd support good cleanup and reworking of the article on user or wikiproject namespaces for the purposes of reinclusion in the main article namespace or for use in external wikis. Geuiwogbil 11:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projectify/Userfy – There are currently no Elder Scrolls wikis that use the GFDL license. However, there may be a fan site, such as TIL, that would highly appreciate this article and would gladly accept the GFDL license that goes with it. I request that we userfy this article to User:Aristeo/Architecture of The Elder Scrolls so I can look for someone who can accept this article. Once I find a site that will use this article, I will propose the Wikipedia article for speedy deletion. A lot of contributors have put a lot of effort into this article, and I would hate for their efforts to be wasted. --Aristeo 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projectify - The article is not fitting on its own, but not harmful; and it contains information, which is likely to be useful for other articles, here or elsewhere, and is worth rewriting for sites not using GDFL license. I suggest to move it to Wikiproject:The Elder Scrolls subpage, as we already did before with some articles, which later were cleaned and merged into longer and more comprehensive articles on broader subjects. BTW, on subject of sourcing - the sources are on fansite, but from the original game (assumedly having permission, as the website used to be linked from the official site when there was links section - Bethesda is quite permissive in terms of copyright); so this is actually linked to books from the primary source, not just speculation. There are other reasons, of course, but UESP was somewhat interested in the article already. And there likely are GDFL TES wikis; furthermore, preservation of the article in the project subspace will serve preserving copyrights. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – The only Elder Scrolls wiki under the GFDL is an empty project on Wikia, unfortunately. Anyway, you're proposing that we split the article up and distribute it to the rest of Wikipedia, and I'm suggesting that we package up the article and send it to another site. I think you're idea is pretty good, but if it doesn't work for any reason then we can fall back on my plan if everyone is up to it. --Aristeo 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically, no matter how diverse it is, it's not noteworthy. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I change my vote to merge. I feel it would be sufficient to move this info into the Morrowind (province) article. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:38, 1 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 per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey D'Erasmo

edit
Stacey D'Erasmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Notability asserted, but not shown. Delete unless shown. --Nlu (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe that her notability is shown on the site that is linked to in the article itself. I have added a little bit more detail to it (which the linked to article did show, but the wiki article didn't say as you pointe out) and have referenced it. I personaly would say she is notable. SGGH 16:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - her book being commended by the New York Times ought to be adequate evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the article is not up to standards for a reference (book?) such as Wikipedia even if the subject is, needs work to avoid a second nomination within a month Alf photoman 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep the award is notable., but agreed, the article is only a stub, and needs to be completed with other book reviews, links or at least names for specific stories, etc. Then it should be able to stand. SGGH, take note. DGG 00:41, 1 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. Lack of reliable sources was a problem... article could be recreated if they're found. W.marsh 16:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who-Remembers-Me.com

edit

Speedied and then tagged for hangon (with no comment though). I didn't see this as being a speedy because the claim of 2 million users is an assertion of some sort of notability. This claim is completely unverified though and a bit suspicious. In fact the only thing that this website is possibly notable for is being a vehicle for spam. which doesn't meet WP:WEB. I'd say this is a good candidate to be Deleted.--Isotope23 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It does have a hint of unnotability about it, but it has only been created today. I would suggest a references tag, because 2 million users could be notable if verified, and that is was ref maintenance tags are for. It would also need cleaning up because I think it has a few lines of advert inadvertently mixed in with it. I'll go ahead and add the tags to it now. SGGH 16:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with those counts is that, at least from what I can see, there isn't one external reliable source that verifies them. 2 million users would be notable if true, but without verification it is sort of meaningless.--Isotope23 02:58, 1 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 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lubelski (2nd nomination)

edit
Abraham Lubelski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (See 1st nomination)

Previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Lubelski.

A topic is considered "notable" if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This subject provides no such sources. Bus stop 16:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Keep - As the founder of a magazine, he may be notable, but as it stands there is no indication of notability, no sources, no wiki links to anything. If the article were to be improved and crucial info were added, I may change my vote, but it's a weak delete for now. I'll choose to be inclusionist here. Still needs work, though. Freshacconci 01:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is characterized as being a painter, an American contemporary artist. He is said to have worked also on conceptual projects, theater set designs, and installations. For all these endeavors no published material is provided. Bus stop 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eastmain: Concerning the link to: Air Fairs International, it is produced with "Word Press," described as a "personal publishing platform," and it links to Abraham Lubelski's "NY Arts Magazine." I think it is only promotional. It is critical of nothing. It praises everything. Bus stop 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 35,000 google hits and they're not just blogs. He exhibited at the Venice Biennale 2001. [43] (Other refs for this as well). The Hermitage Museum states, "widely known in the world of media artists and curators."[44]. He is also a curator and there is an Abraham Lubelski Gallery in NY. The fact that this article has remained an unreferenced stub for so long is a testament to wikipedia's deficiency in the arts, not Lubelski's. Tyrenius 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Cleanup — per Freshacconci. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As Tyrenius says, while checkin G. I have discovered many very well known artists, N beyond a doubt by WP standards, but not in WP, whose exhibitions he has organized and curated. The list of those he has worked with might make a good source, but it is extensive. He really should compile it himself, so we can link. DGG 01:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive sources indicate his notability. I added a sentance with sources to his page demonstrating he is notable enough to be in demand as a lecturer and panelist. Vassyana 09:58, 4 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of short men

edit
List of short men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The introduction says it all :

The Little People of America[6] indicate 148 cm or 4 ft 10 as the "cut-off", but as they concede people slightly taller than that may fit men up to and including 150 centimetres will be included.

The standard by which this list goes is US-centered. Furthermore, a man like Nicolas Sarkozy is often derided in France because of his short stature and called "le nabot" (the midget) by his ennemies. Being 164 cm, he is excluded from the list, although in public perception, he is notable for being a tiny man (and married to a tall and broad-shouldered wife, which makes things worse !). So i think it is quite absurd to fix 150 cm as an upper limit. RCS 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had been involved in a lot of fighting around the now deleted List of tall men. There is actually no obvious reason to keep this page once the other has been annihiliated, imo. RCS 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds a bit sour grapesy. The other one was an admin decision which is in review. It looks like it's, rather perplexingly, going to lose at review but that's neither here not there. This list should be judged on its own merits if possible.--T. Anthony 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article's definition of "short" is arbitrary and inherently POV. Fixing the limit at 150 cm, while it may be taken from Little People of America, is still POV. Suggest another word should be used in place of "short". Walton monarchist89 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not arbitrary, I switched it to go by the standards of a recognized organization. That that organization is in the USA is not blameworthy in itself.--T. Anthony 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the limit I switched to is too short, this could've been discussed at talk. I don't think that's a valid reason for delete. I agree it's too US-centric at present, but I could not find a non-US site on anthropometrics. If you can find an international study on height variation I'd appreciate it. Lastly this is the third vote on this in two months.--T. Anthony 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I am having a hard time understanding why this list is necessary, given that there are plenty of categories in which these people can be included. I also fail to see how this isn't just trivia or something best left to the Guinness Book. If this list is kept, it needs renaming for several reasons. First, I do not understand why this is limited to men. Second, "short" in the title implies people who are of below average hight and may have this as a well-known trait (i.e. Napoleon), but this is clearly a list of "little people" or people with some form of dwarfism. Agent 86 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per List of tall men being deleted. JuJube 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we should only have height lists for women? Is there some kind of logic to that I'm not seeing?--T. Anthony 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have height lists at all. If that AfD had not been pre-emptively closed for reasons I can't fathom, I would have voted delete on that too. JuJube 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Are extremes of human height not encyclopedic? Black Falcon 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think they are. JuJube 04:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. Let's agree to disagree on that. How about the criteria for WP:Notability -- extremes of height have been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable publications. I agree that the current articles need to be improved on--including renaming, discussing to build consensus, better sourcing, etc.--but there is no reason to delete them. Black Falcon 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is I think the shortest men are largely not in that list and may not even have articles. I'm 3 ft 6, but I don't think I'm among history's shortest men. Not even if I were notable.--T. Anthony 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons mentioned already and also that it should be easy to determine if a person should be on the list or not. Simply ask yourself, "has this been been refered to in the media as short?". If so get the source, and cite it. Easy as pie. Mathmo Talk 11:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but then the people in the list should have passed their growth-spurt days and not still be growing..hehe..Cometstyles talk
  • Keep, as per reasons mentioned above. Turgidson 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is difficult to see why a workable list of "men notable for their shortness" can't be sustainable - perhaps a guideline max of e.g. 150 cm plus any others who are/have been notable for shortness (and, off on a tangent, difficult to see why same approach couldn't have worked on List of Tall Men also). HeartofaDog 12:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the overturn/relist arguments in the List of tall men DRV, which although endorsed, I find did not provide sufficient consideration for all of the concerns. Pomte 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete. Per my same reasoning on the AfD for the lists of tall men/women. Also a comment to some of the above commentors. The AfD we are discussing is NOT "List of men notable for their shortness", it is "List of short men". There's a big difference. Shrumster 21:10, 5 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Scott

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

Not really notable. May fail WP:Bio. also think this page shares the title of another person of the same name. Getgdt3 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/E-Tutor

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usman C Majid

edit
Usman C Majid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. 'Footballer of the Century by FIFA' 'Worst Athlete of the Century by the International Olympic Committee' = Worst hoax of the century Nuttah68 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fleming

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

Fails WP:BIO, non notable and books published by him do not automatically make him notable RHB Talk - Edits 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitalitarian

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

Neologism, possibly made up on the spot RHB Talk - Edits 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce (game)

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

Procedural nomination. Article was proposed for deletion with reason "Is this really ntoable? The game is just a nokia variation of what is probably a much older and more common game", and tag removed by creator. No opinion from myself. JPD (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Connor (poet)

edit
Sean O'Connor (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable writer/poet. Article asserts he's famous but it fails WP:V; and it's not clear which "Sean O'Connor" the article is about. The title describes him as a poet, but there's nothing about poetry in the article. Is it meant as a hoax?? Google shows a person called Sean O'Connor who contributed to a collection of haiku that was reviewed once, but he doesn't meet WP:BIO as "a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works". So delete unless it's sourced. Mereda 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Channel

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

Crystal ball, despite the NY Times speculation Milchama 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen H. Greenfield

edit
Allen H. Greenfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Priors: Allen Greenfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (AfD, AfD 2)
T. Allen Greenfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (AfD)

This article is the same as the previous articles for "T. Allen Greenfield" and "Allen Greenfield." These articles were deleted after the administration deemed Mr. Greenfield a "non-noteworthy person." I believe that these efforts to recreate this article are being perpetrated by Mr. Greenfield's friends or persons who have a business relationship with him and wish to use this forum as a free advertising agency. This entry has been deemed non-noteworthy and so should not be in Wikipedia. Eyes down, human. 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pending someone finding somewhere appropriate to merge it to. It will be a standalone article until then. W.marsh 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chief medical officer (Star Trek)

edit
Chief medical officer (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While characters who hold this position may be notable, the job itself is not. EEMeltonIV 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Chief operations officer (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep or Merge - a whole article, well-referenced (which sadly this one isn't), could be written about each of these officer positions in the Trek franchise and now their roles have changed over the years. I'd actually be surprized if there isn't already an article about this under another name. Shaundakulbara 18:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeor Delete This stub has been around 3 and a half years and still has no references other than original research based on the TV series. Does not satisfy WP:FICT ,WP:N, WP:OR or WP:RS. Edison 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. MastCell 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete, this can easily be merged into one of the character Star Trek articles, and as listed above, has no sources for a significant length of time. No reason for an article to be devoted to this which it can be incorporated into something else. --Nehrams2020 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - but into which article...? Starfleet perhaps? --Rebroad 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The COO position is more than notable. Though there is no reason to delete an article or merge it into something like CMO (totally unrelated). I'm not saying though, that it doesn't need improvement. Deepdesertfreman
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Mentis

edit

This bodybuilder is not notable. A db-bio tag keeps getting deleted. Corvus cornix 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

420 ska mosh core

edit
420 ska mosh core (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparantly unknown music genre (Mr. Google hasn't heard of it), may be a hoax. Donald Albury 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Williams-Stewart

edit
Megan Williams-Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Figure skater whose best finish has been 10th at the US championships. No other assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Competing in the national championships seems, IMO, to meet WP:BIO's "highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities" clause; linked site shows a #1 finish in a competition at a lower lever than the national championships. On the other hand, it's possible the notability criteria for figure skaters should be set higher, i.e. the Olympics or other worldwide competition. Geoffrey Spear 19:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - She won the Ondrej Nepela Memorial, a B-international, and has represented the US on the Junior Grand Prix. I think that barely meets notability for figure skaters (see discussion here and ranking of figure skating competitions), but it does meet them. Still, I would have no problem with this article being deleted. Kolindigo 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless article expanded This article has almost no useful information about the person. Delete and merge her name if desired with an appropriate list of figure skaters. If more verifiable information can be added to bring this up to at least a small encyclopedic article, I'll reconsider. Dugwiki 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this search. Regarding good faith comments by Dugwiki, the article is only a week old, while I concur it should of course be expanded, editors may need more time. Addhoc 20:52, 5 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. Well, maybe merge/delete or merge/condense/delete would be a better statement of consensus, but the Michael Richards bio already contains a good summary of the incident, so all that's left is to delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident

