Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 13

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< July 12 July 14 >

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 speedy delete, copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific atheism

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

This is all covered by the Atheism page. Appears to be an essay. Jimmi Hugh 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Blueboy96 00:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to loads of OR and seems to have been some sort of essay or editorial work--JForget 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afro-Caucasians

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

Listcruft. There are so many people of mixed race in the world that this won't come close to being complete. Blueboy96 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:THISGIVESMEAHEADACHE, and WP:NEO - does "Afro-Caucasian" mean mixed race or does it mean white people living in Africa? Or black people living in the Caucasus? Oh, I forgot: everyone's American. --Charlene 00:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above, probably the bio articles should be categorizes instead to Afro-Caucasians cat. --JForget 00:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep To be sure, the title sucks, and I've never heard of an "Afro-Caucasian". However, this is notable and is apparently a work in progress. I'd get rid of anything less than half and half, and verify on some of these (I don't think Booker T. Washington had a white parent, for instance), nor that Carol Channing had a black dad or grandma. Still, for all of you supposedly open minded people who think that lists like these are somehow "racist", how many of you would automatically label Franco Harris, Derek Jeter, Bob Marley, Eartha Kitt, Jasmine Guy and Halle Berry as "black"? OK, 4, 5... did you have your hand up?...6. And how many of you would call them "white" for the same reason? Anyone? So go ahead and vote to delete, but this one gets saved on the hard drive and will come back in black and white before you can say "listcruft". Mandsford 01:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a list whose inclusion critieria is too wide, making it impossible to maintain. A category may work though, since it must be linked to people already having an article about themselves.--Kylohk 10:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that, as is, the list is unmaintainable, in that it presupposes to list everyone who has a bit of African ancestry and a bit of European ancestry, and in that instance, it could contain "millions of persons" or be "impossible to maintain". If it were limited to the offspring of an African-American father and a White mother (or vice-versa) it would be much shorter. I'm kind of surprised with one of the commentators, who pointed out the flaw in the list of Americans who spoke a second language... is it just me, or is there something wrong with the fact that everyone describes Barack Obama as black, when he's also one-half white? Before anyone says, "You should say African-American", that applies exactly to someone whose father is African (Kenyan) and whose mother is American (Kansan). Maybe we can make a List of Kenyan-Kansans. Mandsford 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why is it more notable to be of mixed race than of a single race. Imagine the length of the articles - List of Caucasians or List of Asians. Not feasable. Also something about listing people by their race seems quite distasteful. [[Guest9999 18:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment The distasteful comment int my above vote was meant as a personal opinion rather than an arguement for deltetion. Sorry about the mix up it does not belong here. [[Guest9999 23:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bearian 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Mandsford that it is important to make ths distinction between mixed-race and say, black or white people, but it is so vague that people will be adding their best friend or whatever. If there is not already a category for mixed-race people of note, then there should be one, and this lost should be merged into it. Neranei T/C 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balled Out - Hard Hood Classics (album)

edit
Balled Out - Hard Hood Classics (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Few or none articles linking to it. Tasco 0 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Multilingual People

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

The page is basically a dupe of List of polyglots. The main difference is that List of Multilingual People has such a wide scope that it will include 95% of all Dutch, Scandinavians, waiters in Chinese restaurants, tour guides and so on and probably more than 50% of the world's population. Considering that the number of potential entries of the list easily surpasses one billion, it is a non notable list. Mlewan 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this would be a list of a whole lot of Canadians, Belgians, Swiss... and if you consider Chinese to be a macrolanguages with sublanguages, just about every HK celeb, every Roman Catholic priest, most moslem clerics, every jewish rabbi, many Indians, every non-ethnic Russian Russian, every non-ethnic Russian former Soviet citizen, etc ad inifitum. 70.55.88.166 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above talk. Bearian 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Heck, I'd be on there! I'm not notable! I agree, this could surpass 1 billion or even two billion, considering the number pf people and number of languages in the world. If this is not deleted, it could get very out of hand, very quickly! Neranei T/C 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Peacent 03:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mancia

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

No proof this organization even exists--a grand total of zero hits on Yahoo and Google. Blueboy96 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keepDelete. I found pretty good proof it exists, their website[2] to start with. My Spanish is not as good as I would like it to be and I'm having trouble reading very fast, but I am going to err on the side of keeping it, at least until I have read some more about it, but seeing that their home page is a message board, i'm not overly hopeful. Trusilver 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm searching for someone to translate for me, since my Spanish isn't anywhere near up to par. It seems that most of the relevant information on this is in Spanish. Trusilver 06:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, I had a friend of mine who is a native spanish speaker look around the Mancia homepage. After a half hour of digging, she was unable to find anything to suggest notability. Therefore, i'm changing my position to Delete. Trusilver 18:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete due to lack of notability and reliable sources. ugen64 05:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Renihan

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

Non-notable baptist minister. Co-authored an obscure book and is an associate Professor at an obscure seminary. Re-creation of a speedily-deleted article. johnpseudo 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Renihan is the dean of a program of study at a fully accredited (both regionally and ATS) seminary. Sure, he's not Al Mohler but he's worth a stub at least.Eugeneacurry 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 308 hits on Yahoo, most coming from Baptist sources. Fails WP:N. Blueboy96 22:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, the article hadn't been edited since 1 March 2007 when it was created, if this isn't going to be expanded then it may as well be deleted. Darrenhusted 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, he is a published author (whose book is sold at Target) A Dean and Associate Professor at a College. He is notable. Callelinea 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. First of all, he did not write the book. This is a notable book written in 1752 by Benjamin Beddome. He wrote an introduction to a new edition! Second, being an associate professor is no claim to notability - most universities have hundreds. Third, there are no reliable independent non-trivial third party sources talking about him specifically. The only sources I find are talking about the book, which, again, he did not write. (Edited because I got the date wrong. Still 250 years ago. )--Charlene 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see why Westminster Seminary West is an obscure seminary, but this definitely doesn't pass the notability test for academics. Nyttend 01:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' this is simply not a notable body of work, regardless of the semiary. DGG (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is not his only book--I had some doubts, since it seems a respectable seminary. So I double checked OCLC, & added the 4 or 5 others. But except for his devotional book, they are held only in a handful of specialized libraries. Still not a notable body of work. DGG (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as notable, although I'd have to disagree with any grad of Trinity. Bearian 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an author of several books, Renihan has some notability, even though his belief system is probably very different from mine. A specialized topic doesn't make an article non-notable. In fact, articles on specialized topics should receive an "expert-subject" tag before deletion is considered. Finally, Wikipedia permits articles of different sizes depending on their notability. A small article on a slightly notable subject is appropriate. Valerius 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 18:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a list of non-notable characters from a TV show. They have no possible real world context (WP:FICT and WP:WAF), no possible sources beyond the series (WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS), and can only have trivial details written about them (WP:NOT). They can easily be covered by a general paragraph in the main article. TTN 21:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd swing towards a merge of this article to Histeria!, but I'm a bit perplexed. The nom created the article from an apparent fork or merge of the individual characters, yet s/he's putting up for AFD. Not protesting, I just think it is weird. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created it just as a placeholder for the articles. I like to get them to a manageable state before doing anything else. There really isn't much to merge. Just a paragraph stating "These are the main characters. They interact...*blah, blah, blah" TTN 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'd rather have this than each character with its own page Corpx 17:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Histeria! or keep if it would make the article too long. WP:FICT says "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list resides in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is created.". This seems to be an explicit exception to the stand-alone list guideline which says that "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article"; which makes sense as WP:SAL seems to only apply to mere lists of links (with some annotation), not to heavily annotated lists such as these. As for real-world context, there was a promotion with Subway restaurants featuring toys of various characters, and reliable sources do exist (e.g. this syndicated column) for more information, in addition to web sources such as Encyclopedia Histeria!. DHowell 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely. If you ask me, I'll bet TTN just hates Histeria! and wants people to forget all about it. As the person who wrote the original articles (which I still say shouldn't have been taken down), these characters deserve to have information about them made available. -- Nintendo Maximus
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3). Peacent 04:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yabs

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

Not even sure who the artist is here - the infobox is obviously taken from a different album page, all the chart info is fake, the reviews are false also. Editor seems to have a bad habit of creating unsourced music articles. - eo 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3). Peacent 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadness Wont Last For Long

edit
Sadness Wont Last For Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not even sure who the artist is here - the infobox is obviously taken from a different album page, all the chart info is fake, the reviews are false also. Editor seems to have a bad habit of creating unsourced music articles. - eo 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Scythes in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pick trivia...oh wait. You were being rhetorical weren't you? Trusilver 00:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 22:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Satyananda Giri

edit
Swami Satyananda Giri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not establish notability per WP:BIO Delete Speedy keep My bad, obviously made a mistake nominating this one. TheRingess (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Drive

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

Insufficient evidence of notability, prod removed without comment by creator FisherQueen (Talk) 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lady Helen Taylor. Jaranda wat's sup 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Taylor

edit
AfDs for this article:
Cassius Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was nominated about a year ago for AfD here and the result was no consensus. No external links/google searches for establishing notability or being involved in any major events (simply being 'nth' in line should not qualify for WP:BIO). Eliz81 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Cloud 3

edit
Dark Cloud 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unannounced sequel to a game, has absolutely zero concrete facts regarding the game's existence. - hahnchen 20:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinedale Shores, Alabama