edit
Please note that the nominator below of this AfD User:Killroy4 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Kgeza67 (a banned user). (→Netscott) 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A user who was reverted by multiple people on the main article simply created this new article with his version. This topic is already covered extensively in the Michael Richards article, where it should be. Killroy4 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the main reason that I've created this breakout article follows the same logic that the Mel Gibson article saw a breakout article created surrounding the Mel Gibson DUI incident. Other editors on this article were expressing the opinion that the section of his article covering this event had become too large and so based upon the fact that this event is still being cited months later in prominent news reports (the latest I'm aware of was a report on the "n-word" on CNN this past week) I created this article. Also, See Google news links as recent as 5 hours ago (as of this writing) citing this. (→Netscott) 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott -- No one needs to brush up on their knowledge of the "Mel Gibson DUI incident," in order to exercise their judgement concerning Michael Richards and the Laugh Factory incident. I don't know what you see as your "logic" for creating this page. If, as you point out, other editors of the Michael Richards article were arguing on the Talk page that the Laugh Factory incident needed to be trimmed back, and blunted down -- that was your opportunity to argue your point of view on that. And I don't accept your argument that recent news stories focusing on the "n-word," with mention of the Michael Richards incident, is reason for a separate article on the Michael Richards incident. The simple fact is that the Michael Richards incident is over. Of course they mention the Michael Richards incident when they discuss the "n-word." They are mentioning something that has been over since November 2006. Bus stop 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott -- I don't think you have articulated a reason for this article which you have created. You state above that this article is needed because increased space is needed to cover recent news coverage concerning the usage of the word "Nigger." If that is so, then why haven't you inserted coverage of that into this article? Can you please explain why you have created this "breakaway" article? I don't think there is anything in this article that is not in the original article. This article is simply the placing of a subject in incorrect context. The proper context for the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident" is the life of "Michael Richards." "Michael Richards," the person, is not quite properly seen in the context of the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident." One way is preferable to the other. Furthermore, any coverage of the use of words, such as "nigger," would best be served in an article covering that subject -- either an already existing article, or one created for that purpose. The argument can be made that the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident precipitated the discussion of such words, and the possible banning of the use of such words, but it is hardly the specific cause for any such discussion. The term "Michael Richards" is inextricably linked, linguistically, to the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident." It is not as though someone is not going to be able to find the Michael Richards page. I consider this page which you have created to be entirely redundant. It creates incorrect context, which in the final analysis is unfair to Michael Richards, because it creates a perspective in which Michael Richards' life is seen as an appendage to one evening in which he had an emotional outburst. Bus stop 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after condensing. Wikipedia does not need to include every detail about a news incident where a comedian raved at a patron in a club, any more than there should be an article about an actor being rude and insulting when stopped while driving under the influence. A shorter version of this in the main article on the performer is sufficient. The amount of detail kept should be proportionate to the overall importance of the topic. We should not allow "recentism" to dictate that things in the news today require a longer article than if a similar thing had happened 40 or 50 years ago. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Jackie Mason made a controversial finger gesture on the Ed Sullivan show in 1962 which got a great deal of attention, and made controversial racial comments about a black mayor of New York, but these are not and should not be breakout articles any more than this one should be. Edison 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Keep The information in this branch article is well sourced and contains information regarding a potential lawsuit which is not really covered by the main article. With the large amount of news coverage this incident still gets (especially in relation to the coverage on anything else Michael Richards has been up to lately) I see no reason for the article's deletion. If the original section was getting "too long", as some editors were claiming, then that is precisely the reason why off-shoot articles were implemented to begin with. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Lankybugger -- Editors were not claiming that it was "getting" too long. Editors were claiming that it "was" too long. It would not likely get any longer because it is over. The law suit that you describe as "potential" is just that -- potential. It has not taken place yet. Why this preemptive move? If a lawsuit takes place in the future, maybe this article will be called for. But -- why the move now? You make the same error in reasoning that Netscott makes in referring to the "large amount of news coverage this incident still gets." In point of fact there is no new news coverage. Almost nothing new has developed since the incident took place, and the cell phone video was made public. Michael Richards made a couple of apologies, the offended men appeared on television, a publicist issued a couple of statements, a lawyer issued a statement. It was all over by the time the month of November ended. Unfortunately gossipmongers need juicy material and this suits the bill. The information in "this branch article" is no more "well sourced" than it was in the main article on Michael Richards. Any recent developments in discussions concerning the "n-word" are only tangentially mentioning the Michael Richards incident. That is not a valid development in the incident of November 17, 2006. Mere mention of the incident does not constitute a development in the incident. Bus stop 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is well referenced, evidently a most notable incident. Also, as there seems to be a lot to say, and all of it on there seems to be relevent (plus the fact that more information will come, due to the law firm) a merge would not be appropriate. Cover it mildly in the original version, but keep this as a 'main article' to that particular incident. Edison, please see this. J Milburn 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn -- This is no more "well referenced" than the same material was, as part of the Michael Richards article. You do not know that "more information will come." A lawsuit may never take place, and this discussion could easily be reopened if sufficient new developments take place to warrant it. Bus stop 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not wikinews or wikitrivia. The event is more than amply covered in the main Michael Richards article. Agent 86 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Parent article has roughly the appropriate amount of subject matter, and can be edited if new developments of lasting significance (not just news-of-the-day) occur. Most or all of the "well referenced" stuff is just news sources with no more than superficial analysis of any impact on censorship, law, etc. comparable to how Lenny Bruce is viewed forty years after some individual "incidents". Even in Bruce's case, or Jim Morrison's on-stage obscenity arrest, individual events belong in a subsection of the bio article (and in an article on the general topic), not in their own articles. Barno 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge it back into article on Michael Richards. Uncalled for emphasis results from breaking the Laugh Factory incident out into a free standing article. It is still an article about a living person, even on this page, except that separating out one incident from a person's life gives enormous emphasis to it. That is totally uncalled for, and unfair to the man Michael Richards. Wikipedia editors are supposed to exercise sensitivity in writing about living people. Highlighting one negative incident by breaking it out into a free standing article is nothing if not insensitive to the person being written about. Michael Richards is to racism as Marilyn Monroe was to sex. They were (and are) symbols. But they are hardly representative of anything that they symbolize in some people's minds. Michael Richards is more representative of the term scapegoat. Michael Richards has become a convenient figure on which to hang all the ills of America's several hundred year long dilemma with racial inequality. Wikipedia shouldn't be a participant in characterizing Michael Richards as the quintessential racist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not lynch mob. There already exists an article on Michael Richards, as well as one on the Laugh Factory, which also mentions the November 2006 Michael Richards incident. Any reader seeking to know what transpired can easily find information at either of those articles. And they can do their own research on their own. There is plenty of shrill commentary to be found, out there. Wikipedia does not have to participate in that shrillness and the resultant uncalled for emphasis on one man's outburst, one evening. Bus stop 20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It should be condensed to remove some of the details and merged into his article. This article only existed due to the massive amounts of controversy around the time it happened, which has appeared to cool off now. --Nehrams2020 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [removed - User:KramerCosmo is the banned User:Mactabbed] The article was only created by one person who said, "Go ahead and revert me and I'll just go ahead and start a proper article on this event." The creation of this article goes completely against consensus, and a separate article is not necessary for a minor incident. I can remain on Michael Richard's article. KramerCosmo 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KramerCosmo -- Netscott said "Go ahead and revert me and I'll just go ahead and start a proper article on this event," but in fact, no one reverted him. Bus stop 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MY CORRECTION: I WAS MISTAKEN: NETSCOTT WAS REVERTED, BEFORE HE CHOSE TO START THE "BREAKOUT" ARTICLE. I STAND CORRECTED. Bus stop 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfair when it's trivial to verify this very same person you're replying to reverted Netscott: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Richards&diff=104419966&oldid=104384183. Furthermore, a WP automated bot has identified this indivudal KramerCosmo as a possible sockpuppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KramerCosmo. Tendancer 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I don't see a sock tag on his user page, and it looks like Netscott (who continues to edit war on the Michael Richards article) has asked an admin to look into it. [45]. Cleo123 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two things need to be noted: 1 Bus stop either was being dishonest or did sloppy research that "no one reverted Netscott, when the very same person--a proven sockpuppet-- he told that statement to reverted Netscott. As all he had to do was look at the history of the Michael Richards page, I have to suspect the former. 2 Cleo123 you made what is known as a strawman argument: I stated "a WP automated bot has identified [KramerCosmo] as a possible sockpuppet"--a fact. You responded with some random statement trying to be sarcastic "Funny, I don't see a sock tag on his user page". Where did I state I saw a sock tag on his user page? The best part is, 1 day later now there is a sock tag on his user page. Needless to say I shouldn't hold my breath on you apologizing to me and Netscott after eating crow. The pro-Richards bias camp has been a bit too willing to intentionally misstate facts/pretend facts didn't happen. Tendancer 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tendancer -- Could you not suggest that I acted out of dishonesty? Bus stop 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be said that User:KramerCosmo was only targeted as a sock because he disagreed with User:Netscott. It didn't seem to me that he was doing anything improper. However, I am more than happy to appologize to both you and User:Netscott for my error in my assessment of him as a sock. I assumed, at the time I made my statement, that the matter had been investigated by an administrator and that he had been determined to be innocent. I was wrong and I appologize. I will say, however, that there is reason for concern on the part of the community. From what I can see, User:Netscott has a veritable host of pupeteers creating socks which are apparently following him from article to article creating conflict and disruption for everyone. There have been a minimum of three on the Michael Richards article alone. Statements User:Netscott has made on Wikipedia seem to indicate that these people are specifically targeting him. One has to wonder what he is doing to inspire such anger in people that they would be creating these accounts just to bother him. I know I don't have any socks folowing me around! Cleo123 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously because Netscott exposed them so the socks created more socks to retailiate against him. Vandals tend to be vindictive. Is this germane to the AfD? Tendancer 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tendancer, before you go accusing User:Bus stop of being "dishonest" or doing "sloppy research" you may want to take a look at your own research. You are both wrong. The revert which User:Netscott has given for his excuse for starting this article was made by User:Killroy4, not User:KramerCosmo. [46] Cleo123 23:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it fascinating several times now you like to present links that goes against your own arguments, either hoping no one will click it or follow the thread and understand the facts. e.g previously you provided a link and claimed Netscott attacked BusStop, when all it showed was Netscott defended him. Now that BusStop and I were discussing who merged back the section Netscott split out into a new article, you showed a totally unrelated link where another sockpuppet reverted some sentences, and lie and claim that was the rv of article split was being discussed. Your dishonest tendency to do this reflects quite negatively on the general believability--or rather lack thereof--of your arguments. Then again, likely it's just a [[red herring] ploy you use to divert attention. Tendancer 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your remarks are uncivil. You are also mistaken. I suggest you re-read the talk page discussion titled "Time to Reduce the text?" which is where the "break away" article was created. If you will correlate the time stamps of the conversation and look at the edit history, you will see that I am correct. Moreover, Netscott himself cites this particular revert as his rational on the article's talk page.
The reference to which you refer, was given regarding 's Netscott allegations of sockpuppetry against TechJon contained on the same page. Please, read my responses more carefully. His talk page contains an entire Michael Richards section that hosts negative counter productive conversation about Bus stop in which you are a participant. Wahkeenah's talk page history also contains similar inappropriate material. I hope that clarifies things. In the future, I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith and stop making personal attacks. Thank you! Cleo123 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you are appreciating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. May I suggest then you strike out your lengthy attacks below against Netscott which contained provocative words like "BULLY", "BIAS", "ACTED IN BAD FAITH", "should be BANNED" etc. That'll help a lot per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Avoiding_constant_disputes and also make this nAfD far easier to read. Thanks! Tendancer 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC
So we concur when you cited that reference against Netscott, the reference really did not contained anything that should be used against him and was inappropriate, as are the accusation that he "ACTED IN BAD FAITH" or was a "BULLY". I encourage all posts below starting with your "Firm Delete" containing those personal attacks against Netscott be expunged then per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and be rewritten. I am also very glad you're coming around to appreciate the importance of assuming good faith and stop making personal attacks. Thanks! Tendancer 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very confused. I stand by the statements I have made on this page. I believe I have provided an accurate description of Netscott's behavior in this particular situation. The article's talk page contains a clear cut written record that supports my statements. As the editor who introduced the proposition to trim back the text, I made every possible effort to try and circumvent potential conflict. I believe I have every right to be upset by Netscott's behavior.
Little did I know, that he apparently has a history of disruptive behavior as seen in the block log. [47]. I find your fierce defense of Netscott and his record to be extremely curious. Apart from saving him from 3RR on the Richards' article and supporting some of his arguments, your contribution history doesn't indicate an extensive working relationship with the editor you are so vociferously defending. Your edit history does demonstrates an uncanny knowlege of Wikipedia from the very first edit. You are also apparently fond of the unusual phrase "alot of vitriol" which is also used by Netscott on the Michael Richards talk page. Well, I must say Netscott is lucky to have found a kindred spirit to speak out in his defense. I will make the AFD page easier to read by not responding to any more of your attacks. Cleo123 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for volunteering to cut down on your posts to improve the quality of this nAfD. In closing I suggest you read the WP guideline on unacceptable behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. esp 1. No personal attacks (e.g. calling Netscott a "BULLY", "acted in BAD FAITH", "should be BANNED" and many many other ad hominem attacks in your long diatribe below). 2. Don't misrepresent other people (e.g. reordering my text to take them out of context as you just did and which I just fixed).
Furthermore, since you are concerned anyone who disagrees with you must be the same person, then unless you're just slandering in another violation of WP:NPA, please ask an admin immediately to checkuser either me or Netscott or both and post the results here so everyone know whether only one person finds your communications objectionable. Here's the link to help you get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser. Thanks! Tendancer 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article appears to be well referenced and the incident in and of itself received a great deal of notable published media attention. Seems like a perfectly reasonable candidate for a seperate article. Dugwiki 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and expand. Major event that received lasting, international coverage and reaction. Can certainly justify a separate article and there is very ample precedent here for this type of spin-off. Having said that, this clearly results from editorial differences that should be hashed out on article talk pages. AfD is not the proper forum to address the issue. Since the nom, User:Killroy4, is a confirmed sock puppet, I move that this "nomination" be immediately closed. --JJay 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never checked the nominating editor before commenting, as I assumed it was a GF nom by a user I hadn't heard of. That said, whatever or whoever the nom might be, I'm happy to nominate this article if the nomination is an issue. The identity of the nominator does not change my opinion on the merits, or lack thereof, of this article. Agent 86 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly would be the point of your nomination? AfD isn't meant to solve every editorial issue at wikipedia. Why don't you participate in editing the Michael Richards article and/or familiarize yourself with the very ample talk page commentary on the issue (which at the very least would provide some insight on the situation)? --JJay 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JJay -- I would also nominate this article for deletion. I happen to be fairly familiar with the Talk page commentary accompanying the Michael Richards article. Many people there want to demonize Michael Richards. I don't happen to be one of them. I don't want to give undue emphasis to one emotional outburst in a man's long career. There is actually NO reason for this separate article except to give extra emphasis to the racist facet to looking at this man's life. Can you tell me even one other reason for having a separate page for an incident that is already covered in the Michael Richards article itself as well as in the Laugh Factory's article? Bus stop 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bus Stop -- I am well aware that you would nominate this page for deletion. I am all too familiar with your vast admiration and sympathy for Michael Richards. In terms of "undue emphasis", there is little that wikipedia could do to overshadow the uncounted thousands of articles and commentary that have been written on the subject since the event. Nevertheless, I reiterate my view that these are editorial issues that should be worked out on the article talk page. --JJay 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JJay -- I don't think I ever expressed "admiration" for Michael Richards. My "sympathy" grows out of the demonization I see other people engaging in towards Michael Richards. He simply doesn't deserve it. He had an emotional outburst. No one is in a position to judge him because no one is aware of what stresses were at work on the evening that he engaged in his racial tirade. But only words were exchanged -- no one was hurt. Wikipedia is not in the league of "tabloid journalism." Why are you comparing what is ostensibly an encyclopedia to the lowest dregs of journalism? I don't know why you and Netscott are so concerned with Google hits. Beyond a certain point that sort of statistic becomes meaningless. It doesn't matter how many articles are written about, or mention, Michael Richards or the Michael Richards incident. No one is arguing that the incident is NOT noteworthy. You say that the editorial issues should be "worked out on the article talk page." On which article's Talk page? This discussion was taking place on the Michael Richards article Talk page. Netscott can answer for himself, but the real question is: why the creation of this separate article? Bus stop 04:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Nominate this Article for Deletion, if that's what's necessary. The creator of the article under discussion, Netscott, has nominated this AfD discussion for speedy deletion because it was originated by a banned user (it is not visible on the version transclued onto the AfD log; you need to view the AfD itself). This is despite the good faith contributions of everyone else to this discussion, and two offers to "cure" the nomination by nominating it in the place of the banned user. While the originator of this discussion may be banned, even "wrong" people can be right from time to time. It would be a pity to stifle discussion on the basis of a technicality. Better to let this discussion run to completion rather than to have it start all over again with a fresh nomination. In addition for my reason for deletion, above, I would like to adopt what Barno said as part of my reason for nominating. Agent 86 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, JJay has since removed the SD tag; however, I stand by the nomination so that there can be a discussion on the article itself so that a consensus on this article can be achieved. Agent 86 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Delete The "article" is merely a copy paste of information already contained in the Michael Richards article. A consensus had already been reached some time back on the article's Talk Page that a seperate article should NOT be created. (→Netscott) has created this article as form of RETALIATION against other editors who disagree with his POV, which he can't seem to stop pushing. Rather than responding to legitimate requests from other editors for NPOV sources and addressing editorial policy concerns on the Talk Page, he chose to enter into an edit war and create this article in an attempt to BULLY other editors out of reducing the text. (→Netscott) has demonstrated extreme BIAS and has ACTED IN BAD FAITH contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Not only should the "article" be deleted, but I believe (→Netscott) should be BANNED from editing any information pertaining to Michael Richards on Wikipedia. The closing admin is asked to review the article's talk page discussions prior to rendering a decision. Cleo123 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Well, I could say that it qualifies as an attack page, because it gives a disproportionate amount of Wikipedia "space" to negative information about Michael Richards and could be construed as defamation of character. Also, as was discussed on the Talk page, the text contans POV statements by Doss, which have been presented as fact. But I see your point. I have changed my vote above from speedy to firm Delete. Cleo123 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the right way to do this is to strike out your previous vote and add your new one, not to edit it. Also, that's a lot of vitriol for Netscott who in my observations has been one of the more neutral editors I've seen on WP. Though I'm also voting for a merge, I want to note for other editors: contrary to the above claims there had been NO consensus, ever, to not create a new article--there was a brief tangential discussion and exactly two people, namely Bus Stop and Cleo123 who are rather well known to be biased pro-Richards, voiced their objections while two others (I, who wanted to throw the idea out there and didn't care either way; and another editor whom I think is anti-Richards). I wouldn't call 2 vs 2 consensus, rather indifference. In any case, that amount of vitriol for Netscott is uncalled for as he has done nothing against consensus, and branching was perfectly fine per WP:SS--I rather admire his ability to maintain civility in his responses in light of these uncalled and extremely uncivil accusations. Some folks are too thin-skinned and take impersonal edits personal. Tendancer 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is history of Tendancer engaging in personal attacks against Bus stop and myself. The fact that I have simply ignored his last diatribe on my Talk Page may well be what is motivating his commentary. Well over a dozen editors have expressed concerns about the amount of text Wikipedia should dedicate to this incident. A review of the Talk Page Archive reveals that early on several editors expressed the view that the incident did not even warrant its own SECTION, never mind a seperate article. My understanding was that a consensus had been reached. I'm sure Netscott has demonstrated nuetrality on many articles in the past. In general, I respect his work. Unfortunately, he appears to be a bit too personally invested in this particular situation. He actions, in this case, are rash. It appears that he became angry when other editors attempted to engage him in discussion so he attempted to "punish them" by creating a seperate article to serve as a platform for his POV. I am not "Pro-Richards". Myself and other editors are engaging in a good faith effort to create a NUETRAL & UNBIASED section in accordance with WP:BLP Cleo123 05:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how Netscott's intention to branch the article and shorten the Richards article (to be only about Michael Richards) is not "NUETRAL (sic) & UNBIASED"? As far as I can tell, the main POV-pushers are some pro-Richards editors who are paranoid that branching the article would draw attention to the incident. You are tossing out an unbelievable amount of vitriol against Netscott who's been an invaluable and neutral editor on the article, and I am starting to think you pile on him because he's too civil to stoop to respond in kind, and instead of recognizing that, like most bullies you instead take it as a sign of weakness and license to continue to lie about and attack him. I think we only need to look at the sheer number and length of the missives by a couple pro-Richards editors here to see who are the ones "personally invested". Tendancer 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ufortunately, in this particular situation, Netscott seems to have been unable to maintain his objectivity, and he appears to be without remorse. Only hours ago, he was "campaigning" on another editors talk page, attempting to influence their vote on this AFD by misrepresenting the facts. [48] His has encouraged other editors to "gang up" on those who oppose his POV [49]. His talk page is chock full of inappropriate commentary and speculation about Bus stop [50] and he has accused pratically every editor who disagrees with his POV of being a sockpuppet.[51]. When all his campaigning failed and the article began to finally take a more nuetral form, rather than engaging in a rational discussion, he got angry and created his "own" article. I believe several editors on this page have adequately explained why a seperate article isn't warranted at this juncture. Cleo123 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP policies does not forbid people from campaigning. He created an article and campaigned for a vote to keep it, just as you advocated trimming the section and campaigned for people to weigh in, that's perfectly fine. You can accuse him of campaigning if that's such a crime, but not of bias. On the links you've given I see him _defend_ Bus Stop against accusations that Bus Stop is a POV-pusher and a troll, it's disingenuous to twist it into a claim NetScott commented inappropriately about Bus Stop. Furthermore, every editor NetScott has "accused" of being a sockpuppet has turned out to be a sockpuppet: TechJon, Kgeza67, and the latest KramerCosmo who shares the same IP with a known sockpuppet of the Michael Richards article, and was reverted by a bot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KramerCosmo. In short, he has yet to make a false sockpuppet accusation in violation of WP:NPA unlike e.g. Bus Stop who rather hilariously think I'm the same person as Wahkeenah. In short you are perfectly entitled to believe he created the article out of anger, but please keep in mind that's your POV and not a valid reason for deletion. All of us here should read over WP:AADD which would trim down the verbosity in this discussion. Tendancer 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm not a sockpuppet nor do i like that accusation very much, reverting netscott's edit, which went against consensus, does not make me a sockpuppet neither does getting an automated bot warning prove that i have the same IP, i'd like these ridiculous accusations to stop, just because I stumbled into this debate and I don't agree with netscott does not make me a sockpuppet, what is this mccarthyism? KramerCosmo 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Campaigning? Give me a break... contacting one seriously involved Michael Richards article editor over this is not campaigning... it is normal for fellow editors heavily editing on a particular article to contact each other regarding editing/content/AfDs surrounding that article. Removal of all of the material from The Situation Room interviews of Kyle Doss and Frank McBride effectively cancels out any of the details that led up to the cameraphone recorded part. Regardless I agree with the editors (including Cleo123) who've said that this previous section of the Michael Richards article was too big... that is ultimately why I created this breakout article. Perfectly normal course of events. (→Netscott) 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute. Let's not be dramatic. The nexus of this entire dispute was other editors' desire to omit ONE STATEMENT which read : "According to Kyle Doss (one of the targets of the tirade) the incident began when his group of about twenty people entered into the Laugh Factory after Richards' performance had started and proceeded to order beverages. He stated, "[...] I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.'"[7] Your commentary on the Talk Page would seem to indicate that this statement must be retained because it somehow "justifies" the heckling. All anyone has asked you to do is provide an NPOV source for what started the incident. Without a secondary unbiased source, it is opinion and cannot be presented as fact. User:Bus stop is correct in saying the "incident" starts when the cell phone camera footage starts, unless you can provide a reliable source. If your version of the article is retained, the same editors will undoubtably follow you to the new article requesting a source. Content disputes are not resolved by creating your own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cleo123 (talk • contribs).
  • Cleo123 please read over WP:NPOV. That Doss stated that is already a fact and a sourced fact from CNN less. The article does not claim what Doss stated has to be true. Netscott and anti-Richards readers can choose to infer from that quote Richards started it, you BusStop and the pro-Richards readers can choose to infer from that quote that Doss is lying/feigning victim. Regardless, that's a sourced statement from a main participant in the incident. One can debate removing it if there's e.g. undue weight issues (which there isn't because deleting it actually created undue weight as now we lost all perspective from one side). Citing WP:NPOV or lack of source however, is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. By that butchering of WP:NPOV, any statements Richards made in defense of himself should be omitted because Richards does not have NPOV. Tendancer 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tendancer, presenting ONLY point of view, as to the cause of the incident is misleading and constitutes a misrepresentation of facts. It may be a "fact" that he said this, but the statement cannot stand alone. With no facts, we cannot publish ONLY the opinion of one interested party as to what "started" the incident. If you will read the Michael Richards Talk Page discussion you will see that a good faith attempt was being made to remove all POV statements, including Richards quoted appology. If you'd like to discuss this I think that talk page word be a more appropriate forum. Cleo123 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great so we agree NPOV is not at all an issue on Netscott's creation of the new article and should be left to the Richards talk page. If there're no objections then I'll strike out this whole section starting with the Firm Delete which you can rewrite due to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA concerns, that'll also make this monstrousity of a nAfDa whole lot easier to read. Tendancer 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, who's being disingenuine here? Now you're double talking. The original removal of this material was done (ostensibly to reduce the size of the article)... intially by a banned user and subsequently by yourself. Now you're giving another reason for having removed these details. As I expressed here removal of these details is what is known as "deception by omission" (meaning that section ceases being factual)... I started a breakout article to reduce the size of the overall parent article. Why is that so difficult to understand? (→Netscott) 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not being disingenuous. My reason for taking it out was simply to reduce the amount of text. The "dispute" occured when you reinserted the material and Bulbous and Bus stop questioned you. I happen to agree with their rationale. Cleo123 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (→Netscott) -- You had your opportunity to argue that the material that was being taken out of the article (the Michael Richards article) should not have been taken out, or even that it should have been increased in either quantity or detail. You would rather start a new page because you would rather not engage in that debate as to how well balanced the Michael Richards article should be. But starting a new article devoted to the incident of November 17, 2006 is imbalanced in and of itself. The act of starting a separate article for a relatively minor incident that is already covered on both the Laugh Factory page and on the Michael Richards page amounts to the placing of undue emphasis on a negative incident that occurred in one man's life. We are talking of 5 minutes in a 40 year old's life. We are talking about an emotional outburst that only took the form of words -- it is not as if physical violence was an ingredient in the evening's events. We are talking about an incident for which the man apologized, profusely, multiple times. America needs to fry a white man for America's past injustices. That is the only reason the subject remains in the news. It is a psychological need that our society has. Gossip-mongers can't get enough of the story. This, despite the fact that there have not been any new developments in the story in 2 months. Bus stop 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (→Netscott) -- The present stories concerning the "n-word" are not necessarily about the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident, though he might be mentioned as an introductory element, to catch the reader's interest, or to create context. That discussion might very well be a subject whose time has come. If the Michael Richards incident had not taken place then something else perhaps would have sooner or later precipitated that discussion. I do not accept that every time Michael Richards is in mentioned in the news in relation to a discussion concerning the "n-word," that that constitutes an ongoing presence of the Michael Richards incident in the news. Bus stop 01:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Already sufficiently covered by main Michael Richards article. Section there can be expanded if people want (though I absolutely agree with User:Bus stop above that efforts to turn Wikipedia into an obsessive/shrill celebrity gossip and trivia site should be opposed). No need for separate article. Bwithh 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for now. As noted prior someone (who happend to be a bot-identified sockpuppet) has already merged the content back to the main article and at some point the length may cause undue weight issues. There may well be merit for a new article per wp:ss should this event stay in the news, but that's not enough reason per wp:crystal. Tendancer 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot does not prove that i am a sockpuppet i dont know where you got this from, the bot reverting my edit because i am a new user, stop calling me a sockpuppet because im not its annoying and uncivil KramerCosmo 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Confirmed by CheckUser as a sockpuppet of User:Mactabbed. (→Netscott) 04:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the Michael Richards article This is where it was, and this is where it belongs. It does not need to have its own article. I, and a couple of other users said that the incident does not need its own page. Acalamari 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As is normal when creating new articles it is typical to search for logical areas to wikilink to the new article. I followed the What links here? link for the Michael Richards article and was a bit suprised to find over 20 links from articles to his article specifically making mention of the "incident" (which is the actual word used in a number of articles)... some of them included: Jesse Jackson, Late Show with David Letterman, Nigger, Heckler, Paul Rodríguez, TMZ.com, List of The Colbert Report episodes (2006), Cryme Tyme, and MADtv: Season Twelve (2006-2007). As I do more and more research on this subject I realize more and more that this event has had a significant enough impact in the world to warrant an article about it. (→Netscott) 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (→Netscott) -- All of those articles that link to the Michael Richards article should link to the Michael Richards article. This event has had "impact," but this event is over. The "impact" of this event is on the wane. The Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident is a touchpoint for other issues and considerations. Yes, the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident comes up often when people discuss, for instance, banning the "n-word." But they are not discussing the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident. They are discussing a subject related to the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident. In point of fact the incident is quite over, and as such, resides quite nicely in the original Michael Richards article. Bus stop 21:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott -- What you fail to understand is that the context of the article is Michael Richards. The context is not racism. You are putting the cart before the horse. Logically, the distinction is not significant. But meaningfully, it is very different. The same article gets written either way, by and large. Maybe a few more details get left out of the racism-oriented article concerning Richards' earlier personal history that are included in the Michael Richards-oriented article. But even the racism-oriented article has to provide some context as to who this man is who is on the stage and saying those words. The difference between the two articles is significant. In one there is a man leading a complex life who has a bad evening and says things that he regrets. In the other article there is a primarily racist incident with a man added on as an appendage. Michael Richards is not a lifelong racist. The proper context of that incident is the lifetime of Michael Richards. Wikipedia should not be misrepresenting that fact. Bus stop 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary: I accept a degree of responsibility for the present dilemma because I encouraged Cleo to reduce the text pertaining to the Laugh Factory incident in the Michael Richards article. But Netscott did not allow for sufficient discussion of the subject of starting a separate article before doing so. I understand Netscott's adamant refusal to allow the details of the Laugh Factory incident to be pared back. I accept that he is right about the need for a thorough coverage of the Laugh Factory incident. But I part company with him concerning the advisability of a separate article from the perspective of the incident. I should not have urged Cleo to remove material from this article concerning the Laugh Factory incident when she asked me what my thoughts were about that. I gave her the wrong advice, as I now see it, with hindsight. My revised feelings are that the Laugh Factory incident should be thoroughly covered, but from the perspective of Michael Richards' life. To cover Michael Richards' life from the perspective of the Laugh Factory incident is to put undue emphasis on that incident. Bus stop 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but strongly revise for NPOV. This article is heavily biased and places undue weight on the 'victims' POV. With enough collaborative and balanced effort, it can be repaired. Bulbous 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bulbous, I admire your idealism. However, we must be mindful of the fact that User:Netscott created the stand alone article because other editors, including yourself, wanted to omit inflamatory POV material. You, yourself have said that the he/she said quoting everyone format has to go. If that material is deleted, the article will be no more than a stub. Hence, a seperate article is not required. I suspect that User:Netscott and his supporters will use a free standing article as a platform for adding MORE biased, defamatory "tabloid" material contrary to WP:NOT. Cleo123 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the main page is significantly skewed in favour of the "victims". In order to properly balance it, we either have to eliminate the POV or balance the article. To balance it, we would have to expand it by adding the point of view of Richards and/or Richards' supporters. However, the overwhelming opinion seems to support a reduction of the text there - with some significant opposition. The best way to reach a consensus would be to reduce the main article, and expand the discussion here. But no matter what happens, the main article has to be repaired and improved. Bulbous 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bulbous -- I don't think you are addressing the question. I think the most pressing question is whether of not to keep this article which was just created just a few days ago. Obviously any article has to have a neutral point of view. You say that "the overwhelming opinion seems to support a reduction of the text there," but I do not count myself among that group. I am in favor of putting whatever is called for in the Michael Richards article to fully tell the story in appropriate and balanced terms. I don't agree that the original article is skewed in favor of anyone. But if you or anyone else feels it is, that is a valid subject for debate. I feel we are talking in circles. I think the issue to be addressed is whether or not to have this article. I think that calls for reasons, and not just reasons that apply to any article. Bus stop 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully all sides (and I think there're more than two) can agree on that and specific policies and guidelines do already exist to assist on this. A couple related points are the WP:NPOV section on "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, also several paragraphs down, "Avoiding constant disputes". Tendancer 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A seperate article would effectively label Richards' a racist, which could be construed as defamation of character and is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People. Also, WP:NOT discourages the creation of articles surrounding current events, which may become obsolete. Once created, it may be difficult to have the article deleted, as the Mel Gibson DUI Incident article should be. This event is too recent and cannot be put into its proper perspective, yet. Potential defamation of character of this living person outweighs any perceived need for a seperate article. Cleo123 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cleo123 -- In my opinion the problem does not quite rise to the level of "defamation of character." But it is illogical, and not useful. But you make a good point. Richards is not a lifelong racist. He doesn't have a history of hate speech. The evening's melt down is out of character, for Richards. Had he been a frothing-at-the-mouth racist he wouldn't have likely risen to the level in the theatrical arts to which he had risen. He actually had a show -- the short lived Michael Richards Show, that had many black members in the cast. He was a part producer of that show. He responded improperly to black people on November 17, 2005, at the Laugh Factory. That doesn't make him the quintessential racist that this separate article can be construed as implying. That was one incident in his life. This article serves no purpose, except to imply an improper perspective on one person's life. Bus stop 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This data should be folded into the parent article. Spreading out informatiopn that at its core involves only one man should be at his article. These types of articles now, along with the Mel Gibson DUI incident makes the encyclopedia harder to navigate, more awkward and interferes with the ability to quickly gather information about somebody. -Mask 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)—[reply]
  • Merge This vote is based solely on a what would people be looking for basis. The navigational consideration is that people will look to the main article. In a few years the incident will be of less importance as a stand alone issue. TonyTheTiger 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the amount of media coverage this received and the ensuing debate in the states over racism and the use of the racial epithets is significant enough to merit its own article. KazakhPol 05:35, 4 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 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance

edit
9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as part of long running cycle to promote original research. See the various xFD discussions on and linked to from the pages here, here, and here. Merge useful information, should any exist, to Edward R. Dewey. Tim Shuba 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The population cycle is well known and well documented. See http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=84 --Eastmain 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the cycle is probably the most famous example of ecological cycles, mostly because the data goes so far back. Scholar finds over a 6,000 hits on the lynx cycle.[52] I do think the article should be renamed, however, because "9.6" is _way_ more specific than can be statistically supported by the data. Upon further review AllanBColson 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon further review, I find the article, as currently written, without any merit. Certainly, a useful and encyclopedic article can be written on the lynx cycle. However, this particular incarnation does appear rather crankish. I'd suggest either deleting these and starting over or completely re-writing with no more than a mention of this Dewey chap. AllanBColson 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and documented phenom. Tag for cleanup. Vassyana 13:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - The Canadian lynx article at present contains a mere seven short paragraphs. Inclusion of the nominated article serves only as a content fork that is unnecessary and counterproductive. The preceding assumes the nominated article is actually about the population cycle of the lynx. Per the various xFDs linked to above, my conclusion is that it was created for another purpose entirely. Tim Shuba 19:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your speculations are not relevant to the article. The article is about the subject matter that it claims to be about. If there is a long running program, it is to inform about cycle studies not original research. None of the two articles and one category that you refer to are original research. You need to have a higher standard of accuracy in your statements. Ray Tomes 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The article is about a well documented cycle. It is not original research as claimed by Shuba. Ray Tomes 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this search Addhoc 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lynx cycle has been a historic research resource and is still relevant in current cycles research e.g.