edit
Pinedale Shores, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not appear to meet WP:NOTE. A Google search returns no results about this place. Most of the contributions to the article are by one IP address. Jorvik 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, don't think it's a hoax, but it doesn't belong either. Jauerback 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wow, this page has change dramatically since I last viewed it. Jauerback 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and the stuff about the FBI etc. investigations is arguably defamatory of anyone on the POA board. The USPS does not recognize "Pinedale Shores" as an address; it's all either part of Ashville or St. Clair County. The County held a referendum on home rule demanded by some residents including this area but the vote failed. I'm flexible on places if they are verifiable but this just seems like a subdivision/development with no particular notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The USPS is not the best reference, as it sometimes lumps in three or four legal, incorporated communities under one ZIP code. The USGS is a better reference. (And the same thing could be said for Canada, incidentally: Canada Post does not have a post office in every community except in Ontario, so the Atlas of Canada is a better reference.) --Charlene 00:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Pinedale Shores, Alabama" is recognized as a community on Google maps [3] and Mapquest [4]. From the look of the maps it appears to be a contained continuous community that's not just a section of another. We have much smaller "settlements" than this that are considered notable. --Oakshade 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've redone the article as a stub. It's a real place - at least the USGS thinks so (a WP:RS in these matters). As for the junk that was there previously, it was unsourced problematic, whatever, but real places get kept. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After doing some searching at USGS, there are 2 places with that name, the one I re-did and another I just created, so I re-did them both following city, county, state and re-did the article at issue here as a dab page for the other two. Still keep. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not that I have anything against either of the "Pinedale Shores" locations, nor the development of an article on either place-- but essentially, this is essentially an article that sqays that "Pinedale Shores, Alabama" can refer to two places in Alabama. The one in St. Clair County is the one that has a zip code, see (warning: I'm about to use the "L-word") List of places in Alabama: O-R. I suspect the one in Marshall County may be little more than a dot on a map. Mandsford 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The canonical title of US towns is City, State, so anyone looking for Pinedale Shores, Alabama would look to Pinedale Shores, Alabama; if one of the two is sufficiently more notable - I haven't really delved into whether or not one is - then perhaps it gets pride of place and with a dab tag line at the top pointing to the less notable one so if that's the one being sought it can be found easily. This is done with some regularity. If you are confident that the St. Clair county one belongs at what's now the dab, be WP:BOLD and revert my making it a dab page and add a x-ref to the Marshall county one. Carlossuarez46 02:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Thank you, but I'm not sure how to do that. In addition, I hate to tamper with another person's work unless it's poorly written, and in this case it's well-written. I will note that not all locations on a map are considered to be significant communities. There is a place in my home county that is listed as "Tacky Town" on several maps, but I have never known anyone who has ever known where it is. I believe that anyone looking at a map of their home will be surprised to find places they've never heard of. People tend to think of their community as the city and state that's on their mailing address. Mandsford 12:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, living in LA often your mailing address is not even an independent city - e.g., Reseda, CA 91335. Reseda is part of the city of Los Angeles even though its nearly an hour's drive from city hall. Carlossuarez46 16:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a proper disambiguation page for the two places in Alabama, as long as those two articles exist in Wikipedia. However, if kept, the page should be moved to Pinedale Shores (drop Alabama), per standard practice for disambig pages. ●DanMS • Talk 03:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, I think the best thing is to keep to the rule that if it can be shown to actually exists , then it gets an article. I do not think it builds the encyclopedia to argue about every small village. DGG (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid disambiguation page listing two stub articles about two real places. Aleta 16:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. AfD's on populated places are pointless. Dhaluza 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was nominated for deletion based on its state here --Jorvik 09:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of its state? What's wrong with Alabama? Mandsford 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then it was an ill-advised nomination. The nominator should have simply edited the article instead. Dhaluza 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That did matter at the nomination time, but now what matters is its current revision, not what it was at first. As it has changed drastically, I think that makes a big difference to this AfD. Aleta 16:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as even if is not a real big place, but a disambiguation of two other places. I would keep out hamlets and unincorporated villages. Sorry, DGG. Bearian 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Peacent 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Junkyard"

edit
AfDs for this article:
"The Junkyard" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability since the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of "The Junkyard". Also, it may be a hoax. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits on Yahoo or Google. And even if it did exist, the article sounds like an ad. Blueboy96 20:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twist ending in video games

edit
Twist ending in video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Too specific, original research, whether an ending is a twist or not is opinion-related. Sdornan 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I changed my vote. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Camelio

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines. NMChico24 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main thing to consider here is that he founded ArtistShare which is considered to be a very innovative new business model for music. He seems to be very well respected in his field and somewhat of an important figure (referred to as a post-modern Amhet Ertegun) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aHkRoYzxmSnY&refer=muse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.165.224 (talk) — 64.131.165.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Founder Brian Camelio could be rightfully called a visionary, I'm proud that he's a member of the jazz faculty here at The New School for Jazz and Contemporary Music, NYC. Martin Mueller, Exec. Dir." - Clearly he is a person of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.165.224 (talk)

Comment: the article was pretty badly written; I've revised it a bit. It's better to revise than delete because deletion prevents any chance of improving the article, but improving the article doesn't necessarily prevent any chance of deletion. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The Result of this RFA was Keep as the AFD has been open for 4 days and no users have voted anything but keep. Non-Admin ClosureNew England (C) (H) 00:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John_Heuser

edit
AfDs for this article:
John_Heuser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. The page discusses electron microscopy techniqes which are not specifically cited. This information should be presented in the electron microscopy article. Thrawn562 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems to pass WP:PROF by having had several notable works published. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, if his published works are indeed notable. Jauerback 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has huge WP:COI issues, as it appears to have been substantially written by John Goodenough Heuser (Jgheuser (talk · contribs)), who is apparently his son (based on links from his contributions). And the second half looks like a resume. However he is notable and passes WP:PROF -- significant contributions to the field. Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - does seem to meet WP:PROF with published works and notable achievements; the article does seem rather laudatory and could use some tidying and POV removal. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, numerous awards, namesake of semi-notable lab, indicative of a widespread reputation. WP:COI is not by itself justification for deletion, and WP:NPOV issues may be addressed through editing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not quite my area of expertise, but 6 Nature papers, 6 Science ones and 9 PNAS ones pretty much guarantees that he'll be regarded as an expert in his field - you don't get published in those journals by doing trivial work. Most of the stuff on electron microscopy would be better in that article than in his biography though. Iain99 22:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes, when not clear about an academic subject, it's reasonable to go by the quality journals--not all of the work is just technical electronic microscopy--there are articles of broader significance, including several other very high quality journals more specialized journals. But for most notable people, one or two articles in Nature are the high points of a career, and you don't have to be a specialist to realize the significance of that journal. The bibliography should be cut to the most important (as well as some of the minor bio). DGG (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an independent assertion of his pioneering work on techniques to increase the em resolution here: [9] and the techniques have certainly had wide-ranging applications across cell biology, as the range of papers on his CV shows. Also nice independent review of his key paper on synaptic membrane recycling here: [10] The article could do with reworking, though. Espresso Addict 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above discussion. It seems to have been cleaned up of POV. Get rid of a few peacock adjectives. Bearian 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. As an editorial action, I'm redirecting it to David Fonseca until somebody bothers to write any non-crystalball content for this article. Sandstein 07:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superstars song

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

Per WP:MUSIC, individual songs do not require separate articles unless they are unusually notable and have sources to demonstrate that. In addition, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is about David Fonseca's third album first single, that will be hitting the stores this monday! Till then I will not have more info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddms 88 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, actually... the originator should have waited until the single came out and it was demostrated that this particular release is notable enough to warrent an article on the individual song.--Isotope23 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, based on what i saw, it's common to have the single info placed here before the single is out. The song will be out in 3 days, then I will be able to complete the article. I think it's not necessary to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mddms 88 (talk • contribs).
Comment That only happens when it's 99% confirmed and has notability via WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We only establish future articles when nothing short of a nuclear holocaust will interrupt it. -WarthogDemon 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's verifiable. You can check the artist official site. It's relevant, because it will receive extensive airplay in Portugal during all the summer. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mddms 88 (talk • contribs).
But does it meet the standards in WP:MUSIC? Just because the main site says so, doesn't necessarily make it verifiable. -WarthogDemon 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"has been covered in sufficient independent works." Saw a reference in two newspapers and heard in on one of Portugal's major radio station (antena 3). "has been ranked on a national or significant music chart" Surely will be soon on Portuguese airplay top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddms 88 (talk • contribs)
How good a reference was it? And notice that the criterion is "has been ranked", not "will be ranked". And please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a fan of articles for individual songs, but it appears that this is likely to chart and prove its notability under the current guideline. Keep for now and move to Superstars (song). Maybe this "should have been added Monday", but under the same reasoning, deleting it now is an unnecessary process. The artist is clearly notable, and it seems likely that the song will be notable, and we'll surely know better in a little while. Dekimasuよ! 03:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The song is not notable at this point, based on any information in the article. Except that David Fonseca is involved, and the song will appear soon, there is really no other information. I have no objection to recreating the article later after the song comes out, there has been a chance to add third party commentary, and the song can be judged notable based on the independent sources. EdJohnston 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 18:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've relisted due to the release date having passed. Previous rational for keeping or deleting may no longer apply.
  • Comment Still no sources to demonstrate notability, but that applies to about a million song articles by notable artists which tend not to get nominated for deletion. WP:CRYSTAL is obsolete, and I can't fathom why the nom would start a process one of the rationales for which would change halfway through. WP:CHILL applies here as well. Weakest possible keep as it seems it will be sourceable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but I added the future tag. Bearian 23:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldly redirected to Right to Information Act. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RTI India

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

This is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia rohith 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Dawn (band)

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

No assertion of notability. The article was previously just a discography. The addition of a history makes the article encyclopedic, but I can't find any notability. Ichibani utc 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think my assertion of notability under WP:MUSIC comes from the multiple albums on Locomotive, as well as the statements that the band has played international tours through Europe on at least one occasion, if not more. The fact that they've been discussed by several established sites gives me comfort that there's coverage for the band, especially when the discussion on those pages seems to indicate the band's creator has his own standalone notability. With a Scandinavian band, I think having this level of sources indicates there's probably more in their own language, but again, I can't confirm that. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why Locomotive is a major label. I suppose the international tour satisfies WP:MUSIC as long as we have a reliable source for it. Bravewords does seem okay as a source, and though the article seems really trivial I suppose yielding to the guideline alright. It's just critical to have some information about the tour added in, if that's what makes the band notable. Ichibani utc 20:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locomotive appears to be a fairly big indie label in Europe, and is distributing some big-time artists as mentioned above. The tour is being difficult - I've got mentions of lengthy tours in 2004, 2006 and 2007 with other bands, but I don't know if they would be really good as reliable sources. I may insert them into the article anyhow, as an indication that yes, they are touring extensively. But, failing that, would you accept a number-two single as filling yet another WP:MUSIC requirement? I've also found a bunch of non-English bios and refs, including one on mtv.de, and could quite happily pop those into the external links if they'd help ease your concerns. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've pretty much convinced me they're notable. Once the article reflects it I'll have no complaint at all. I'll try to add a bit as well in a few hours. Ichibani utc 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but merging as always remains available as an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references

edit
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very trivial listcruft of many mentions and references. As I've stated in many AFDs of these pop culture/cultural references: condense the section in the main article. Don't just move it to a very cluttered and massive list of it's own. Hitchhiker's Guide is popular, but proving popularity by listcruft isn't the way to do to it in my view. RobJ1981 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outwar

edit
AfDs for this article:
Outwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Still no reliable, independent references. Tenuous claim to notability not supported by reliable citation. Riddled with indiscriminate information (WP:NOT), original research (WP:OR) and pov (WP:NPOV). MarašmusïneTalk 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding these two related articles to this AFD discussion. Jauerback 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Merge and delete is not compatible with the GFDL license. Sr13 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Sterling submachine gun in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another trivial listcruft of mentions. This is a small article, so I see no reason why it was even created. The notable items (which I don't see any, except perhaps James Bond movies, as it's been in some of them), should just be in the main article. Condense: don't just move into a list that most likely wont be maintained. RobJ1981 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Search for the Twelve

edit
The Search for the Twelve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencylopaedic essay, with lots of POV ("The choice of the twelve was solely the sovereign will of Jesus") and original research, but not much of a well defined subject. Any usable content could be incorporated into Twelve Apostles, but I don't see much myself Iain99 17:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, obvious essay, lots of POV issues, material better covered elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per above, it's an essay and would need a lot of work to bring in line. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: even reducing the article to a stub is better than deleting it; it can grow into something useful. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but Rename to "efforts to locate the twelve apostles" -- "The search for the twelve" returns 62,300 google hits; it's notable. But the article is a complete mess, utterly POV, essay-style. Needs a complete rewrite. Should be tagged with templates to encourage said rewrite. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, now that I've made an effort to rewrite and clean up the article, I can't really find the encyclopedic center. I'm abstaining from voting on this one way or the other, since it's not my area of expertise. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think there is an encyclopaedic centre - that's the problem. The overwhelming majority of the Google hits (on the first half dozen pages at least) refer to an apparently highly regarded book called The Search For The Twelve Apostles. There might well be scope for an article on that book, but it won't be needing any of the text here, and note the different title anyway. "The search for the twelve", or anything like it, isn't a good title for any encyclopaedia article as it's not a subject in itself, just a good title for an essay or book about the history of the Apostles. Iain99 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cockaponset State Forest. Sandstein 09:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pine Ledge

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

    Article does not assert notability of location: while major geographical features are notable, it's not clear that this place falls under that category. It's hard to believe that this could ever get above stub-class. Delete SarekOfVulcan 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It could be moved to Cockaponset State Forest. The article was originally written to complete the [Category: List of climbing areas] , but it could still be part of that category within Cockaponset State Forest.

    Czimborbryan 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Farhat Jamshed

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

    Some claim of notability is presented with the books, but no clear evidence that she is notable per the guidelines for biographies is presented--nor is her authorship verifiable. Likewise, her career as an artist includes no clear indication that she is notable, although at least sources are provided there. Minor artist/author, fails notability, weak verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Programmer's Truth Theory

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Programmer's Truth Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    CSD template repeatedly removed by page creator and IP address; creator admits article is original research and unsourceable  DOONHAMER | BANTER  16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The page creator removed an original db-nonsense template. I don't think the article was nonsense, but it was pretty clearly original research and not verifiable; the creator admitted as much on the talk page. I added the NOR and Unreferenced templates to provide more context, but they were later removed by an IP address. I would have just listed this in the request for comments page, but with the history of removed CSD tags and the very small possibility of ever being able to verify the article's content, I thought I'd bring it here for discussion.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  16:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have provided support for my theory in a referenced publication within the article. Brichard12 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Papers presented at major conferences are generally considered reliable sources. They are typically published by the conference organiser (in this case the IEEE), and I believe most such conferences require peer review before allowing a paper to be presented. However all this source does is suggest that the research in question in this article is even less notable, because all it is doing is reiterating something already known: that incorrect assumptions lead to errors. We now have a source that shows that this has been known and commented on since 2004 at the latest, and given that it isn't presented in the paper as a new concept one can assume earlier. JulesH 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It's not that we doubt the theory's true. It's that we need to see publications about the theory (not publications that support it). And I doubt we'll ever see those, regardless of its truth: the theory's so self evident, I find it hard to see how it could even be considered a theory. JulesH 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, in agreement with discussion on page. Unsourced. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not mentioned in supplied source at all. Nothing to indicate this theory is notable (presentation at a conference is not notability). --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete but a good idea to bring it here--simpler & more definitive than a RfC. Most conference papers are not significant, but IEEE is somewhat of an exception. Still, even if it had really been one the subject, one conference pape even at the best conferences would almost never be enough.DGG (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In academic computer science publication, selective conferences can be more significant than journals. But one paper with a modest number of citations is still only a weak indicator of notability. And more to the point, I don't see a lot of support for the article within the cited paper. —David Eppstein 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The paper I cited in the reference connotes the justification for the theory through the studies that were conducted of end-user programmers. While the theory is not literally referenced from within the article I cited, it explains the ideas endemic to the theory; thus the theory evolved from out of my interpretation of the article's evidentiary studies. I think that it is absurd to suggest that I must write a treatise or a national publication of some sort describing a theory I developed just to get a blurb entry of it on Wikipedia. If that is what it takes to promote ideas to the masses on Wikipedia, then we should all be relegated to reading the hard-copy edition of the written word and disabuse ourselves of the collaborative ideas and thoughts that are electronically manifested through an international, interactive human encyclopedia called the internet... Brichard12 00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend reading WP:NOT, for openers. In point of fact, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and it is a grave misconception (and common among outsiders) to think our primary function is to promote new ideas to the masses. Instead, it is an encyclopedia that reflects other primary sources, and as such strictly bans original research. When your theory has been published in verifiable, reliable, third-party sources, then our policies and guidelines will support an article on it.  RGTraynor  02:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If my theory ever gets published by a "verifiable, reliable, third-party source" I won't bother wasting my time placing it on Wikipedia. I am requesting that this entire entry be permanently removed from the Wikipedia site as soon as possible. Brichard12 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We're well on our way to granting you your wish.  RGTraynor  13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delta Plaza Mall

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

    Another mall article I created myself before I knew better. There're a few references online, but all of them are trivial, and none are independent. Thus, I believe that this is a non-notable mall, and a page that I never should have created. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Is there a Category:Articles Wikipedians regret creating?? :) Canuckle 17:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bionicle 4: Island of Doom

    edit
    Bionicle 4: Island of Doom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This page is completely made up, bogus, fake, false, etc.

    • There is no evidence that such a movie will exist. And even the fake content itself is illogical: As the BIONICLE storyline is there to boost sales of the BIONICLE sets, it makes no sense to have a movie about the 2006 storyline come out in 2008 or 2009.
    • A friend "did a quick check of the article's history, and the creator of that page has gotten other pages of his deleted due to the info being false."
    • And it is true that there are no plans for a fourth BIONICLE movie at this time. Greg Farshtey, one of the leading storyline members, has consistently said that there are no plans for such. Utopia7391 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article also cited Bob Thompson as being involved, but he has left Bionicle. --Bonesiii 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if my opinion is still needed (no expert on WP), but Delete, as Greg Farshtey (member of the Bionicle story team) has stated that no fourth Bionicle movie is planned, and if there were to be a fourth movie, it would not be on the 06 storyline, as the movies need to advertise current storyline.--Bionicleman (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Intercommunalities of the Pyrénées-Orientales department

    edit
    Intercommunalities of the Pyrénées-Orientales department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Page contains little information on its own and neither assertion of notability nor context. If one does not know much about inner French organization, this is a pretty inaccessible page. It lists a certain type of community in a subregion of France, as far as I can tell, and adds no further information about them. If this information needs to be kept at all, it should be kept inline with the main article at Pyrénées-Orientales, which is not a large enough page to require splitting off subpages. Page is nearly orphaned -- the one link from the main namespace is from the article linked above, where it could be merged into. Deltopia 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge into Pyrénées-Orientales. Not enough content to be worth a separate article. EyeSereneTALK 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Deleting this could be seen as systematic bias: there is at least this much information about similar geographical divisions in the USA and UK (e.g. List of civil parishes in Warwickshire, which seems to describe areas of similar geographical size to the ones described by the article being considered). That there isn't much information here is an opportunity to expand the article, not delete it. JulesH 20:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and suggest expansion at a wikiproject. Better one group article on all the intercommunalities (which are, very roughly, analogous to counties) than an article on each individual one. I agree that there's some WP:BIAS in the idea that American counties and British civil parishes are somehow notable but French intercommunalities are not. --Charlene 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as encyclopedic list. The article lists populations, and populated places are notable, making the Notability argument in the nom moot. The rest of the nom seems to be a case of WP:BIAS. Dhaluza 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. We have articles on individual communes in France. An intercommunalité is the next step up the hierarchy of government in the country, so obviously not non-notable entities. (Incidentally, an intercommunalité is much larger than an Engish parish, but the equivalent of a county is the dépatement'.) Emeraude 13:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This particular list of intercommunalities is important because of different usages of terms between French and Catalan. As such, it is a little harder to keep an NPOV—not impossible, by any means, but editors need to be aware of other usages. I also subscribe to the points of view above that French intercommunalities are inherently notable. Physchim62 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. No sources Peacent 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hannes Bardach

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

    Probable autobiography by User:Meinereiner, whose only other edits are to Frequentis, the company started by this entrepreneur. There are no references to this article. Shalom Hello 16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was: Speedily deleted - creator's request - Mike Rosoft 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Westwood Mall (Marquette, Michigan)

    edit
    Westwood Mall (Marquette, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Well, this is strange -- I'm AfDing a page I wrote myself. I created this page because I thought I could make enough information on this mall. However, as it turns out, it's just not a notable mall. I prodded this recently, only for the prod to be contested (which, incidentally, was the only edit to this page not made my me). Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think RGT meant CSD A7, not G7. Ten Pound, why don't you just blank the thing or request deletion on the article's talk page, so that the admin reviewing the speedy tag on the article will see it? Deor 20:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    E-Sangha

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

    Does not appear to meet WP:WEB according to the sources I see. Prod removed by creator after adding sources which, in my opinion, do not satisfactorily demonstrate notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies for removing the template, but I am not aware of an objective standard for making such a proof. In my mind, the sources were more than enough proof. What is the standard of proof? You say "in my opinion" but by what measure is your opinion authoritative in the matter? Please present a standard for proving notability that I can fulfill for the article. (A certain number of sources, perhaps?) Calaf 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 10:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DROPimage