here Pentilius 21:10, 4 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, but I am going to redirect to Soquel, California for now, as the current article is not acceptable. Undo the redirect when someone wants to wikify the article and make sure it isn't a copyright violation. W.marsh 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John hames

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

Completely unreferenced, writing style indicates that it could be a copyvio also. Localzuk(talk) 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smilers

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

Fails WP:BAND. — Swpb talk contribs 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but add some sources as to fame in Finland. Google search shows Estonian Music Awards they won, which meets WP:BAND. Geoffrey Spear 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sehee

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

Not notable. Maybe the organisation that he heads, Green Burial Council, would be notable? but its executive director is not. See also related nominations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Campbell (doctor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Woodsen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Cassity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury (2nd nomination). habj 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Woodsen

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

Not notable. The cemetery Greensprings Natural Cemetery would be a better subject for an article than its president.

See also related nominations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Campbell (doctor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sehee, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Cassity, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury (2nd nomination). habj 19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 10:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Cassity

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

Not notable. He could be mentioned in Hollywood Forever Cemetery, but his creating it does not merit a biography article.

See also related nominations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Campbell (doctor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sehee, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Woodsen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury (2nd nomination). habj 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional Freedom Techniques

edit
Emotional Freedom Techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fringe theory per WP:FRINGE#Guidance ("Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual."). One (1) hit on PubMed for "emotional freedom techniques" (PMID 12945061). References to "research" in the article almost all lead to the same commerical site - other than the one PubMed article, cannot find any peer-reviewed research on this theory. Without a peer-reviewed research base or other independent and reliable sources, the article can't progress beyond its current promotional/advertising state, and topic is non-notable per WP:FRINGE. MastCell 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I seem to remember this article has been voted on before) The policy above is poorly worded because taken literally it suggests you need several references to one mainstream publication which does not make sense. The way I read it, one respectable peer reviewed reference is enough, and EFT has at least one. Man with two legs 10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I interpreted referenced extensively as >1 peer-reviewed article. One PubMed hit doesn't make something notable; it's impossible to build a solid, NPOV article on a scientific topic based on 1 small peer-reviewed article and a bunch of promotional websites. MastCell 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
1. Why impossible? There is no logic there. Especially since even ONE peer reviewed article carries a lot of weight.
2. The article is not simply a list of promotional web sites, although a link to the man who developed it is promotional in the same way that a link to Microsoft is to a promotional site. As it happens, much editing has been done by people hostile to EFT
3. If EFT were not notable, then there would not be so many people actively using it (which they do, incidentally, because it works even if we do not know why). There are much sillier things on Wikipedia.
(How do I know it works? Because I used it to cure someone of fear of spiders in a few minutes.)
Man with two legs 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for the moment. This article is too long and promotionally detailed. Perhaps cut it in half and expand reference sources. I do not think an article on this subject has to be "all scientific" but rather descriptive if the subject is notable and popular. I am unfamiliar with EFT except for minor exposure from working on the Mercola article. This sounds somewhat different - are there substantially different EFT versions or is Mercola's newsletter a more circumspect summary? Also I would expect an attempt to address any claims/connection on "psychoneuroimmunology", pro and con.--I'clast 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is one peer reviewed study in a major academic journal, (showing that EFT produced significant reductions in phobias to small animals): Wells, S., Polglase, K., Andrews, H., Carrington, P., & Baker, A.H. (2003). “Evaluation of a Meridian-Based Intervention, Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), for Reducing Specific Phobias of Small Animals”. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59 (9). 943-966. The implication is that EFT has been considered serious enough for academic researchers to be the subject of at least one well designed study.
In the professional literature about psychotherapeutic methods, EFT is mentioned as one of several emerging techniques. And yes, these references should be here in the WP article but their absence does not mean that the article should be deleted.
And by the way, EFT does not purport to be a science. It is a newly developed technique that shows workable empirical results when used in practice. Absence of rigourous large scale studies proving the effects of a method is not enough to delete an article describing an emerging practice based method.
To claim that something is "fringe" when one does not understand it or have knowledge about the literature could be construed as – well – arrogant. MaxPont 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't like the title of WP:FRINGE (it's pejorative), but it applies here. The "professional literature about psychotherapeutic methods" is generally indexed on PubMed, yet there's nothing except the one small study from 4 years ago. The rest of the refs are self-published by people who sell EFT books and DVD's. Again, not enough to establish notability or build a good article, WP:ILIKEIT arguments notwithstanding. MastCell 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pubmed is only a database covering journal articles with formal empirical studies. Outside Pubmed there exist a large literature where therapists develop concepts and methods, discuss the field and similar matters. These books are written by professionals for other professionals in the field and not for the wider audience. That’s where you can find references to EFT (which should be used in this article). I can agree that the article needs more references and a more NPOV. (And by the way, disliking something is not a valid argument in a deletion debate either WP:IDONTLIKEIT). MaxPont 09:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MC, I have suggested an editorial approach, see the article[55] and Talk. It is pretty rough writing but it is meant as a starting point for more encyclopedic coverage. I think that AfD is permature without a good faith attempt to try to add notable coverage from outside the mainstream medical journals.--I'clast 06:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate examples of the notability from other sources, it would aid the AfD nicely.--I'clast 08:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here are some from the Thought Field Therapy article:
WatchAndObserve 15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the legwork... those are all good sources. All 3 range from moderately to strongly critical of TFT/EFT, so I suppose if the verdict is keep, the article should be rewritten to reflect that. MastCell 17:02, 4 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Paul Bradley

edit
William Paul Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No sources, no evidence that the role of administrator of an estate is significant outside of a very small locus. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is difficult to find sources for more recent individuals in the White Estate. The White Estate serves the Seventh-day Adventist Church which has a membership of around 15 million members. A history of the White Estate is very much needed and the chairman of the board of the White Estate has played a significant role in shaping the church's role of who Ellen White is and how she is perceived. His name doesn't appear in more recent denominational histories which is all the more reason that we need to keep his name so that we can learn more about him as other Adventists contribute information ~~thewalkingstick~~ 22 Jan 2007
  • so write an article about the White Estate, if thats the notable subject DGG 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the article from a short one-liner to something more substantial. I work in an Archives facility so I'll try to add more sources tomorrow. It's gradually being expanded so I plead patience and to keep this article! Thewalkingstick 23 Jan 2007
  • BTW, there is an extensive article I wrote on the White Estate. I also added an obituary source. Thewalkingstick 24 January 2007
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just giving it another shake... sources were added a few days after the AfD started. --W.marsh 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't feel that any of Mr. Bradley's activities are notable enough to meet WP:BIO. The added sources verify that he existed and did some things, but they don't establish that he had the sort of independently documented impact that belongs in an encyclopedia. Barno 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only mention of Bradley in Ellen G. White Estate is inclusion in the list of chairmen. Frankly, I don't see that the trust is particularly notable in any context except a small historical sidenote to the Seventh-Day Adventist church, so I think the White Estate topic should be merged into an SDA article. Certainly being a former chair of an estate trust is not a sufficient claim to notability under WP:BIO unless he was involved in some event which drew substantial coverage from independent published sources. I see no indication of that being the case here. Barno 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Theft Auto vehicles

edit
List of Grand Theft Auto vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy Delete Pure gamecruft. Listing GTA cars is not necessary, at all, in Wikipedia. Deserving only in a Wikia. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to "Speedy Delete." It's a list, in it's entirety. Not at all encyclopedic. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which speedy deletion criteria does it meet? I don't think it meets any, to be honest. J Milburn 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not meet Speedy criteria: Regardless of what personal beliefs you might have on the subject, neither Cruft nor Original Research is a reason for an article to be speedied. Indeed, Cruft itself is not a reason for deletion and should not be cited. I will say that this article should be Deleted (changed opinion, see below), but only because the list itself is inherently unencyclopedic and WP:NOT a game guide. The article provides no context for the subject matter at hand and asserts no notability about the vehicles in the GTA series. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only reason why I changed to speedy delete was on the basis of it consisting, almost, totally of lists. I do know cruft or OR is, by no means, speedy criteria. Also, I stated in my above comment that I changed to Speedy due to it being a list. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:SPEEDY#Non-criteria for more details, but Original Research and WP:NOT are specifically mentioned in the WP:SPEEDY page as non-criteria for speedy deletion. This list doesn't meet any of the General or Article items mentioned, so it doesn't meet WP:SPEEDY. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not speedy. While Wikipedia is not intended as a game guide, the part of WP:NOT that specifically said that was removed, and wasn't restored when I suggested it. WP:FICT includes some guidelines about excessive levels of detail about non-fact-based works; this list seems clearly to be of interest only to fans of the game, and does not serve to explain the game to non-fans. Barno 20:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --- RockMFR 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: It is not a game guide. It simply lists the models of vehicles in the GTA III trilogy and their respective real life counterparts. Does not tell you how or where to obtain them. It needs more categorizing, yes, not deletion. The purpose of the list was for the fans, and that includes potential future fans.