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

    There is an undeniable conflict of interest by User:Ramehart, who will promote his contact angle goniometer any way he can. I've removed his edits from other articles such as surface tension, but this article needs to go through standard deletion process. Of the 100 Google hits for <DROPimage Ramehart>, the first two were Youtube videos uploaded by the Youtube user Ramehart. You get the idea. Shalom Hello 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Women's Studies Resource Centre

    edit
    Women's Studies Resource Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    User:DGG prodded the article with the reason, "probably unimportant - local resource center", and User:Rebecca contested the prod. (These are both well-respected admins.) Since the COI bot found this article - correctly, it would appear - I think there are grounds for starting an AFD. My opinion is "weak delete". I think the COI is there, but Bearian's cleanup work may be sufficient to address that problem. Shalom Hello 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I found a couple of other sources which would point to this - one highlighted funding for its creation as one of the most important feminist achievements of the famously reformist Dunstan government, and another which bemoans that an institution of its significance has been defunded. Considering the topic (it's a library, hardly the sort of thing which gets the media in raptures), I think notability is more than established. Rebecca 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are the sources so I can take a look? You cant justify a lower notability guideline just because its a library. Corpx 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're in Factiva, under a search for the topic. If you don't have access to it yourself, you're quite welcome to go to the library. I'm not arguing for a "lower notability guideline" - I'm simply pointing out that there are at least a couple of good pointers to the topic being notable that I've found, plus the book cited in the article, and that this should be more than enough, considering the subject matter. This should hardly be controversial - it's exceedingly obvious that there will be less written on a notable library than, say, a notable band, and to interpret it otherwise would lead to bizarre form of systemic bias. Rebecca 06:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can provide the links, I could SSH into a school computer and view it. Corpx 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is. (For the record, I tried to help CorpX on IRC, and he seems to be some different interface I've never seen before. I'm not sure why or how. It should be easily verified by anyone with a normal campus account, though. Rebecca 08:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, this is an important article among a ream of mostly unwritten articles about the outcomes of the International Women's Year. It could be merged somewhere, but until someone identifies an appropriate merge article, this article is best left to develop. John Vandenberg 07:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, there is more going for this article relevant to at least three separate threads - Adelaide history, womens movement history, australian resource centres - all reasonable subject areas that the google obsessed will simply not be able to comprehend - a judicious check of australian library on line catalogues will clearly ascertain notability of such a phenomenon, and its existence in various states of australia. The sooner the afd system disallows a google check as a basic determination of notability - the better, there is a lot more to the world than bundled ads SatuSuro 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Here Here Scarykitty 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, so why don't you source and reference the article? The only evidence we have that this place is notable at the moment is your say-so. It might very well be notable, but I'd like to see some proof through third-party references. Lankiveil 06:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Um, I thought I did. See end of this rant for my contribution, with source. I used to have access to Lexis and I know that lots of news worth knowing about and establishing notability is hidden behind databases you have to pay for. Goolge News is very new and they are not able to index many sites. It's a big limitation of Wikipedia when thousands of us are relying only on the internet to determine whether something has "significant coverage by independent sources." I would like to see a project of those folks lucky enough to have unlimited access to paid news databases to source up articles. As for my contribution, sad as it was since I have only the internet to rely on, but it wasn't just "my say-so": See: The collection includes records from a number of Australian women's groups, including the Women's Electoral Lobby, a national lobbying group established in 1972, and issue specific groups such as Women Against Nuclear Energy, Women’s Abortion Action Campaign, and Women’s Action Against Global Violence.[14]. Scarykitty 12:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to be pedantic, but I have two problems so far:
    • WP:N asks for multiple sources. I'm sure you'll have no trouble digging up another, though.
    • I'm not sure that that particular reference that you've provided indicates notability. Firstly, while the collection of this library is no doubt impressive, that doesn't automatically equate to notability. I have a fine collection of classic English political literature on my bookshelf, but that doesn't make Lankiveil's Memorial Reading and Dining Room worthy of an article. Secondly, that particular link seems to be a link to a directory entry - these generally speaking aren't considered to assert the notability of a subject.
    I'm well aware that a lot of "good stuff" is hidden in databases and the like, but any reasonably notable or important organisation is bound to have been mentioned on the free web as well. Lankiveil 11:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MUS2301

    edit
    MUS2301 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The author removed User:Seattlenow's prod, which read, "Self-promotion of artist and projects (Three paper clips (album), The Beatles White Album (album), MUS2301) that don't seem to meet WP:MUSIC--myspace/youtube/personalsite/home/school performance/distro only." I would add that there is an apparent conflict of interest (the COI bot found this article) and there are way too many links to the homepage, myspace and youtube. Shalom Hello 15:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The assumtion is incorrect. I am the author of the text/webpage, and it is in the public domain. Furthermore, the lack of independant sourcing is intrinsic to the nature of the subject. It is a community run, small-scale, model for education. It does, however, include among its members a renowned recording artist --Kriista 02:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The webpage now has the appropriate text releasing it into the public domain. I know there are other reasons, that is why speedy delete seemed wholly unnecessary, especially persuing it to the degree that you have. I have also addressed the other regarding the deletion. The webpage does not satisfy WP:MUSIC, but it is not a music group. It does not satisfy independantly verifyable sources, but that is the nature of the collective. If it is still deemed deletable for that reason, it is fine, but it would be unfortunate, because what makes Wiki great is the 'in between the cracks' articles that you can't find information on elsewhere.--Kriista 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Failed WP:CSD A7 as no claim to notability was made in the article. Note to nominator - please consider either speedy delete or prod in future before bringing matters to AfD, which should only be used as a last resort. Qwghlm 09:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leamington Hibernian FC

    edit
    Leamington Hibernian FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    NN junior football team Rackabello 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Was just an initial test to get a page up and running. Can you tell me what you mean by NN? Our senior teams dominate the local leagues and we have just secured ourselves a ground. Most of our local rivals have a page sturvey62

    NN means not notable. To do test pages, check out Wikipedia:Sandbox. Lugnuts 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pokémon video game glitches

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

    This page is unecessary and mostly non-notable; all the glitches can be merged into their respective game pages, and don't need their own article. Also reads like a strategy guide on how to obtain the glitches. Zxcvbnm 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The bulk of the article is pure original research, and the few verifiable bits are surrounded by it. Only the existence of MissingNo. and a few others need (the ones with official statements by Nintendo) to be mentioned somewhere, but that is without the junk. TTN 15:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per above. Jauerback 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge all into their own articles. I can see if one were to merge the glitches to each their own seperate game artciles, but these are all in the game, these aren't OR issues at all. All of these things are veribfiable. Missingno is the most famous, the mew glitch is very popular for getting mew, the berry glitch had to be fixed with Jirachi, the DP surf thing was very popular and Nintendo had to FIX it for the USA release. And I can look for the other sources for Glitch City, which is still in the game and is easily gotten to. The fact that Nintendo would never talk about Glitch City or Missingno in a million years doesn't affect the fact that these things exist, and should rightfully be at least mentioned in the article once someone finds sites talking about them. Toastypk 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • EDIT: http://glitchcity.info/docs/regions/glitchcity http://glitchcity.info/docs/regions/glitchcity It's all right here. I beg you to consider this. Nintendo will never talk about something like this, but it still exists.
      • Those aren't reliable sources. They need some sort of official source or publication talking about them, not some fansite (They're OR otherwise). MissingNo. has Nintendo's acknowledgment, but all that requires is a mention somewhere. TTN 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's the thing, Nintendo would never talk about this kind of thing! But it doesn't change that fact that it still exists. All we have are other people, and that doesn't automatically make it OR. Hell, I even found a video showing it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86VvAY-Rhzo&mode=related&search= Three sources, if that isn't enough proof of its existance, I don't know what is. Toastypk 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This site is about verifiability, not truth. Even then, this is not a good enough standalone topic. TTN 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's still been verified; three links, two showing what it is and how it's done, and one showing a freaking video. What other verifying is needed?
    Maybe my definition of "verifying" is different from yours, I dunno. This is all just so aggrivating...
    Maybe I'm not on the same page here. This at least deserves to be mentioned in the R/B/Y article if all these were to be merged into their respective game articles. Toastypk 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Information on this site is verified by reliable sources. Reliable sources are not fansites. Only ones that have been mentioned by Nintendo will be mentioned anywhere, but they will likely only have a sentence or two. TTN 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if the only sites that would talk about this WOULD be fansites? Is only something right from Nintendo going to work, no matter how many others have mentioned it? For some things, that isn't possible..Toastypk 16:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article lacks reliable sources, it is merged or deleted. We don't include everything on this site. Either something from Nintendo or just a reliable source needs to talk about it to be acceptable. TTN 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you proved that the glitch worked, and recorded it, you're doing it yourself. Think of it like this. Art museums only show art from established artists who went to art school. Now, you might have taught yourself to draw just as well, but the museum sure as hell isn't going to accept your art unless you went to art school. Get my drift?--Zxcvbnm 20:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Give it a week I'll work on it in an attempt to save it as it"s aworthy article. - ~VNinja~ 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, who cares about a few glitches in a video game? If you showed this to anyone you knew, would they? The only person who would get any benefit out of this whatsoever is a person looking to mess up their 10-year-old copy of Pokemon Red, and that's not many people. Even if there are a few references, it's non notable.--Zxcvbnm 20:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove all that, and what do you have left? A few lines that can well be included in their respective game articles. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 06:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP: "no reason to keep this"? Yes, but you are arguing to change things, thus it is YOUR job to make it clear why things should be changed. It would be legitimated for me to say "no reason to delete" but not for someone arguing the oppisite case to say "there is no reason to keep"
      Either way, wiki may not be a "how-to" but this is not a how to either. Little of this page is devoted to telling you "how to" do something, if any at all, and that is just saying how a glith is triggered. any original research hasn't stayed on for more than a second , Brandon dilbeck, and much that is not in any way original research. (However, that should not be argued here, but on the talk page) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Name here (talk • contribs).
    • Merge. Yes, this stuff is worth having. But four glitches is not sufficient to warrant a separate article. Just have a 'glitches' section in the article about the Pokemon games. Cynical 11:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but merge if necessary. It's worth having, they are all notable. BsroiaadnTalk 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable? What sources? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether they'll frag your game or not is irrelevant, heavy, and Wikipedia isn't a game guide (see WP:NOT#GUIDE). -Jéské (v^_^v) 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see OR as the reason for my "merge or delete" vote; I see redundancy (the fact that they can easily be covered in the appropriate game articles) as the reason, and, looking over this thread, so do many others. -Jéské (v^_^v) 22:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would seem people also need to learn to read other arguments before making a judgment. --Teggles 04:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep, but verging on delete. We only have a few brief mentions of his expositions in the press, and nothing substantial. This article should be reconsidered some time later if no more coverage appears. Sandstein 09:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zbigniew Nowosadzki

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

    Previously tagged with speedy for failing WP:NN and contested - now up for community discussion --VS talk 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. There is too little media coverage about Mr Nowosadzki to justify an article on Wikipedia IMO. A handful of mainstream Polish media mention him, but all rehash the same short biography. There are no interviews that I can find. Plus, the article is a mess (grammar, links, editing). --Targeman 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very Strong Keep, He is a notable Polish painter, He has an article in Polish Wikipedia, I have cleaned up his article a bit. We had a similar AfD last week on Antonio de la Rua, where I believe most of us agreed that if someone is notable in another wikipedia he is notable. This painter also has references. Callelinea 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If a 'handful of mainstream polish media mention him' then that's multiple independent sources and therefore good enough isn't it? Nick mallory 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Callelinea.--JForget 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I took the time to investigate this matter in depth and I'm still not convinced about this painter's notability. This is what I found:
    1. When I said "mentioned in mainstream media", I meant "mentioned by name only in a list of painters participating in an exhibition". The media are mainstream but don't include any of the quality daily papers.
    2. I wouldn't base my notability assessment on the fact that another Wikipedia has the same article. The one on the Polish Wikipedia was written and edited by a single anonymous user. And even that article does not say "prominent painter".
    3. The group of Emotionalist painters to which Mr Nowosadzki belongs is a small group of Polish expatriates and has almost zero coverage beyond the website mentioned in the article (7 hits on Google). "Via Varsovia" is a group locally known in Poland but has had zero coverage abroad. Neither of these groups has its own website.
    4. There is no trace of Mr Nowosadzki ever winning any major or minor prize for his paintings.
    To conclude, Mr Nowosadzki appears to be mainly an art gallery owner and not so much an artist himself (although I personally like his style...) I suspect the article on Polish Wiki may have been written by himself or by an acquaintance. The registered but otherwise inactive user on English Wiki might be the same person. But I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong.--Targeman 01:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to mention: coverage abroad is completely irrelevant. Were Mr. Nowosadzki completely unknown outside Poland, had his name never been heard by anyone outside his home country, he'd still be notable were he notable in Poland. I'm not sure if he is, but I don't think Google hits are terribly useful for an artist in Poland in the first place. --Charlene 01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, the thing is he doesn't seem notable in Poland at all. I speak Polish and I did a search in the archives of the main Polish papers, and on the largest Polish search engine. Nada, beyond the website of a gallery where you can actually buy his paintings. So yes, he exists, and he paints (and pretty well IMHO) but is not renowned by any stretch, AFAIK. --Targeman 01:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, especially with the thesis that foreign language Wikipedias could not be reliable source of information. I don't know much about another but Polish which definitely is not. If you understand some Polish, go to Polish version of Hanna Banaszak. There is in there a completely false accusation based on rumours that she was bedding the discredited former PM Mieczysław Rakowski, one of the authors of introducing the martial law in Poland back in the early 80s. This note inserted without a single reference is aimed to scoff at this great artist by the brats who are running Polish Wiki. Let's make experiment. Give me a couple of minutes and I label this article with POV and the explanation that Wikipedia is not a place to place rumours. I bet ten bucks that in less than twenty minutes that label will be removed singlehandedly by one of the administartors while the rumour stays, and there is a chance that I'll be warned that the next time I dared such a challenge I would be blocked for aggresion or vandalism. May I count you in, buddy? greg park avenue 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You owe me 10 bucks :). Yes, the article on Banaszak is an aberration, but I wouldn't bash Polish Wiki just for that, I'd say on the quality of their articles is not worse than in other languages. And I think Polish Wikipedia may be the largest in the world (number of articles per native speaker - but I don't feel like counting...). All I wanted to say is that the existence of an article on another Wikipedia is not a guarantee of legitimacy per se. --Targeman 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, you won. Just sent me by email (provided on my user page) your postal address where to sent 10 bucks. Now is another bet, twenty bucks for the same thing - POV on the Polish version of the article Poznań 1956 protests. For the controversy about the reasons of the uprising. The brats claim, that Poznanians rioted because they were raised by Prussians according to their rule 'Ordnung muss sein' - an obvious communist propaganda. I claim being a Poznanian myself that we are not that 'porzundni' and never had been, otherwise this event would never happened. For labeling this article POV once and stating my reasons I was banned and the POV was removed by the brats. But before I do that, risking banning again, I want to know if you're sport and take the bet. If I lose again and that section would be removed (not before) which I would like to happen I'll owe you 30 bucks, if you loose, you owe me only ten. Is that fair enough? greg park avenue 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unknown-Class article Sorry, but I'm not a good sport. Let's stay on topic.--Targeman 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ATV News

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

    lack of notability Gnome84 14:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Counter-Argument The news divisions of TV networks like the ones you mention are notable because their newsreaders are notable. When Peter Jennings of ABC News died, it made news. When CBS News fired Dan Rather it made news. However, as demonstrated in an AfD discussion a few weeks ago, NONE of the ATV News readers are notable. If they leave the air, no one notices or cares. To prove the counter-factual, can you find any reputable online sources about ATV News or its news readers?Gnome84 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not conceding that the notable of ATV News depends merely on whether its individual newsreaders are considered notable, but I'd like to point out that several newspeople do have Wikipedia articles noting their work for ATV. For example, Renato Reyes, Carmen Yip, Chan Pui Yee, Cheung Wai-tsz, Kaman Lee, Kwok Tse Ting. JamesAM 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to the Comment Thanks for naming these non-notables, all of which are stubs. Why? Because no one has anything notable to attach to them. Admin should also delete each of these pages for the same reasons that admin deleted pages of their cohorts (like Edna Tse, Yonden Lhatoo, Nick Waters, and Anne-Marie Sim), which sprouted like weeds.Gnome84 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The author of the article needs to demonstrate notability with citations of other sources discussing the English-language division of ATV News - something not done so far. In Hong Kong, ATV News is a distant underdog to TVB. ATV's English language broadcasts target an addressable market of perhaps 100,000 native English-speaking residents. Of those, maybe a few hundred or a few thousand are regular viewers - ie the equivalent of any medium-sized town's public-access cable channels for announcing things like school-board meetings.

    ATV's audience is so tiny it has never registered enough viewers to appear on any ratings chart.

    By contrast, the Chinese-language version of ATV News has a much larger potential audience - about 60 times the size, and might be notable, but if so, should be in Wikipedia-Chinese, not English.Gnome84 07:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I disagree with your rationale here. First of all, the ATV News article asserts that ATV News provides news for both ATV World (English) and ATV Home (Cantonese). Therefore, your discussion of the relatively smaller audience for the English-language broadcast is irrelevant, because ATV News is described as responsible for both language broadcasts. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the English language Wikipedia should not have articles not include material on non-English broadcasts. English Wikipedia (like the Wikipedias in other languages) should provide its readers with information from around the world. JamesAM 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Counter-Argument TASS is a quasi-official news agency of the Russian government. Does Wikipedia-English also have articles on other Russian news agencies like Interfax and Ria Novosti It should. Why? Because the three major international wire services - AP, AFP, Reuters constantly cite or refer to TASS and Interfax. They are notable. What news services refer or cite to ATV News?--either in English or Chinese?Gnome84 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Counter-Argument to a "argument" To make a persuasive argument, you need to cite facts, examples, or authoritative sources. The main authoritative source in this regard is Wikipedia, which requires the subject of an article to be notable. None of you have demonstrated notability for ATV News although you have made a few analogies.Gnome84 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Just as notable as one of the Big Three network news. Those are not notable because their newsreaders are famous, they're notable because they reaach millions of people everyday. Abeg92contribs 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Counter-Argument: You've just contradicted yourself (if you note the messages above). ATV News does not reach millions of people every day.Gnome84 15:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    B. Levinson

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

    Appears to not meet WP:NN and did have a contested speedy on page prior to this nomination - now up for community discussion --VS talk 14:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    B. Levinson is an important and notable figure in the context of early Jewish settlement of Texas. He is also a notable business and civic leader for Brenham, Texas and its Jewish community.
    -Mr. Levinson is an original Jewish Texan settler, having arrived in Brenham, Texas druing 1861
    -Mr. Levinson was an active (civic, business and religious) leader in the community and most important to his article, he was an active leader in facilitating the formation of the Jewish community of Brenham
    -Mr. Levinson was instrumental in facilitating the construction of the B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham
    -Mr. Levinson, whose family members are burried at B'nai Abraham Cemetery, facilitated the construction of many historic Jewish monuments within the synogague and cemetery which are important parts of Jewish history in Texas
    -Mr. Levinson was a notable civic and business leader of Brenham, Texas
    These are a few of the reasons why this article was created. Bhaktivinode
    • Comment: no vote currently. This a horrible can of worms, because any critical comment is bound to risk accusation of anti-Semitism. Mr. Levinson appears to be no more notable than the average town mayor (the classic example for WP:HOLE) - except for being Jewish. The question is, is that sufficiently rare/remarkable in the context to make for notability? I don't know. But what I don't like is that this appears to be just one article in a walled garden of local history/genealogy cruft - check out Leon Toubin, Simon family, Simon Theatre, B'nai Abraham Cemetery, etc. Gordonofcartoon 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A settler can be notable, but not all settlers are notable. A settler notable within their cultural community can be notable, in my view. However, Jewish Texan is sourced to a University of Texas article which says: "The first Jews coming to Texas were notable individuals—and few. But by the mid-19th century, Jewish immigration followed typical patterns along trade and transportation routes and, generally, remained urban and involved families." [15] Mr. Levinson is on the tail-end of that period so I would prefer to see sources to establish and verify his accomplishments. Canuckle 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That's exactly what I was floundering to convey. Gordonofcartoon 15:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: It's not a can of worms at all, because I'm sure we're all going to assume good faith and keep kneejerk anti-Semitism charges out of play. This fails WP:BIO going away.  Ravenswing  17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete did nothing outside the real of his town and I dont see him quite as a pioneer Corpx 20:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Has anybody written about him? I ask because some early settlers do have books or articles written about him, but I see no sources here, and unfortunately there's an extremely notable B. Levinson that makes Google searching difficult. Also, I'm guessing that if something has been written about him, it might not be online. --Charlene 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, trivial mention in the Handbook of Texas does not do much to assert notability as a Texan, and this similarly trivial mention (he has a middle initial! or maybe that's his son) is all I found on Google Books. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In creating the article the two internet sources that I was drawing on were The Handbook of Texas Online [16] and its statement "Original Jewish settlers in the county included B. Levinson, who arrived in 1861, and the Alex Simon family, which arrived in 1866. These men became active in the business community of Brenham, and as other Jewish settlers arrived, the need for a synagogue grew." Also, in an article about the B'nai Abraham Syagogue it states, " Original Jewish settlers in Washington County included the Levinson and Simon families who arrived in the 1860s." [17] ALSO, aside from these two internet sources are two academic works which cite B. Levison's notablity as an early Jewish Texan settler, business and civic leader. These two text are Charles F. Schmidt's History of Washington County on page 123, and in Wilfred O. Dietrich's work, The Blazing Story of Washington County on page 95. This is just to supplement the info found above. Thanks. Bhaktivinode
    • Weak Keep, I would change my position to Strong Keep if someone could place sources in the article. Callelinea 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article does not really give an idea of who the subject was. There is no indication of when he was born, when he died, where he came to Brenham from, or what line of business he was in. If he only came to Texas in 1861, then there would already have been several other cities with Jewish communities in the state (see Handbook of Texas Online). Furthermore, most individual religious congregations are non-notable, so being among the founders of a synagogue is not an inherent claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete for now with no prejudice to the re-creation of a better article. Like many people, it should be possible to show him notable if enough work was done, but I don't think the article quite does this yet. There should be sources in newspapers of the period, many of which are becoming available. DGG (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - also with no prejudice to re-creation. As a Jewish settler in a period when Jewish settlement was no longer rare, he currently appears not to be suffiently notable in historical context. Gordonofcartoon 15:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - as it is an article about an early settler who was integral in establishing a unique and very old religious community. - Though if Delete is a more common consensus - I would propose Merge as the best alternative by merging this article with the B'nai Abraham Cemetery page, as it literaly deals only with the past religious/community leaders. Thank you for considering the above. Bhaktivinode
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jake Coco