Maranomerau 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Rock said, Wikipedia is not GameFAQS. It's an encyclopedia. This belongs in a game guide, not here. Pure gamecruft. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on new evidence, Speedy Delete this article and then salt the earth here and at List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto. Cruft and OR might not be a reason for Speedy Deletion, but material which has already gone through the AfD process IS speedy-able. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate it for speedy del. on OR and cruft; can no one read my comment I stated about that??? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Simply being a list is not a reason for Speedy deletion, either. It needs to explicitly fit the criteria mentioned in WP:SPEEDY for it to be considered for speedy deletion, and even cases which clearly fit one of the criteria but are also highly controversial subjects will go through AfD. Cheers, Lankybugger 06:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you people quit bickering and just Delete the page already. I already cleared all the info, just stick a fork in it. I declare victory to the deletists.

Maranomerau 08:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. *sigh*...I really, really want this list to stay, since it's nice to know what you're driving and stuff in the game. I wanted this list so badly when I owned this game. But, well...unsourced, OR, recreation of previously deleted material...Oh well, Wikipedia is not a place to see your wishes and come true (someone ought to write that essay). --UsaSatsui 18:28, 2 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Mosun

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

Speedied and then contested; I don't think the subject meets WP:BIO but I'm going to give the article the benefit of community consensus.--Isotope23 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed WP:BIO and having been the one who has authored and contested the deletion of this article based on my points that I included in the talk page debate. I would add further that under the Criterion of notability, this person meets the following Criterion:
  • The person has been subject of numerous non trivial articles in various verifiable publications. (I indicated this with a list of the articles and direct links to them as well as their outside sources)
  • The person has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the hiistorical record in their field including the holding of patents and creation of processes related to the work in the field.

Under the Criterion of Alternative Verifiability:

  • All information can be verified and some already extends beyond a decade ago
  • Exandability is without question doable. In fact, this was being addressed prior to this marking of the article and the subsequent talk page and now this.
  • 100 years. Yes, if people are interested in who built the gates that surround the shrine of Muhammad in Medina or who modernized the bronze windows at the library of parliament in Canada or who and what company built the International War Veterans memorial in Toronto Canada, or who and what company built the Baha'i temple in Santiago and so on.
  • Search Engine Alternative test will also return 100's of hit's from third party sources on this person.

Can an editor provide me with examples from the article that are out of line with the criterion of wikipedia? I don't believe anyone has done this yet and instead has kept referring to the wp:bio and so on but no specific references. Thanks for any help you can give in keeping this article of this notable person available for continued expansion. Djamieson 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no references provided rise above trivial mentions (i.e. list of panelists). Accomplishment != notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Nothing in any of the sources indicates how the subject passes WP:BIO. There is no reliable bio of the subject, and all references are either events or directory listings, trivial per WP:N, or to a lesser extent about the company. What is more, User:Djamieson is a single user account which has been going around posting spamlinks to the soheilmosun.com website. Ohconfucius 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there seems to me to be a clear WP:COI issue with the article which is evident both from the promotional tone, and the author's linkspamming activities, though in fairness I must point out that the author has strongly denied any problems with WP:AUTO or WP:COI. The sources provided on the article page do not establish notability per WP:BIO. The additional sources discussed on the talk page might well satisfy WP:CORP for the company in question, but not for the individual. If the article were to stay, it would need a complete re-write from reliable sources, if available, since currently it reads like an advert. CiaranG 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the author, per the questions at the top of the page: what is the source for, to pick but one example, this: "Darius’s parents met one another while working at a architectural model making firm. They became one of the top architectural model model making teams in the Toronto area.". CiaranG 08:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*'why isn't the article visible, when the speedy was contested and the afd hasn't closed? 'DGG 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there. CiaranG 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My blooper, sorry. I dint think to look beyond the header here.DGG 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now - I guess it was listed without using the proper template. I've added the header manually, hopefully without breaking anything. CiaranG 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... I'm so old school I always forget to use the newer AfD templates... my fault.--Isotope23 20:30, 1 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba Marijuana Party

edit

This supposed political party gets 34 Google hits when Wikipedia and its mirrors are excluded. The article presents no independent, reliable and verifiable sources to show the party is notable, or to show that they are a serious political party, or to show that they got candidates on the ballot and received votes in an election. Appears to lack notability and to lack the reliable independent sources needed to write more than a stub articleEdison 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no verifiable sources provided to establish notability - 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Elections Manitoba, the agency which oversees elections in that province, includes the Manitoba Marijuana Party in its list of registered political parties at http://www.electionsmanitoba.ca/main/media/parties.htm --Eastmain 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a registered political party, which means that it's automatically notable. Also, the reason it gets so few Google hits might have something to do with the fact that it was called the Libertarian Party of Manitoba until 2005. (The Manitoba Libertarians have been fielding candidates in provincial elections since 1986.) CJCurrie 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is now verified. There will be an election in 2007 or 2008. If the MMP is in fact defunct, there would be an argument for merging this article into the Libertarian Party of Manitoba article. its lakc of a website, however, is not proof of defunctitude. Life does exist outside of the web, you know. Ground Zero | t 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable but I'm a little concerned Chris Buors is mostly referenced to Internet forums. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does it say somewhere in the Wikipedia notability criteria that all self-described fringe political parties in the world are inherently notable enough to have an article? As a non-Canadian, I do not know have a feel for how hard it is to become a "registered" political party in Manitoba. The fact that one person can decide to change a party from Libertarian to Marijuana is not very impressive. How does Wikipedia treat parties in the U.S. or other countries which get a few hundred out of a couple of hundred thousand votes, and which seem not to have been mentioned in the press? If there are no independent, reliable and verifiable sources (other than for the fact of having registered) how can editors obtain enough info to write an accurate and encyclopedic article? I feel that the technicality of "registering" does not automatically confer notability. We have defeated city coucil and county board candidates in major cities who are not notable for articles, but have extensive press coverage and many times more votes than this party got. Edison 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are currently only six registered parties in Manitoba (New Democratic, Progressive Conservative, Liberal, Green, Communist, Marijuana). Parties must field at least five candidates in a provincial election to retain their registration. This isn't a case of someone just waking up one day and declaring a new party; there's a process that has to be followed. CJCurrie 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Registered political party. Accordingly, their candidates might not be notable enough for individual articles, but the party certainly is. Keep. Bearcat 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. --Mista-X 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda's spliff

edit
Zelda's spliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable, lots of nonsense, and haven't even released an album. I speedied it but, of course, User:Zeldaspliff removed it RHB Talk - Edits 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the proper thing to do is re-add the speedy; authors of pages are not allowed to remove speedy tags. Veinor (talk to me) 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged. W.marsh 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agua loca

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

Notability and verifiability both lacking. A speedy tag was removed [56] YechielMan 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mixed Drinks-related deletions.
  • I am not surprised that the speedy delete was removed. The preferred way to request removal of mixed drink-related articles (even really bad ones like this particular one) is to place {{WPMIXMergeDelete}} on the talk page and then add a note explaining the request. The reason we request this (and it is a request, not an official policy), is because the Mixed Drinks WikiProject tends to cut and paste little snippets of otherwise substandard articles, and merge the good parts into other articles. For GFDL license requirements, we must keep the original edit history intact, and turn the old page into a redirect pointing to where the information has been moved.
  • The question to be determined in this case is: is there anything worth salvaging from this article? I do not know anything about the topic of this article, but the discussion on the talk page indicates that the term, at least, might be notable enough to be described somewhere (possibly in the Spanish Wiktionary with an interwiki soft redirect?). Here is what one user wrote: "Maybe the article should be changed to define it as a joke/slang term and it ways it can be used."
  • I have no opinion on the value of the article itself (I don't know enough to make any judgment), but if any part of the article is kept (even in the Spanish Wiktionary or a different article here), then my vote is to convert the article into some type of REDIRECT to the new location to preserve the edit history. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article hasn't changed substantially since I translated it from Spanish. The article has a couple of curious points, like the insistence on using tapwater rather than distilled water. Also the phrase "una bebida alcoholica preparada antiquisima" in the original kind of gave me translation problems. I translated this as "an alcoholic beverage prepared since ancient times" although it literally means "an alcoholic beverage prepared very antiquely" or somesuch. I vote merge and redirect with Punch (drink) Nardman1 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a few days and I'll do the necessary merging and redirect if there are no objections. Nardman1 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as merge in progress. Nardman1, just remember that not everyone will be aware of your project procedures and in any case a Wikipedia procedure will almost always take precedence. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am aware that policy always trumps WikiProject, and that's why I mentioned it here in the beginning. Thanks Nardman for a clean and simple resolution. I just hope that it doesn't overwhelm punch with an apparently non-notable drink. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. As you know That page is huge already, but punch (drink) isn't. Anyway the merge is complete, all that remains is to close the afd and mark the talk page of agua loca. Nardman1 17:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uli Herzner

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

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. No claim to notability established in article, very few references that are not PR from the program. Mikeblas 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Again it has been established that finalists on popular reality televison shows are notable. You may not like the show, but that is not reason to delete the article. Crunch 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again? Where? Punkmorten 13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, I think that we've established that reality show contestants aren't notable. I don't see any mention of them in WP:BIO; the "television personalities" section doesn't apply, and there have been plenty of deletions that exercise this precedent—including America's Next Top Model contestants, non-notable Survivor contestants (you know: the ones who didn't get arrested), and so on. -- Mikeblas 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone answers Punkmorten's question above. I'll watchlist this and will change my vote if I see a reasonable answer. Kla'quot 05:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I take no position on reality TV stars in general, but I think there's an argument to be made for Ms. Herzner meeting the notablity guidelines. She's got the bio on Bravo, an interview with Entertainment Weekly online[57], and her Project Runway collection is displayed on Nymag.com [58]. It's not an overwhelming case, but this isn't paper.--Kubigula (talk) 23:37, 5 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 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mychael Knight (fashion designer)

edit
Mychael Knight (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable losing reality show contestant. Little notability beyond the show. Hard to find independent references outside of PR from the show. Mikeblas 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bennett

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

Non-notable losing reality show contestant. No establishment of notability outside the show. Hard to find references that are not PR material from the show. Mikeblas 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge The article should be deleted along with all of the other candidates for the show since most are only a paragraph or so with little chance of expansion. It would probably be best to incorporate them all into one list of contestants of Project Runway season 3. --Nehrams2020 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has previously passeed a vote for deletion. We understand that you this particular reality show may not be your cup of tea. That does not mean this contestant is not worthy of an article here. We have articles for fictional characters in video games, for god sakes. Crunch 04:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The previous AfD was while the show was still active, and there was the anticipation of more fame. That fame never arrived. That we have articles for fictional characters in video games is irrelevant. To me, all it means is that we can't delete cruft fast enough. My wife loves the show, and I think it's okay. But that's also irrelevant. Let me know if you have any other questions -- particularly if they're pertinent to the deletion debate or the establishment of WP:BIO notability for this person. -- Mikeblas 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely any of the keep !votes on the previous Afd were because she was notable, they were mostly "I like her". No independent sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To address One Night In Hackney's concern, I actually dislike this woman, but I still think she is notable. My personal rule of thumb is that usually the final 1/3 of contestants in a 'job search"-style reality show are notable enough for an article. This woman made it to the very final round. Very noteworthy. tiZom(2¢) 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concern isn't whether people like or dislike her, in fact I've never seen or even heard of the show or her, but that has no bearing on her notability. The fact is she fails WP:BIO, specifically The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. There's not enough source material to create a verifiable encyclopedic article about her in my opinion, if more sources are added my opinion will change though obviously. For example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Mills. At the time he was simply a losing contestant (finished third) on a show (similar to American Idol, but with slight differences) and wasn't notable. However since then he's signed a five album deal with Sony and is therefore notable. In my opinion runners up (and sometimes winners) of reality shows aren't notable unless they achieve something afterwards. One Night In Hackney 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your personal rule of thumb is just that; it's not a way to establish notability. To establish notability for people, we use WP:BIO. -- Mikeblas 17:00, 4 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMPR

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

Non-notable neologism/protologism; prod template was removed. Veinor (talk to me) 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Calderon

edit
J.P. Calderon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is the second afd for this article. I believe it should be deleted because the person is not notable and for the following reasons:

  1. It fails several parts of WP:BIO:
    1. Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame) - Nope
    2. The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - All of the interviews were mandatory Survivor interviews conducted because of his Survivor involvement, not because of his self notability
    3. Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
      1. Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers. - The only articles cited are mandatory interviews that come automatically after elimination. Meaning that none of the interviews were conducted because of his notability. And, the Calgary Sun is hardly a national newspaper.
      2. A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following - No indication of that
      3. An independent biography - Not much of a biography
      4. Name recognition - They didn't even tell his last name on Survivor
      5. Commercial endorsements - None indicated
    4. He fails of the criteria listed there, as well, will anyone really find such a page necessary in 100 years. A google search yielded 20,200 results, but compare this with Sekou Brunch (20,700 results) and Cecilia Mansilla (32,100) who were both voted out before J.P. and compare this with the people from CI that do have pages: Jonathan Penner (73,500) , Ozzy Lusth (79,000), Becky Lee (54,500) and Yul Kwon (105,000), so how does that make him a stand out?
  2. Precedent has already been set that merely being in Survivor is not enough for a page. See the afds for Candice Woodcock, Keith Famie and Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien
  3. I looked at that Volleyball article, and very few of them have pages, not even the two players who the article claims were the top ranked in 2005. Precedent has already been established for Survivor articles, and if not even the top ranked AVP players have pages, then the main reason for his page is JDMA, which he hasn't done anything of note in, and by the way, none of the contestants from that article have individual pages, not even JDs page is linked from there.
  4. Most of the articles cited are merely standard interviews that every ex Survivor gives once being voted , meaning that every single Survivor contestant has similar pages, and yet these were admissable in previous afds.
  • Delete -- Scorpion 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Per Scorpion. I tried to do the same thing when trying to delete about 20 contestants here. And amazing nomination Scorpion. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as Out of process. The previous AfD was closed a few minutes ago, at 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC) --Eastmain 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: So? If its closed, then I'll just wait a week or a month and try again. The amount of time betweed afds has nothing to do with th articles notability. -- Scorpion 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator misunderstands "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". This excludes autobiographical pages and press releases. It does not exclude interviews that are a result of someone participating in a contest or winning a lottery. If the person passes this criterion, then he is notable, even if he fails other tests. --Eastmain 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep and speediest possible close - as noted, this article survived an AfD that closed earlier today. It is an abuse of process and bad faith to renominate the article the same day that its previous AfD closed. Otto4711 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The admin responded to the message you left on his talk page eleven minutes after the AfD closed by saying "Sure, you can technically re-nominate whenever you want, but it's best to present new evidence/arguments if you nominate again immedietly, not just "go for round two" of AfD and rehash the old discussion. Most people would suggest waiting at least a month for re-nominating if there's no compelling new evidence to present." (emphasis added). Your new nomination is largely a copy and paste from the previous AfD, not new evidence, compelling or otherwise.
  • The admin also directed you to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which says in relevant part "By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanct, and may not be overturned or disregarded lightly. Sometimes, however, users disagree with the consensus opinion arrived at in the AFD quite strongly. What can you do if you disagree with the consensus opinion? First, it is a good idea to try to understand why the community made its decision. You may find that its reasoning was sensible. However, if you remain unsatisfied with the consensus decision, there are a few options open to you.
  • "If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted." Rather than wait to see if the article could be improved to answer your objections, you re-nominated the article just 37 minutes after the first AfD closed.
  • Your conduct regarding this article has been questionable from the start. You redirected it twice to Survivor: Cook Islands. You attempted to orphan it by repeatedly removing the link to it from both that article and Template:Survivor contestants, including removing it from the template once under the subterfuge of performing other cosmetic maintenance. For whatever reason, you do not have any critical distance from this article. I have asked you repeatedly to take a step back from it. I will ask you to do so again and request that this AfD be closed. I imagine that you will fell compelled to respond to this message by arguing or pointing out some of my actions regarding this article. Do so if you must but I still encourage you to take a step back. Otto4711 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me it is showing that this is a bad faith nom, and in conjuction with some of your responces here border on being uncivil. EnsRedShirt 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then report me to an admin, because this is about discussing the notability of this article, not judging whether or not I'm being uncivil, or nominating in bad faith. -- Scorpion 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your conduct regarding this article from the time it was written is very relevant to this nomination. The actual response in context of the administrator you asked about re-nominating this article, whose response you then point to as justification for your campaign, is very relevant to this nomination. Your failure to take that advice to heart by copying and pasting the argument that couldn't win you a deletion the last time without offering any new or compelling evidence in support of the nomination is very relevant to this nomination. Your apparent refusal to consider Wikipedia:Guide to deletion is very relevant to this nomination. Otto4711 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't you defend the article without attacking me? As that one administrator told you: focus on the editing, not the editor. Nothing I did is against the rules, so stop bringing it up as if it is. -- Scorpion 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have questioned your conduct. If you choose to take questioning your conduct as an attack on you personally, that's your unfortunate choice. I have already defended this article repeatedly at the previous AfD. This second nomination has nothing to do with the article itself and everything to do with the motivation of the person who nominated it. You have displayed a strong bias against this article since it was created. This nomination is nothing but a continuation of your attempt to enforce your bias. You may very well be acting within the letter of the rules but your taking refuge within the letter doesn't change the fact that you're acting outside their spirit. Otto4711 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator is incorrectly assuming that the published interviews somehow "don't count" toward establishing notability. Subject passes that part of the notability guidelines. Dugwiki 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note Scorpion's seeming bad faith in this nomination, per some of his comments above regarding this and the previous afd discussion which ended less than a day ago. Dugwiki 22:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My good or bad faith is not in question here, this article is. As well, the Calgary Sun is hardly a national newspaper. -- Scorpion 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your faith is in question here, as indicated by my questioning it and Otto's comment above. So yes, we're questioning whether you are in fact simply biased against the article because you didn't receive the consensus you wanted this week.
One more thing - the other afds mentioned regarding other contestents seem to indicate they had a lack of published references. This article, though, has published references, so does not suffer that problem. Dugwiki 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers." The Calgary Sun is not a national publication. -- Scorpion 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" - He has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published interviews. Dugwiki 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change the fact that the Calgary Sun is not national. -- Scorpion 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't relevant, one way or another, since he meets criteria 2 of the notability guideline (which makes no mention of "national publications"). You're saying he fails point 3, but I'm saying he passes point 2. Dugwiki 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then point 2 and point 3 contradict eachother. -- Scorpion 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Source Obviously there are many many many problems with this nomination not the least of which is the twisting of the spirit of the AfD rules, and the letter of WP:BIO I quote firectly from BIO: This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. I could really care less that this person is notable, but the fact is he certainly seems to be appearing on not just one but two TV shows and appearing on the cover of a nationally published magazine. I agree with others saying that he should not be included just because he was on Survivor, but it seems to me his collection of work merit mention, at least at this time, I say lets revisit this in 6 months to a year to see if this is still the case. EnsRedShirt 01:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and Close To re-nominate an article after this short a time is absurd, and turns AfD into a war of attrition. Maxamegalon2000 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I still don't believe that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia, however it's too soon after the last AfD to relist it without any substantial new evidence. --Maelwys 13:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly for Deletion There's a potential dangerous step if the article, as is, is allowed to stay - as with a small bit of effort, I could add similar pages (with a short bio and wikilinks) for every single past Survivor contestant and other reality TV show contestants from at least 5 other shows, and I'm sure others could add more. I'm sure WP doesn't want this type of article creep, and even if those that have been editing this for a while don't add them, the existence of the J.P. page will likely embolden newer users to create pages for all the other contestants. --Masem 14:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Survivor contestent articles should be handled consistently. If other contestents have similar references to this one, they should be treated the same way. Unreferenced articles should be deleted. I don't have a problem, though, with articles that are otherwise referenced by multiple published articles about the subject being kept. I've never watched Survivor, personally, but if that stance means more Survivor contestents have articles, then more power to them. Dugwiki 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the only Survivor contestants that get a lot of post-show recognition (and thus pages with a lot of info) are those that made it to the final 4, and specifically those that also appeared in All-Stars (not mutually exclusive sets). So about 25% of the contestants have pages. This means about 150 more paged will be made, with rather simple statements like "John Q Smith was a contestant on Survivor Alaska. He is from Anytown, USA, and is a part time editor" with otherwise minimal backup. This makes the information pretty much duplicate what is already on the CBS website and fan sites for these contestants. --Masem 00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly reply, 1) this particular article does not simply say "he was a contestent on Survivor from Anytown USA". It's quite a bit lengthier than that. If a different article about a Survivor contestent appears that is little more than a one or two sentence stub, then that can obviously be safely deleted. That's not the case for this afd though. 2) I don't really see a problem with duplicating information that also happens to appear on another website. In fact, since Wikipedia isn't a primary source, all the material in Wikipedia has already supposedly been published before and is available elsewhere. Thus duplication with a fan site isn't a problem, and in fact would be the norm for all articles about anything in pop culture. Dugwiki 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the JP article, in of itself, isn't bad and if it weren't for being a Survivor contestant (like 200 other people) I'd not have the issue; it's just, again, if a new user that doesn't see this discussion but sees that JP (a early outted player with a few wikifiable and links that could be added), they may try to make similar pages for any other Survivor contestant with even less notability. As a counter-/co-example, Bobby Jon Drinkard is article for another Survivor contestant. This article has no biographical info, and mearly is a restating of the information of the main Survivor season articles he was in. I'd strongly suggest that be up for deletion. Then there's Gregg Carey, where the bulk of the article is based on Survivor season info, and has a tiny tiny bio line as well. That's the murky water I'm concerned about: is that page notable or not? --Masem 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say, you don't consider this article to be too bad and wouldn't have an issue aside from the fact that he was a Survivor contestent, then this article should be kept. If someone else write another article about a different contestent, and that article has no biographical info or lacks references, etc, then that article should be deleted. We have to consider the articles individually in terms of their published references and whether or not the article is simply a stub with little to no information. Dugwiki 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just a note for those interested, this seems to be the exact same debate that's going on right now over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert Day. Basically it's an argument as to whether or not having sources automatically makes something/somebody notable enough to warrant an article. The same as how there are dozens of news articles this week about "Stephen Colbert Day" and some people there don't believe that it makes the "holiday" (celebrated only in one small town of Ontario) notable enough for an encyclopedia, people here don't believe that having a few interviews published about you in relation to a reality TV series doesn't make you notable enough for the encyclopedia. Anyway, just an interesting parallel I noticed, it'll also be interesting to see if both AfDs go the same way or not. --Maelwys 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mael, I don't think both have to go the same way as I agree Stephen Colbert Day is about as notable as Bradmas, but I don't think that sources making something notable is at issue here as much as one persons vendetta versus a certain article, and how many people must think of an article notable before it is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the pedia. This person is obviously notable to a certain segment of the population even if he is not notable to you me or scorpion. Why is our non notability of him a reason to delete the article? There are 1.6 million articles on the pedia now I doubt that I will ever see most of them, does that mean they should be deleted because they are not notable to everyone?? Of course not. EnsRedShirt 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going by recognition, then I'd guess that the millions of people who've watched the Colbert Report in the past week or two would say Stephen Colbert Day is a bit more recognizable than the dozens of people who've heard of Bradmas. ;-) And on the same grounds, I'd bet that a lot more people watch Colbert Report and remember the discussions about SCD than there are that watched Survivor and remember some guy that was only on the show for a couple weeks, didn't do anything apparantly notable or memorable, and then left to go join another reality show with a much smaller fan base. But from what I saw on this and the last AfD, most people weren't judging based on whether or not they recognized or remembered the guy (since everybody has different experiences, that's hard to judge), but they were instead judging on how many references there were to news articles about him. Now, the SCD article is up for AfD on the opposite grounds, that even though there are a lot of news articles about it, it's not innately notable (which is a similar argument that I'd made on the previous AfD here). And if SCD isn't innately notable (when it was mentioned several times on a highly rated nighttime show), then I have trouble seeing JP as innately notable (when he was only on 3 episodes of a highly rated reality series) as well. Just my thoughts... --Maelwys 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better, Mael, I'd probably recommend keeping the SCD article if it is properly referenced and doesn't comfortably fit within the text of Colbert's main article. I have no problem with well referenced articles about subjects that receive coverge from multiple published sources being kept. Dugwiki 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. After reviewing the SCD article, I notice it actually doesn't have good references in the article. So in fact I'd probably recommend only keeping if adequate references could be provided within the article. It needs a good reference clean up to be kept. Dugwiki 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This is exactly the sort of trely irresponsible afd that makes our procedures look absurd. Total waste of human bandwidth. DGG 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is really ridiculous that people are saying keep based soley on my supposed motives and are ignoring the arguments about the article. It's not afds that waste bandwidth, it's replies like that that are wastes of time. -- Scorpion 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the nomination of an article for deletion 37 minutes after a previous discussion to be more ridiculous. The arguments about the article have already been heard, and no consensus to delete was reached. Scorpion, is it your intention to continue to nominate the article for deletion until an outcome you consider favorable occurs? I do not intend this as a rhetorical question. --Maxamegalon2000 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? Focus on the article and not the "motives". -- Scorpion 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, your motivation in nominating this article immediately after its previous AfD closed matters a great deal to this nomination. Bad faith in the nomination process matters a great deal. The history of the nominator in relation to the nominated article matters a great deal. When a nominator has stated in the course of the nomination that he doesn't care if the nomination is closed because he will simply wait a week or a month and re-nominate, that matters a great deal. Otto4711 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny: People are completely ignoring my and Maelwys' arguments simply because I nominated this article not long after a previous afd which ended in no consensus. And people say this afd is a waste of time because I nominated it so soon, I say it's a waste of time because people are merely voting because of my supposed actions. And of course, the defenders are taking the easy route and saying "he nominated it too soon. The article should stay ONLY because of that" and you keep bringing it up because you CAN'T defend the article and your resorting to attacking my methods. -- Scorpion 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better, I didn't ignore your arguments. I specifically replied to them above. I also said that, on top of my other reasoning, I suspect you might be taking the afd too personally and therefore the afd nomination itself might be biased or for bad faith motives, or that it might be preventing you from objectively considering comments to the contrary of your opinion. Dugwiki 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't ignore your arguments either, the first time you made them in the AfD that closed 37 minutes before you opened this one. I didn't find them persuasive then and I don't find them persuasive now. Since you offered nothing new in your copy-and-paste re-nomination, and given your history with this article wherein after you were unsuccessful in redirecting it you repeatedly removed links to it from multiple Wikipedia entries in an attempt to isolate it, there is nothing else for me to respond to this second time around except your motivation. Otto4711 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He only made it to Day 12 and I don't remeber him doing anything notable on the show. --The President of Cool 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's notable because he also appeared in "The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency" and he is noticeable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.166.176 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. He was heavily promoted and featured on 2 episodes of "The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency" and came out of the closet on the show, now featured on Instinct Magazine (this month) - [59] . Tertiary7 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Immediately Why do I get the feeling that "some" of the "people" who are requesting keeping this are really the same person. This is precisely the type of article that is not worthy of the bandwidth it occpies. If we had a page for every contestant of the "Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency" the cost of maintaining Wikipedia would be absurd. He was on Survivor, BIG DEAL. He's a model, BIG DEAL. Buy the magazine, go to a bathroom somewhere, and get over your obsession. Agrippina Minor
  • Comment It's also interesting to note that most of the users who make many edits to Survivor related pages are voting delete and most voting keep are JDMA fans... -- Scorpion 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, just to seperate myself from the crowd, then, I neither watch Survivor nor have I ever even heard of JDMA. Dugwiki 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this article should be kept. Sure, he was one of many, many people to be on Survivor, and creating an individual page for each of them would be pointless and waste bandwidth. However, He IS notable for more than just being a minor contestant on Survivor. He was/is featured on more than one reality show (and heavily featured on JDMA), both very popular on their respective networks. His appearance in Instinct magazine, in which he and his sexuality and coming out were the cover story, IS reason for inclusion in Wikipedia, under gender/sexuality issues, not to mention that it is a non self-authored print article included in a nationally circulated publication, which supports inclusion as well. I have a feeling that some of those who oppose Calderon's entry in Wikipedia are doing so due to his sexuality, as per the comment above about "Buy the magazine, go to a bathroom somewhere, and get over your obsession". Please, let's be a little more adult about disgreements. Some people may be arguing for his inclusion because they're "fans", but there are very legitimate claims for keeping this article, and personal dislike of Calderon, for whatever reason, should not not enter into the discussion as long as it is a rational one. Bounti76 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a reader, I came to Wikipedia specifically to look up this article, and get confirmation of the rumors I'd been hearing about Calderon's sexuality. I don't know if that counts here -- I've never participated in an AFD discussion before -- but I think it should be noted that the subject is of interest to at least a small number of Wikipedia readers. Toughpigs 00:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The effort to delete this page is a ridiculous vendetta from someone over at "Survivorsucks" who thinks it would be funny or would otherwise prop up his/her own ego to delete this page. Absurd and childish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.250.213.134 (talk) 00:58, 5 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. W.marsh 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Boulos