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

    Previously tagged for speedy deletion and contested - now up for community discussion --VS talk 14:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Delete possibly has potential for notability, but as is, it looks like another attempt with another website other than YouTube to gain some fame. Jauerback 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Not notable yet, though one day who knows? This article appears to be part of a slew of {{db-wannabe}} articles based around upcoming projects of Alliance Group Entertainment that have been appearing over the last few days. [Later edit: a related similar article is for Sam Sarpong, who's another borderline notable, except he's an award winning model.] ROGER TALK 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was DELETE. Andrew c [talk] 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Choose Help

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

    Small chain of drug treatment centers. No indication of general notability, no independent sources, reads like promo piece. NawlinWiki 14:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete - Fails WP:NOT. Jauerback 14:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - author continues to delete AFD tag after warning. Jauerback 16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I apologize for the deletion of the tag. This is my first Wikipedia entry and I wasn't paying attention at first. Believe me I am trying here.. so, give me a chance ;-) The Choose Help treatment centers are widely recognized in the field of drug rehab and you can independently verify it. The success stories of people being treated in those facilities run by Spencer Recovery Centers are well documented and their treatment philosophy have set standards in addiction rehab. All private rehab facilities are run as small enterprises or non-profit ventures - there are no multinational corporations. The relevance and impact is significant, nevertheless. I am convinced that Wikipedia benefits from featuring some of the leading facilities. Choose Help Centers certainly counts among them. The 2 centers are not a "chain" but it doesn't mean they are less significant.

    For your reference, please also look at other drug treatment centers included in the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Drug_and_alcohol_rehabilitation_centers

    Thanks! Mschoel

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

    The result was Merge and redirect into Airsoft. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Backyard airsoft

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

    Not very notable, should probably be merged with Airsoft or simply deleted and redirected there would be better. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lucy's Retired Surfer's Bar

    edit
    Lucy's Retired Surfer's Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Local and otherwise not special bar treating Wikipedia as its home site. Note to closing admin: in case of deletion, please take care of the images. Renata 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Latvian footballers

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

    list is inferior to Category:Latvian footballers per consensus at [18] Jogurney 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Superior as it includes persons not listed in the category. Besides, a category doesn't preclude us from having a similiar list. -- User:Docu
    • Comment - I don't understand the value that the red links add to this article. Additionally, I suspect that other articles may already contain red links for these footballers (such as their club's article or the Latvia national football team article, if appropriate). Best regards. Jogurney 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no more information than a category. GiantSnowman 20:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete replace with a category and that way we can avoid the red links Corpx 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A point of having lists is precisely that they do include red links. They are important for the growth of wikipedia. -- User:Docu
    • Delete - Personally am generally happy for lists to coincide alongside categories over the same data providing the list actually adds additional info on the topic. This is just restating of the names involved. Redundant. AllynJ 22:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are there lists of other nation's soccer players, beyond the category? Either way, what's sauce for the Italians is sauce for the Latvians. Mandsford 02:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There were a few created within Category:Lists of footballers by country, but several have been deleted following the AfD referenced above, and most of the others have been prod'ed or Afd'd.Jogurney 13:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fanwank

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Fanwank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Second nomination. The result of the first nom was merge with Fanon (fiction) (original AfD debate here). This was in November 2006 and the merge has not taken place, apparently as a result of 'no consensus' on the Fanon (fiction) talk page as to exactly what to merge and whether a merge was even appropriate. The merge tag has since been removed.

    The Fanwank article itself still has the same problems that led to the first nomination. These are mainly that the article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006 (failing WP:ATT), and exists to define a term (failing WP:NOT#DICT). Due to the lack of suitable sources the contents are indistinguishable from original research, and consequently notability for the subject cannot be independently established. EyeSereneTALK 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete — I'm not convinced this is article fits with Wikipedia's mission. The word is not widely used [19] and the underlying concept does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Cedars 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The merge did not take place due to objections at Talk:Fanon. The concepts are, while similar, distinct, and it was felt that the merge was therefore inappropriate. "About" 26,000 ghits, plus 3,000 for the alternative spelling "fan wank", suggests that the original concern of the word being a neologism is probably no longer true. Potential reliable sources for a definition include [20]. JulesH 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: To quote from the original AfD: "Although the article smacks of original research in parts, it seems to be describing a real and recognised phenomena (though- as with many articles- it needs references). Fourohfour 11:36, 1 November 2006", and "Fanwanks definitely need to be discussed if Wikipedia is to thoroughly describe the phenomenon of fanfic. The current article isn't perfect, but a wiki article doesn't have to be perfect right away. There's definitely good solid material there, and it would be a shameful waste to throw it all away. NeonMerlin 01:59, 5 November 2006". Solid points. It is not of any consequence that the merge proposed by the original AfD was eventually rejected; the fact that it was countermanded simply militates strongly against this second AfD. As noted above and in the original AfD, there are nearly 30,000 Google hits for this term, and it has been proven in the original AfD discussion beyond any shadow of a doubt that the term, as conceived here, predates its appearance on Wikipedia, obviating any WP:NEO concerns. Yes, the article is flawed, but that is not a rationale for deletion (rather, for cleanup), nor for an already-rejected merger. NB: WP:ATT should not be cited in AfD; it is not policy, but a summarizing essay (i.e., please be more specific and dare I say canonical in citing WP policies and guidelines). WP:DICT is not an issue, as the article is hardly a simple dictionary definition, but an exploration of the meaning of the term and its real-world variations and what effect they have, in particular with critical attention turned toward fan fiction and the follies of Hollywood's attempts at canonicalism; Wiktionary would certainly not cover any of that. WP:DICT is simply outright mis-cited here. Yes, the article has sourcing problems under WP:V, some of which could be construed as a WP:NOR issue, and these do indicate that the article needs work. These do not, however, lead to a WP:N issue, as the deletion nominator suggests. Notability is very well established, and editors self-evidently more well-versed in the fanon subject than either myself or the nominator have already rejected the earlier AfD's non-specialist consensus for a merge as impractical and inappropriate; I've yet to see a rationale for overthrowing their group decision. I conclude that those who feel so strongly that this article needs work need to work on it instead of trying to make it vanish for unsupportable reasons. PS: To above "delete" commentators: How can the evident broad usage of this term support your ideas that it is a neologism (in WP:NEO terms), or that coverage of it is nonencyclopedic, or much less that the term isn't actually used? I'm sorry if some are squeamish about terms that use sexually-charged slang like "wank", but that doesn't make them unencyclopedic.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:ATT summarises two core policies (WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR) - I sometimes cite it for brevity, to save listing both policies separately, where an article clearly fails both policies. The fact that an "unreferenced" tag has been on the article for over a year should in itself be an indication that there are fundamental problems with sourcing... to the extent that sources that meet Wikipedia standards possibly don't exist. Hence "original research". The notability issue arises in part because of this - the onus is on the article itself to justify its existence. Ghits are a very imprecise way to establish notability: all they show is that a word is used by some people in some circumstances. The word "flurble" turns up 17,000 ghits, and I entered it as a made-up, nonsense word. Where are the links to uses of fanwank as defined by the article in multiple, independent, reliable sources? As for "wank", WP is not censored. It's a non-issue, and formed no part of the decision to nominate. For me though, the single biggest issue is that, whichever way you slice it, this article only exists to define the meaning and usage of a word. That makes it a dictionary definition, and a violation of WP:NOT#DICT outright. The rest is just window-dressing ;) EyeSereneTALK 14:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: Sorry if that sounded "wikipolitical"; I don't think WP:ATT is the devil or anything, it just isn't precise enough for XfD use in my opinion. To get to the meat of the matter: I disagree in that the presence of a cleanup tag for an extended period of time simply means that editors have not spent enough attention and time on the article in question; it does not mean that the problems are insoluble or that there is something inherently irreparable about the article or its nature. Just as a matter of logic. Topics are "sexy" or not for rather arbitrary, unpredicatable reasons. Regarding "wank" and censorship, I was responding to the "delete" !voter immediately after the nomination, not to the nomination. Re: "flurble", even I've heard that term before. I can't recall the alleged meaning, but I'm almost dead certain I heard it on The Simpsons, along with "d'oh" and "cromulent", etc., and I hardly ever watch that show; it frequently introduces nonce words that rapidly get absorbed by the culture, and which are reintroduced in subsequent episodes, reinforcing the absorption, so many G'hits for it is not surprising; try "sarcomulation" and "queeblor", two that I just made up out of nowhere, by way of contrast. I'll be surprised if you get a single hit for either, despite both of them being perfectly valid potential words by English phonetic and morphological rules.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply: No offense taken. Getting further off topic, I thought I'd made up "flurble" on the spot, and don't recall hearing it before, but it's perfectly possible it came from the underbrain somewhere ;) Whatever, it wasn't an attempt to be disingenuous - I was trying to illustrate the point that googling a word does little more than prove the word is in use; it doesn't in itself establish notability. EyeSereneTALK 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to people looking for use of this term: the same concept is also known by the name "fandom wank", although it is difficult to search for uses of this phrase because it is also the name of a rather popular web site devoted to cataloguing instances thereof. JulesH 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To pick another word, embiggen receives 55,600 Google hits and that's not even a real word. If you pick a real word like obsequious you get 682,000 hits. For a word, 26,200 is a puny number of hits. Cedars 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply comment: See above; "embiggen" along with "cromulent" and various other nonce words is well-documented as having been introduced by The Simpsons to an audience of tens of millions, so of course it produces tens of thousands of Google hits. The fact that "fanwank" or "fan wank" produce almost 30K G'hits (without the benfit of being featured on one of the most popular TV shows of all time) demonstrates that it is in fact a term in notable current usage. By constrast, try "gymnostolism" or "anticonflatoristicism" or "olfark". PS: See Neologism for a link to an article about terms introduced by The Simpsons...quite a number of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply comment This still doesn't get around the fact that Wikipedia is not a catalogue of words. If you're interested in writing an open content dictionary, you might like to visit http://en.wiktionary.org/. Cedars 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply: Already addressed above; the article goes far beyond a dictionary definition, whatever flaws it might still have. I appear to be putting out a flaming straw man here; I never asserted that because it is a valid word it is a valid article. I'm a firm believer in WP:DICT. If the article were just a dicdef I would have AfD'd it myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: It does indeed which is why I initially thought 'keep'. However, all of it is OR with a few refs on where it's been used. I did some searching on google but could not find any links where the term is the subject in a reliable source. → AA (talk • contribs) — 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per User:SMcCandlish Taprobanus 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. If you're insistant upon wikilawyering this specifics, let me rephrase. It has no WP:RS to satisfy WP:V which is a policy and not just a guideline - which by the way ought to be followed all the same. Bear in mind that WP:DP does indeed state a valid reason for deletion is "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" so the mandate for reliable sources is clear. Finally the deletion policy makes clear that valid reasons for deletion are not limited to the provided list. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misinterpret WP:V and piles of WP:AFD precedent in this matter. There is no evidence at all that much of an effort has been made to source this, and you certainly demonstrate no evidence of any such attempt on your part, so your claim that "all attempts...have failed" falls flat. Come back after three days of demonstrable research and this claim would carry some weight. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:V "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" - not those who dispute its accuracy. This is not my (mis)interpretation of the policy, this is a direct quotation. It is not my responsibility to prove that information cannot be verified. If the folks arguing for the inclusion of this article are unwilling or unable to do so then this article fails criteria, plain and simple. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I've already said that the article clearly needs sourcing work. My point was merely that the "all attempts" clause only applies when there is clear evidence of said effort. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Irish American writers

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

    I prodded this with the stated reasoning: "Despite the laudable efforts to include reliable sources that the listed writers are, in fact, of Irish descent, I'm suggesting that this list be deleted because there's no evidence given that their heritage is relevant in any way. (For example, why should we have this list and not a "List of blonde writers", "List of writers who wear wool socks," etc.)" Prod was removed with the comment: "Ethnicity in a writer is important to their work, at least somewhat more than their clothing is." But there is no evidence or assertion that the ethnicity of most of these writers is relevant to their work. For some of them, it obviously is, but that's extraneous to the listed criteria, which is only that the writers be "famous" and fall under the definition of Irish American. Propaniac 12:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - if this sort of info is required, perhaps it should be as a category instead? Exxolon 12:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable and does not violate List and is based on RS sources Taprobanus 12:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and as per Exxolon, make into a category. This is rather subjective (WP:NOR), and doesn't make it clear what the inclusion criteria are. EyeSereneTALK 13:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Personal history is always important to a writer, as it forms source material for the work they produce. Ethnicity and cultural heritage forms a part of this. JulesH 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't help but point out the list's entry for Alex Haley, and the accompanying quote from Haley: "On my father’s side, both paternal grandparents were the parents of white Irish fathers and black slave mothers. Therefore, I’m part Irish. I can’t feel Irish to save my soul, but it’s a fact." (I think he either misspoke or was misquoted and meant that his grandparents were the children of Irish fathers and black mothers.) In my AFD nomination, I didn't mention specific entries such as Haley's because I didn't want to overshadow the fundamental flaw of the list. But I think it rebuts the assertion that all writing can be defined in some way by the slightest trace of specific ethnicities in the author's lineage. Better criteria for a list similar to this might be if a reliable source referred to a writer's Irish ancestry while discussing the writer's work. Propaniac 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete article, possibly create category. Genius knows no nationality. Plus, many of the mentioned writers have only a distant connection to Ireland. Categorizing anyone but politicians in terms of nationality doesn't make much sense IMO (think Albert Einstein, Nicolaus Copernicus, et al.)--Targeman 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Because this is a trivial intersection. I think creating a category would also violate that. Corpx 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorize per Exxolon as it is more appropriate then a possible incomplete list.--JForget 00:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete OK, it's well researched, and author obivously worked hard on it, but honestly... isn't this just a list of writers who happen to have Irish ancestry? What does "being Irish" have to do with the works of any of these people? Merge this into some Irish-American culture article. Mandsford 02:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyborg 009 Alternative

    edit
    Cyborg 009 Alternative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Uncertain if this meets notability guidelines, or should be deleted or merged in main article. Listing for community input. No Vote. Exxolon 12:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete It sounds like non-notable fanfic. However, there's no reason to bring an article to AFD ten minutes after it was created. It's likely that the creator might improve it (or might have, were it not for the AFD), possibly enough to overcome its current inadequacies, or that it could have been deleted by prod. Propaniac 12:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I find prod to be essentially useless, as the author can remove the tag without sanction, but the article didn't fit a WP:SPEEDY criteria. Therefore I considered it appropriate to AFD it. As an AFD lasts 5 days, that's ample time to improve the article which the closing admin can take into account. Exxolon 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For many articles about non-notable subjects, the author is the only person who created the article or has any urge to defend it; I find prodding useful when such an article seems to have been abandoned by its author. If there's no evidence of such abandonment, the author should be given time to improve it, in my opinion. Propaniac 13:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment This is the creator. I created this article now because I was running out of time. I have no time for three more days. If this article could be removed from AFD temporarily, I will improve it after I regain time for it. Meanwhile, tell me what law this article violates. I will make amendments. Shisui6:40, 13 july 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Apparent fanfic; Google search on the author's screenname "Beamknight" in Korean gives 32 non-duplicate hits, among which there are zero WP:RS. [23] cab 00:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is probably because BeamKnight has not presented his work in Google at all. He doesn't work in it. If you want to find his name, go to [[24]] or [[25]]. And it isn't exactly a fanfic because the settings are very different. One may as well call it a completely different comic. And he doesn't work as 빔나이트. He works as BeamKnight. If you search for BeamKnight instead, you'll be able to find his works. Shisui8:54, 16 july 2007 (UTC)
        • I am not trying to find his works, I am trying to find whether his works have been independently reviewed by reliable sources. Please review the content of those links. Just because this comic exists, it does not necessarily mean it deserves an encyclopedia article. And "Beamknight" in the Latin alphabet gets only 36 non-duplicate GHits. [26] cab 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Corpx.--Ispy1981 00:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I cannot find any more way to defend the article. Therefore I agree to the deletion of it. i had thought of it appropriate because it is a popular comic regularly appearing in a magazine. I apologize for a disturbance.Shisui 51:7, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • And I forgot. I have not made the article for the purpose of advertisement. Please understand that if you suspected at all.Shisui 6:10 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete all. The Rambling Man 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cameron Mawer

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

    Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 11:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

    Aaron O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Craig McAllister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Danny Kedwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Luke Woodward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Moses Fakolade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Freddy Tandon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ashley Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Danny Baigent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Jamie Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Danny Knowles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Not all of his team mates should be deleted; some have played in the Football League, so they're okay. Mattythewhite 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fair enough. Just those who haven't played in the Football League should go then. Paul20070 11:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have nominated Danny Knowles for speedy deletion as a delete was the result of the previous discussion. Paul20070 12:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO I don't really see much wrong with his inclusion in Wikipedia.. he has played for a League club. One thing, is the guidelines of WP:BIO is simply only a guideline and that it doesn't say a player has had to play a match for the team, just that they have "played in a fully professional league" - perhaps not having to play a match. Mattythewhite 12:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. I've changed the speedy delete and added him to the list above so we can get some consensus on the subject. If he's a league player, then he should stay and the article be expanded. Paul20070 12:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this BBC report, Danny Knowles did not play for Gillingham in the FL.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, I created articles for a few of these players a little while ago, without knowing they had to have played in the League. These articles are useless and have little information in them. There are many articles on Conference footballers that have never played League football, for example Onome Sodje - should this be deleted as well? What do people regard as professional? Grays are full time footballers, is this not regarded as pro?
    Also Tangerine, I think Matty was stating he's been at a 'pro' club, although not played as have many Grays players. Personally, I think Cameron Mawer should be allowed to have an article as he graduated Watford's Youth Academy, played various England Youth levels and played in the reserves/had trials for various league clubs. Jimbo online 14:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Grays are full time footballers, is this not regarded as pro?" - the relevant guideline (WP:BIO) states that players have to have played in a fully professional league. The Conference is not fully professional, therefore if a player has not played above Conference level then he does not pass the guideline. And yes, Onome Sodje should be deleted, as he doesn't meet the requirement..... ChrisTheDude 14:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right, thanks for clearing that up. Jimbo online 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of philosophy component types

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    List of philosophy component types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Appears to be original research, or a eclectic personal list; few articles on the list actually exist.