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

Figure skater, best finish was 9th in US nationals, no other assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW – PeaceNT 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space warfare in fiction

edit
Space warfare in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am proud to announce my first proceduaral AfD nomination on Wikipedia. A user tried to list this article on Afd, but apparently didn't know how. It was deleted once before per WP:OR (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space warfare in fiction). I abstain. YechielMan 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep No reason is available for the nomination by the anon IP who attempted to list, nor is this the same article that was previously discussed. It's clearly not OR, and is fully referenced from start to finish. CiaranG 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably speedy keep per the reasons given by CiaranG. This is referenced and fairly obviously expandable; judging from the last deletion debate, the current text is not what was deleted back then. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I nominated the first and second versions of this article for deletion. They were quite different from this third version. Unlike the first two versions (the nominator seems to be referring to the speedy deletion -recreation of deleted material I assume- of the second in their nomination), this version has sources that may qualify as secondary sources (see WP:RS#Types of source material). While I still think the article is unencylopedic cruft and essentially an OR essay, I will abstain from !voting. Pete.Hurd 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recommended Delete in the previous afd, but that was a very different article to this one. This article appears to have much better references and less original analysis and original research. I'm not in a good position to really delve into this article's details and such at the moment, so I'm going to abstain for now on keep vs delete. But I will say that at least at first glance I'm more inclined to keep this version of the article than the one I seem to remember reading last time around. Dugwiki 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly not a repost as it is different text with sources that aleviate the prior concern (OR essay with no secondary sources). Should be kept (possibly speedily) as no argument for deletion has been presented. If the article keeps improving deleting is clearly unwarranted and if not it can be discussed when someone is willing to take the time to make a reasoned argument that it (still) violates policy. Eluchil404 11:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like it might be merged into an sf themes article such as space opera, but there's enough verifiable material which is of interest in a historical discussion of sf themes that it should not be deleted. Mike Christie (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs expanding to include more context (e.g. a more thorough history of the development of the genre, common criticisms of the depictions, etc.) but otherwise nothing wrong with this article. JulesH 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It should be noted that "interstallar war" is illegal in most bathrooms. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Brueggert

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

Delete: Non-notable individual with very few Google hits (contested prod)  – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang (video)

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

This article appears to be on a non-notable film, I found no mention of the film on IMDB and the only hits on google were for the Wikipedia pages and mirror pages. The information in the article is similar to what is written on the artist's page (Richard Serra) and it appears it will never be expanded beyond what it is now. Nehrams2020 20:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album).--Jersey Devil 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Down Baby

edit
Slow Down Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Crystal ball article about a rumoured forthcoming Christina Aguilera single. Prodded by myself, deprodded without explanation. Extraordinary Machine 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominees for Grammy Awards of 2007

edit
Nominees for Grammy Awards of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are over a hundred separate Grammy Award categories this year, so I think listing every single nominee in each is unnecessary. The nominees for the major awards are already listed at the main Grammy Awards of 2007 article. Extraordinary Machine 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 10:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Bros. & Co

edit
Curtis Bros. & Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Template tags show lack of references; I can't tell whether all the statements in the article are true or not. Also, less than 1000 ghits casts doubt on notability. YechielMan 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Possible failure of WP:CORP, and I was not able to locate any reliable sources with which to verify the validity of the information included within the article. Kyra~(talk) 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutral. Per nom and WP:CORP. The references provided may help this company squeak by. However, I find it questionable whether a local history and local article detailing a plant closing make for notability. Therefore, I have changed my "vote" accordingly. Vassyana 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Using an internet search engine created over 40 years after a company closed is the incorrect method of determining notabilty of such company. That said, even with the dubious availability of hyperlinks, internet research shows it was the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, one from a newspaper when the business closed in the 1960's [60] and one from a historical book. [61]. (both inserted into article). These are additional to the work History of the Lumber and Forest Industry of the Northwest already supplied by an article editor. Passes the criteria of WP:CORP. --Oakshade 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sourced. Not an overwhelming case that it meets CORP, but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a company that existed for 100 years.--Kubigula (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A large part of this article could be a copyright violation. Some of the verb tenses in the section on Company Beginnings suggest literal copying from another source, like the use of present tense referring to people who were born before 1850. ("Judson E. Carpenter who is an uncle of..."). EdJohnston 06:36, 5 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: non-notable, spam. yandman 08:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SeeTheGlobe.com

edit
SeeTheGlobe.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't assert the notability of the subject and borders on advertising. Site has an Alexa ranking of 75,535. Author Globemaster (talk · contribs) has no edits outside of this article. Article is included in Template:TravelWebsites, since it was added by 64.60.132.94 (talk · contribs) on August 23, 2006 [62]. AecisBrievenbus 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert Day

edit
Stephen Colbert Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Colbertcruft: NN holiday, celebrated only in Oshawa, Ontario, that hasn't even happened yet. It's already covered in the main article, The Colbert Report. We don't need to cover every single bit Mr. Colbert does on his show, and I don't think we should allow the unquestioning obedience of the 'Colbert Nation' to gain the show undue weight on Wikipedia. -- Vary | Talk 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just discovered this article and so havn't added the sources, but two national stories by The Canadian Press agency have covered the event: [63], [64]. Furthermore, the national Canadian Broadcasting Company news program Saturday Report had a 6 minute segment or so on the bet on the January 28 episode, though I'm trying to find video now. -- Viewdrix 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I failed to see the Associated Press article already on the page, and whatever credibility is gained from the lo-res image of the newspaper article used as the article's main image. Cumulatively, however, I believe this satisfies notability issues. -- Viewdrix 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: third Canadian press article. -- Viewdrix 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's not sourced, I'm saying it's not notable. Two different things. Not everything that has a few newspaper articles written about it also needs a Wikipedia article. The sourced information can go in other existing articles - and, in fact, it already has. -- Vary | Talk 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Come on, I think we've done enough to help him promote his lame show. This "day" is but another self-promotional gimmick that the mayor and people of Oshawa have been nice enough to go along with. But enough is enough. Merge it into the main show article Shawn in Montreal 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that the number of articles already associated with Colbert has no effect on the main debate here, notability of Stephen Colbert Day, and your comment of "his lame show" might point to a bias on your part in voting? -- Viewdrix 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work in PR. I know a promotional gimmick when I see one, regardless of how many clippings one can cite. Biased or not, you have my vote. Shawn in Montreal 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it's to be a yearly thing, that's not necessarily true. -- Viewdrix 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cast my vote already but allow me to expand. If Colbert, tomorrow, in an act of pure comic genius, sticks his finger up his ass, I would not expect there to be an WP article on Steve Colbert's Ass. There should, however, be a mention of this meritorious incident in the Colbert article. That's what this "day" is. Citing article after article mentioning the "day" only proves that the show has promotional weight, it does nothing to establish true notability. It's a stunt, not a true civic holiday, so mention it in all its detail in the main Colbert show article. Shawn in Montreal 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me compare this to another Colbert event that made the news this month: when Colbert and his victim of parody, Bill O'Reilly, [swapped guest appearances on each other's shows. In that case, it received similar attention to Stephen Colbert Day (may I also suggest, in a side note, that non-Canadian editors may not grasp the relatively grander levels of attention this story is getting in this country, and Wikipedia is not just an American encyclopedia. Although as "Of Montreal" is indicative, this does not affect your view. This note is merely for others). However, where O'Reilly and Colbert's guest appearances were a similar promotional event, they did not affect the world in any way outside of their respective shows. As such, information on this still fairly notable event was relegated to their respective show's articles. In the case of Stephen Colbert Day, however, this stunt does have effect on the real world: Oshawa, Ontario is now made to celebrate Stephen Colbert Day every year as a result. Again, may I suggest that your extreme dislike for Colbert's shtick and the recent Colbert-inspired Wikipedia vandalism you aided in preventing (I saw your request to have Stephen Colbert Day locked from editing on Talk:Stephen Colbert) is such a strong bias it makes you ignore these notability factors and differences to some promotional stunts? -- Viewdrix 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, reverting vandalism is a... bad thing? As is asking for a block to stop further vandalism? Bizarre logic. What should I have done. Celebrated it? I've been upfront about my bias regarding the show, Viewdrix. What about you?Shawn in Montreal 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying your bitterness over the vandalism, and sarcasm here, isn't helping your case. As for am I a fan of the show? Yes. But it is not affecting my vote. Should another nomination for deletion of List of neologisms on The Colbert Report come up, for instance, I would vote for deletion, whatever that is worth. -- Viewdrix 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I probably would not vote for deletion of List of neologisms on The Colbert Report because in that instance, the article is not claiming to be anything its not. It's a list of expressions coined by an admittedly popular show, whatever I think of it. Fine. Shawn in Montreal 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What the hell is wrong with another definition? The site has a definition on "The Friend Zone", yet having an article on this is bad? It sounds to me like you're all just sore that, once again, he trashed the site on his show. Now, I'm not saying he should do that, I'm merely saying that your whining HERE is only serving to give him more material, which makes his "lame show" more popular, which means he'll just CONTINUE making wikipedia-based shows. I don't see how having this definition up in general serves any discredit to wikipedia, nor do I say how it could possibly be a bad thing - it's a "Day", it's not like it's saying "Stephen Colbert LOL!" made for every thing he said. I admit, he has a lot of stuff here, but that's like saying Martin Luther King (No, I'm not comparing Colbert to King, it's just an accurate analogy here) shouldn't have a definition for Martin Luther King Day but instead should just have it under a little heading in his full definition of him. Or, for a fairer comparison, that International Talk Like a Pirate Day and Day of the Ninja should not exist as articles, but should rather just both fall under Pirates vs Ninjas. Yet, of course, NONE of you complain about that - you only whine about this day because, boo hoo, Colbert insulted (in his SATIRICAL CHARACTER, might I remind you) your precious wikipedia. And remember - the definition for both DotN was up MONTHS (or at least weeks) before the actual day was first celebrated, so your argument of "it hasn't been scheduled yet, it's not a crystal ball omg!" doesn't work here.
Seriously, get over this childish anger (and bias which, again, is NOT allowed on wikipidia), and don't come back with this idea again until you have better reasoning. Kay? Kay. Aguyuno
I'm angry? YOU MAY WANT TO GIVE THE CAPS KEY A REST. First off, an unsigned in vote to keep doesn't carry much weight, If you want to vote, have the courtesy to sign in. Second, comparing Martin Luther King Day to Steve Colbert "Day" is absurd, if not racist: Martin Luther Kind Day is a national holiday, full of historical social importance. You're making the same claim for Steve Colbert "Day"? Wow. Mind-boggling. I'm not familar with the last two days mentioned but I'd be happy to entertain a deletion vote on those two, sure. Lastly, there are a lot of people who do happen to care about "our precious Wikipedia" and don't enjoy seeing it hijacked for a silly promotional stunt. Sorry if you can't get that. I happen to think this site is a hell of a lot more important than your beloved TV show. Shawn in Montreal 02:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Civility, please stay civil during discussions. -- Viewdrix 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although Wikipedia:Vandalism pertains, as well. Shawn in Montreal 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lmfao@Agreed - you DO realise that he was responding to YOUR post with that? Not mine? Anyway, given your entire argument was based on semantics, coding errors (Which I apologise for; I'm new to editing pages. Is there another way (honestly asking) to post in this particular place without editting the whole page? Cause I've yet to see how... Anyway, my name's editted in this time; aguyuno), LOL WIKIPEDIA ROX, and an accusation of racism (which has nothing to do with ANYTHING, seeing as how I specifically stated I did NOT compare the two. It's just a logical fallacy), I won't grace your post with anything more than an LOL. Thank you for proving my point entirely. Now, again, I request - please leave until you can come up with better reasoning to delete this other than spite and baseless personal attacks. Kay? Kay. Aguyuno
I was responding to both Aguyuno and Shawn in Montreal, though even if I was speaing to one, that does not mean the other is excluding from Wikipedia guidelines. Now, again, please remain civil. -- Viewdrix 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right and in fact I did assume Viewdrix was addressing me, as well, when cautioned about civility. Point well taken. Shawn in Montreal 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Personally, I love Colbert and the Report, and I watch it every time I get the chance (less often than I'd prefer)... but I'm not so eager to start an article for every stunt ever featured on the show. I could be persuaded and I'm open to debate, but that's my current thought, here. Luna Santin 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. For what it's worth, I reverted about 5 similar edits to other pages before searching "commodity" to see if there was any vandalism of obscure commodity-related pages, and I was curious as to how long it would take to see a revert on a fairly unedited page (the last few of only a handful edits were in December and November). It was low level vandalism that affected an obscure page as part of an experiment, and mentioning it here, I thought, would be blown out of proportion, though I'll thank Shawn in Montreal for not doing so. I was curious as to the result and decided it would harm no one, though it was wrong. If that rebukes all my valid arguments about the notability of Stephen Colbert Day, so be it. My apologies. -- Viewdrix 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - As per Luna Santin's reasoning. Am I biased? My truthiness-filled heart tells me that five years from now, Stephen Colbert Day will eclipse the significance of Christmas and Kwanzaa combined. Not now, but soon. A standalone article was definately premature. - The Lake Effect 05:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. It's misleading to suggest that Colbert Day is a holiday observed in Oshawa, since at present the "holiday" really not observed by anyone. The mayor lost a bet, and now there's an obscure city holiday somewhere on the books -- that doesn't really make it much more than a legal technicality, and an amusing anecdote about Colbert, Gray, and the Generals. There's really not much to the story, and the relevant bits of it could very easilly be accomidated elsewhere. -- Bailey(talk) 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ironically, this article makes no mention that the challege by Mayor Gray was a publicity stunt initiated by KX96, and disc jockey Terry Archer. The challenge was broadcast live during a morning show on the radio staion. KX96 also arranged for highly discounted bus fare to Saginaw for Generals fans. Flibirigit 07:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Colbertcruft. Far too much of this crap already. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. —Angr 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Stephen Colbert (character), at least for now. It's an amusing anecdote which has recieved some national attention in Canada. It might warrant an article if the mayor does more than just declare March 20th Stephen Colbert Day and actually does something with the day (a parade, civil presentation to Stephen, etc) but for now it's not notable enough for it's own article. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Luna Santin, for the same reasons. Love the show, not sure this is notable yet. —bbatsell ¿? 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Not-notable in its own right outside the context of his show. Mention this (briefly!) on Colbert Report and delete this all together. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete First, it hasnt happened yet Second, it is essentially a publicity stunt for the show and the team/ DGG 23:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the article warrants no more or less merit than articles such as, say, International Waffle Day or Heroes' Day and it contains better sources and better written content. Embersofsatin 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. We're still talking about a single-city "holiday" with zero history of observance. A more accurate comparison might be to Miami's "Nintendo Fun Day", which was made a legal holiday in 1991, yet does not have or need an article of its own. Like Nintendo Fun Day, Stephen Colbert Day has no real impact: No one celebrates Stephen Colbert Day. No one gets off work on Stephen Colbert Day. There are no traditions attached to it, and even in Oshawa, it's fair to assume most people haven't heard of it. A holiday that exists only on paper is not a holiday at all. -- Bailey(talk) 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Google search reveals that International Waffle Day, silly as it might sound, might actually be recognized by UNESCO as a national holiday (this comes from a blog, however, so its not worth citing). Citing other "odd" or trivial-sounding days in defense of "Steve Colbert Day" does not establish notability for the article being voted on here. If Waffle Day is a true Swedish national day, then of course it deserves to stay. If it's a bit of nonsense, then in time it will be voted on, too. Shawn in Montreal 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sheeeeesh, this is trivial. The Colbertcrufters have been busy... JChap2007 01:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Merge and redirect* Ehhh... my main problem was with the stupid basis of the arguments for deleting it (which tended to be LOL COLBERT R SUX), which thus lead ironically to my OWN bias and voting keep even though I don't actually think it should be kept. So, I'll say merge and redirect, but I stand by what I said earlier - for all of you voting delete, unless you have some sort of ACTUALLY VALID reason for it... please refrain from posting at all. Okay? Aguyuno Posted as 70.49.170.250 (talk • contribs)
    • Aguyuno, would you mind logging in and formally striking your original comment? (You can do that by wrapping it in tags <s>like this</s> - either the entire comment or just the bolded part, it doesn't matter). I'd do it for you, but the fact that you posted your new recommendation under an IP instead of logging in sort of complicates things. Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete Flibirigit 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jcembree 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm also deleting the mention in the 2007 page. NicolaM 05:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge unless adequate references provided for verification My only problem with this article is that the references are entirely inadequate. The only acceptable source provided is the MSNBC article, which only covers the very bare bones details. The great bulk of the article is currently entirely unreferenced and unsourced. Delete and merge the basic facts into Colbert's main article unless the references receive a major cleanup. Note that I do not have a problem with "potential notability" or "fancruft", so if the reference issue is corrected then I will probably change my recommendation to keep. Dugwiki 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal-ballism. Hasn't happened yet, no indication it will be noteworthy when it does, definitely no indication anyone will remember it in five years, let alone 100. If something notable should happen on that day, the article can be rewritten then. Shimeru 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL only comes into play for future events that aren't verified by published sources. You can, for example, write articles about future planned events, albums, films, and so on provided that there are good, verifiable references to show the information in the article is accurate and not simply editorial speculation. Also, note that notability doesn't "expire". So if an event is notable enough for inclusion now and provides sufficient references for verification, it can be kept for historical purposes on Wikipedia even the public loses interest in the even at a later date. (Otherwise what would be the point of writing historical articles about subjects the general populace doesn't know about?) Dugwiki 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'll reiterate that I think this article as it currently stands doesn't have adequate references. So on those grounds, I still support deletion. Dugwiki 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I don't feel this has been verified by published sources. The hundred-year metric is shorthand for considering notability of current pop-culture events: Will anyone remember them in a hundred years? It does have its flaws, of course, but I find it useful to keep in mind when considering this sort of thing. Could've sworn it used to be mentioned at WP:NOTE, but if so, it seems that's gone away some time in the last few months. Anyway, its main thrust is that a current event that gets some media play is not necessarily notable in the long term. Shimeru 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability doesn't expire with time, and far as I know there isn't a "hundred year metric" in policy. Rather, it follows as a means of showing that there is a suitable level of verifiable information and interest at the time the article was written. If Wiki was only intended for articles that people remember after a hundred years, there would be little point in writing historical articles about esoteric subjects that aren't currently widely discussed but that still offer interesting or possibly useful information. Dugwiki 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there isn't. There isn't a notability metric in policy; WP:NOTE is a guideline. It is, however, true that there is consensus that passing media notice does not equate to notability. That's part of the reason Wikinews is separate from Wikipedia. Shimeru 20:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm afraid the burden of proof of the statement that there is consensus regarding handling media notice for notability purposes is on you. Far as I know no such consensus exists or is discussed in any existing guidelines or policies. But I'm certainly not perfect, so if I missed such a consensus discussion or guideline, feel fere to post a link. Dugwiki 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the main original author, and a resident of Oshawa, I request that this be kept. It gives more detail as to how Stephen Colbert Day came to be. I took the picture of the newpaper to show how important it is for the city of Oshawa. The day will be celebrated annually, therefore, detailed information, specifically a separate article, is desirealbe.

I created the article not as a member of the 'Colbert Nation', but as an Oshawanian. -- DAVEisonfire | ]] 5:09pm, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no evidence that the day will be celebrated at all, let alone annually. It'll be on the books, sure, but that's not the same thing. -- Vary | Talk 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reference I recently added included a quote from the mayor of Oshawa inviting Colbert to visit them for the holiday, and offering to do several things to accomodate him (including declaring a "bear-free" day and other things in line with the humour of the event) --Maelwys 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the mayor issued an official invitation, and I'm sure some members of the community will turn up at whatever event they have and get videotaped for that night's Colbert Report. That doesn't mean that anyone is going to care even a year from now. It's a publicity stunt, not a holiday, and certainly not an even remotely important one. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because a few people really, really care does not make the topic encyclopedic. -- Vary | Talk 00:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Forget the hundred-year metric, try a ten-year or twenty-year metric. Also try a 500-mile or 1000-mile metric. what are the odds of this purported holiday being published in newspapers 500-1000 miles away from Oshawa? --Richard 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The odds are 100%. I read about it in my local paper in Pennsylvania. Dugwiki 17:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I say, forget the metric system. As I stated above, perhaps too colourfully for my good, I don't even agree that the number of media hits or geographical spread of coverage even matters. Certainly it's proof of the popularity of the show. But I don't believe it does anything to establish the reality of this "Day" independent of the show and its hype, hence my vote to include the Day in the main show article.Shawn in Montreal 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think something that is being missed here is that it isn't important whether or not the actual holiday is "celebrated", or even officially recognized. The question is whether the news story behind the holiday is notably verified. Even if the mayor in the story welches, the article only has to show that the news story about the bet behind the holiday meets notability guidelines. Dugwiki 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original discussion. Is the event significant enough to have its own article, as opposed to be being mentioned on Stephen Colbert's page. The consensus appears to be NO. Flibirigit 04:39, 3 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. - brenneman 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Cronkite

edit

Non-noteworthy neologism. Contested prod. Shimeru 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii launch

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

About 99% of the information already on this page is duplicated in Wii article. The only part that contains unique information is the last section which still has some information from it in the Wii article which people are more likely to search for. I suggest merging the non duplicated material (not much) and redirecting to Wii BigHairRef | Talk 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Xbox 360 launch? TJ Spyke 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because another article exists dosen't mean another one shouldn't be deleted. If you think the 360 launch article contains the same information as the main 360 artilce you;re free to list it as well. BigHairRef | Talk 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preferably most of the duplicate information at Wii should be summarized and then link to here. Eventually this will happen, as there will be far too much information at Wii to contain within a single article. --- RockMFR 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the time being, I vote for merging all information not already in the main Wii article and deleting this one. There is no need for an extra article solely about the launch. Gozel talk 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging the info, particularly the graphs, will cause the Wii article to balloon in size. BTW, this article was nominated for deletion (under the name "Wii release data") back in December. The result was to keep it. Just64helpin 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High degree of validity. Dfrg.msc 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The length of a given Wikipedia entry tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long entries would cause problems. So we must move information out of entries periodically. This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new entries to hold the excised information. - from the content guideline Wikipedia:Summary_style#Rationale. The article Wii launch is a good-sized article. The two tables on this article are a page long each. This article's reference section is a page long as well. Merging it into the Wii article would add the much to the already large article. I think it should stay separated to keep the Wii article from growing too large. Here is a passage from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates - In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated. Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy. Repeated attempts to have an article deleted for non-policy reasons may sometimes be considered abuse of process and/or disruptive, and the article may be speedy kept. Jecowa 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable topic with wide coverage. Merging would increase the size of Wii too dramatically. Maxamegalon2000 06:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Xbox 360 and PS3 has one. I'll expand this article anyways (to be more like Xbox 360's) so the main Wii page won't be so cluttered. McDonaldsGuy 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the basics into Wii. Specifics of launch price around the world, etc are unlikely to be particularly relevant in the long run. MastCell 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the long run, all of this information will be relevant. It is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, so there is no reason not to include this information. --- RockMFR 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Since the main article willcontinue to grow, it is appropriate to keep this separate, since it is notable in its own right.DGG 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. Most of the article is described on the Wii page (as the original editor stated). I see no "first weekends of movies" or launches of televisions or anything else, why should video games be an exception? Yes, a launch is a big deal: but Wikipedia isn't a place for articles like this. Put this on a Nintendo Wiki of some sort, not here. Merge the notable information that isn't on the Wii page already, then redirect this to the Wii page. RobJ1981 07:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider splitting the main Wii article in more accessible pieces. Mausy5043 12:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main problem is that Wii launch and Xbox 360 launch are both at AFDs with different results, while PlayStation 3 launch is exempted. All three articles should have been grouped in a single AFD, otherwise there will be conflicts (this will be merged, and people will try to merge the Wii launch article having this as precedent, while others will try to recreate the Xbox 360 launch article because the Wii launch was kept). I suggest closing this and reopening the AFD with the three grouped as one. -- ReyBrujo 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with ReyBrujo, a grouped together AFD would work better. I put the Playstation 3 launch in an afd just now. RobJ1981 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as another nominator said themselves "a launch is a big deal". Add onto that this is one of the biggest launches of last year, you get an article that has had massive news coverage and is highly notabile. There is a already a section on the Wii page, with a link to Wii launch as the main article. Naturally the three newest would have articles about it, while older ones were launched in the early days of wikipedia (or even, long long before wikipedia existed). Thus this is just one reason why claiming "older consoles don't have and article for launch and thus this one shouldn't either" is not an argument at all. Mathmo Talk 08:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The parent article is growing quite long. While I have no crystal ball, I do not forsee it shrinking massively in the next few years, and thus splitting it apart is a valid reason for this to exist. That said, if the parent shrinks a little, a merge is in order. —siroχo 09:30, 4 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. - brenneman 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Badnarik

edit

Being a minor party candidate for a state office is not notable, is it? Carlossuarez46 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 10:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandilands Junior School

edit
Sandilands Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probably fails WP:SCHOOL. I know school deletions can be thorny, but this should not be. It's a primary school, and all we know about it from the article are location, dates, principals, and two links. For a primary school, that's insufficient notability. YechielMan 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C3Con

edit
C3Con (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View AfD)

Event has only ran for two years, Google brings up under a thousand hits, but everything seems dated. Attendance count appears to be quite minor also. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime St. Louis

edit
Anime St. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only planning its second year and has only had around 350 attendants in 2006. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - this really belongs at redirects for deletion, but I have speedied it since it is an empty list deleted per previous VfD discussion └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ferrari Enzo owners

edit

I am nominated this for deletion as this list or page is now an empty shell of a redirected page to another page with a list that no longer exists and will never allowed to return. I am nomination it to be deleted as this page is now more like an empty shell with nothing left in it, simply it like one of these old buildings that has been sitting there waiting to be demolished only to be sitting there for decades. Willirennen 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nn-bio) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Nauman Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mohammad Ali Nauman Ahmed

edit

Self written biography article about an insignificant person. Un-Encyclopedic and unnecessary. Dfrg.msc 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amanda Egan

edit

The result was speedy moved to User:Crash25/Amanda Egan └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wanted to give this new article a chance, but there's just no way I think this is ever going to merit inclusion per our notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Seems like self promotion to me... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making this page as a temporary page for my girlfriend, definitely not self promotion or anything of the sort. I also had no intention of maintaining or keeping it, and would most likely have deleted all the information by tonight. Please just leave it up for the next day, it's just to give her a laugh while she's stressed. I figured a gag page isn't going to set a whole people off with wrong information if she is unknown anyway. Let me know what your decision is! Thank you. └ Crash25/talk┐

  • One wishes to be kind, but we're an encyclopedia, not candy-stripers. Speedy delete per A7. --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not meet the requirements of A7 - there is an assertion of notability. Crash25 - if you will come back within about 8 hours, and state that you want the article deleted, we'll delete it then. Otherwise, we'll drag out this process and say lots of unflattering things about Miss Egan before we delete the article. Just for the record, my !vote is delete for lack of references. Argyriou (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, but I'm sure you can allow me to keep it up for just the next couple of hours. Please explain "speedy delete per A7".Crash25 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ After reviewing the articles for deletion section I understand the speedy/proposed delete. I really think you guys are being a bit too harsh on someone using an unknown person's name for a day to cheer someone up. C'mon! What do you guys want to believe me that I'll delete it by midnight my time? (central-North America)Crash25 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict, but I'm too lazy to rewrite.)[reply]

See Criteria for Speedy Deletion. A7 says an article may be deleted if the article has no assertion of notability. Speedy deletion means that an article is so unequivocally unqualified to remain that any administrator can delete it without discussion. Argyriou (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely find with you guys deleting this page in 8 hours. If I have to come back to this forum to request it's deletion I will do so.Crash25 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Jersey Devil 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Gutierrez, Jr.

edit
Armando Gutierrez, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 before debate end. here. Navou banter 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Boyles

edit

Does not seems to be notable. Cannot find any traces of him or his platinum disk Alex Bakharev 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toungby

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

Google search only returns results from Wikipedia. Article does not have an encyclopedic tone. No pages link to the article (besides Category:Fictional games and redirects like Tongue rugby Lost-theory 00:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ U.S. Nationals
  2. ^ WNBA standings | The San Diego Union-Tribune
  3. ^ North American Table Tennis - 2005 San Diego Open
  4. ^ North American Table Tennis - 2006 Berkeley Open
  5. ^ United States Olympic Committee - U.S. names 2005 table tennis teams
  6. ^ Little People of America FAQ
  7. ^ "The Situation Room".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_30&oldid=1081099727"