    • Keep - It's a useful topics list. They are types of philosophical isms or positions. The sub-disciplines of philosophy. The articles don't exist yet, but the topics do. And the closest matches have been included. They will probably all have articles eventually, and these redlinks are convient to have in one place for this purpose because they can be clicked on to create these articles. I've blue-linked one more of them already. The Transhumanist 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete The introduction to the list doesn't really make sense ("A component of philosophy (a distinct philosophy or component of a philosophy)" is like saying "A breed of dog (a distinct dog or breed of a dog)." It seems redundant and not meaningful). I think I understand what it's talking about, but glancing at Google results for "philosophy component" doesn't seem to find any non-Wikipedia sources for referring to it as such, just a lot of pages about course requirements for college degrees and the like. If the list offered more information about the listed items, I'd be more inclined to vote to keep, but as it is, it's basically just a list of phrases with no context (and I'm not a fan of the "see also [word without philosophical in front of it]" format for every item, since there's nothing to show why, for example, Philosophical school is a distinct concept from school). Propaniac 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This might have some utility as a "to-do" list, but in that case this might be better included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy than as an article in its ownself. The list itself may need further work; for example, I'm not sure that any sort of clear or meaningful distinction can be drawn between a philosophical school and a philosophical movement. In the eventuality that worthy articles come to be written under these redlinks, perhaps the best place for a list like this would be to include it in Template:Philosophy topics. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete per above. The definition suggested by this article is confusing and self-referential as mentioned by Propaniac. It is unclear what the point of this list is. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Philosophy is a big area. Take a look at Category:Philosophy to get an idea of how big it is. But this is a small, somewhat eccentric list by one user. If it is a to-do list, it would have no place in either Template:Philosophy topics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. Perhaps the only place for it would be on The Transhumanist's user page. There is no obvious rational for this list. Banno 20:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete This is nothing more than a list of articles that might be written in the near future, as the color shows. There's nothing intelligent or deep about this so-called philosophy discussion. Opening soon, a philosophical McDonald's at this site. Mandsford 02:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete a list of possible topics or definitions, but it could never be an article.DGG (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete 'philosophy component type' is not a recognised or useful category. No one is going to search for it or know what might be in it when they see it. Anarchia 11:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PrimoPDF. Tizio 11:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Primopdf

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

    Reason cbc 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I created this article as Primopdf, then realized it should be called PrimoPDF, created that page before I realized how to rename a page, and now want to correct my error by deleting the inappropriately named page.

    --cbc 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elliott Yamin. KrakatoaKatie 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You Are the One

    edit
    You Are the One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    fails WP:MUSIC

    Delete. Article fails WP:MUSIC as it fails to assert that the subject is notable: furthermore WP:Music#Songs states:

    A song is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards:

    1. ...has been covered in sufficient independent works.
    2. ...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group.
    3. ...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart.
    4. ...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire.
    5. ...has won a significant award or honor.

    Since "You Are The One" is none of the above, it is a candidate for speedy deletion. lone_twin 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete although the artist asserts notability as per WP:MUSIC, the song does not. If the single hits the music charts or becomes notable it can be relisted. The content is so sparse that the rewrite is indeed necessary anyway, so delete for now pending notability of song.Plm209(talk • contribs) 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian coalition against death penalty

    edit
    Australian coalition against death penalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    From the number of maintainance tags and the red text on the top of the page, it is obvious that this isn't an encyclopedia article. Aside from all that, this isn't a notable organisation either. All I could find was a couple of mentions one sentence long during the Shapelle Corby/Bali Nine sagas. Also, the fact that this "article" has remained with a lowercase title for months speaks volumes about what editors are willing to do to fix it - zero. MER-C 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take a look at the current version. I have claened it up Taprobanus 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I tried to clean it up as best as I can, but looks like there is not enough credible RS sources that will support an entry into wikipedia. I dont think anyone who has voted delete here has any other intenstions other than to follow wikipedia rules, this should now ne considered under WP:SNOWTaprobanus 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While I agree that you shouldn't be able to kill an article by swarming it with maintenance tags--wow. That is a LOT of maintenance tags. And it's a terrible article that's almost all just about the death penalty instead of the organization, and there's nothing proving the notability of the organization, and the org sure does seem to be using Wikipedia for their official website, and let's just get rid of the thing, without prejudice against a decent article being created in the future to describe the organization only, if it can prove notability. Propaniac 12:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Blimey. Seems {{articleissues}} just isn't good enough for some people! All the tags are legit, mind. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is soapboxing, and vires completely away from the subject. As Propaniac rightly points out, the factual content of this article is all concerned with the death penalty, take all that away and you're left with nothing but the company's mission statement, which is far from neutral and with no assertions to notability. This violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:NOT#SOAP. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned up, take a look at it now Taprobanus 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still no assertion of meeting WP:ORG. Propaniac 13:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ORG read The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. I think the current version (a stub) meets that asertion Taprobanus 14:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete it is possible that a decent article could be written about this group--however, this is just an excuse for a long POV essay.DGG (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just leave personalities alone and comment on the content, I tried to clean up assuming good faith and in the process found another article much shorter so I directed it there as looks like a better title, there was no attempt to hide, cheat or disregard community consensus. I have changed my mind after few days looking at it. My advice , no need to get emotional and upset over such trivial details about XFD responsibilities. You’ve made your point very well and just move on, and the community most of the time comes to the right conclusion if not on the first attempt at least on the nth attempt :))Taprobanus 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Freedom of speech is about the right of individuals and private organizations to speak without government interference; freedom of speech is also about the right of private organizations, such as Wikipedia, to decide what speech they will and won't make; it is not about the right of one private entity (such as you) to dictate what information another private entity (such as Wikipedia) must or mustn't transmit. — President Lethe 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Assume good faith. Those who support deleting this article are not "pro-death penalty individuals". They merely do not think that the organisation is notable, while Amnesty International clearly is. It is nothing to do with freedom of speech. --Bduke 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those advocating deletion may be for or against the death penalty; your "are not" seems prejudicial, although it may have been stated in good faith. But the death-penalty stances of voters on this nomination are irrelevant, while, as you rightly point out, notability of the organization is relevant, as is the quality of the article. — President Lethe 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My intention was to indicate that the participants are not participating in this debate as "pro-death penalty individuals" (or as "anti-death penalty individuals") and the anon editor had no evidence that the participants were biased. --Bduke 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No; hatred is not the appropriate motive for deciding what to include in, or exclude from, Wikipedia. — President Lethe 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was purely joking (well, 50% joking and 50% curious about whether the editor I responded to would reply in the affirmative). Propaniac 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We are now arguing about the deletion nomination of an article that, for more than 50 hours and in reaction to this deletion nomination, has read, in a style unbefitting Wikipedia, "1.  REDIRECT Acadp"—in its entirety. Such articles do not belong at Wikipedia. Editors who appear to be editing the article in an effort to keep it, and/or a very similar article, at Wikipedia have consistently demonstrated a misunderstanding of what type of information is to be included at Wikipedia and how it is to be presented, despite their direction, by other editors, to sources that should help them improve that understanding. It may be difficult to sympathize with a desire for information to remain at Wikipedia when those advocating its retention seem to show so little regard for the spirit of the project. Even with the removal of article text that skirted so many Wikipedia guidelines and policies, we have been left with (1) an article about an organization that seems not to meet the notability requirements and (2) the unusually presented redirection link mentioned at the beginning of this comment. — President Lethe 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is also a process not just a stale set of policies. People will get it wrong and they will eventually get it right but by then there will be more people who are newbie’s who will muddy the waters because of their lack of understanding of policies. This is will go on all the time in an open source environment. As part of the solution to deal with it we have XFD’s. Looks like just one person wants to keep it now, do we need all this energy wasted talking about an article about such as non notable organization any more attributing intents and intentions on behalf of editors unless such arguments are meant for a different audience? The basic question still is, does the article belong in wikipedia, clearly NO. Thanks Taprobanus 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DO NOT Delete There have been many allegations made here for deletion, none of which have any foundation whatsoever. ACADP is a very noted human rights organization, both in Australia and overseas. There have been many media articles over the years quoting ACADP, which can be found on internet search engines. Plus many links to other international human rights organizations including Amnesty International. In addition, the official site does not mention Wikepedia at all. The contents is no different to other human rights organizations in Wikipedia. ACADP has a right to free speech in their own words, not those of others who are obviously so self righteous and judgemental. What's the problem? Clean up does not mean deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.105.1 (talk • contribs) 20:04, July 17, 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 keep. Please discuss merge related options on article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Abu Ghraib

    edit
    Battle of Abu Ghraib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article covers two incidents at the external perimeter of Abu Ghraib prison involving US military and (for want of a better NPOV expression) Iraqi irregulars in April 2005. It raises a number of issues:

    • Only basic facts come from independent sources. The detail is from participants' accounts and US military press releases.
    • It is written from a US military perspective throughout. It also goes into excessive detail (ie weapon types, minor gallantry awards, etc) for a general interest encyclopedia and includes speculative material about a high Iraqi body count.
    • Although newsworthy at the time, there has been little or no coverage since and so is of dubious notability.
    • Clearly written in good faith, it seems to memorialise the incident and appears to have ownership issues.
    • One option is to reduce it to a stub and merge into the Abu Ghraib prison article. This has already been suggested but was opposed.
    -- ROGER TALK 11:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A proposed merge doesn't need to go beyond the two articles' talk pages, true, but merging is a valid AFD recommendation: Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected ....". --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Miwa Oshiro

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

    prod was removed because the person is notable in at least four other languages on wiki. Problems with that: 1) Just because they are there doesn't mean she should be. 2) THIS article shows no notability which is why I proded it. I don't care what the other articles say - I care about this article. And this article shows nothing other than the fact that this woman exists and sheer existence is not notable. The article has not been improved in some time and unless it is, I think she should go as nn. Postcard Cathy 11:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't care if she appeared in 3000 films because if they were all direct to video not worth the money to rent them films, then it is not notable. Plus, you are saying that here and not in the article - the article doesn't indicate that. Plus, as I said before, I don't care if she has articles on every wiki out there. That doesn't mean a thing. If there was an article on several wikis that said "Callelina has green hair and orange eyes" and nothing else, would you say that that article should be kept simply because it is on the English, Japanese and Swedish wikis? Cathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs)
    same argument I made to Callelina. She could have 1,103,000 hits for all I care but you know most of those are going to be irrelevant or mirror sites. But what is relevant hasn't made it to the article. And that is all that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs)
    • Delete because even the jawiki version of the article fails to assert notability. Most of her videos do not appear to be notable productions but rather random dime-a-dozen gravure movies. I have my doubts about the notability of Eiken, and the only other appearance listed for her is as a guest on a variety show, which doesn't really constitute non-trivial coverage. Also, those tens of thousands of GHits turn out to be 440 in English [29] and 727 in Japanese/Chinese [30] if you click through to the last page of the Google search. cab 00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wotta lotta crap. Delete. I wish her no harm, but if she were harmed I doubt that the ambulance crew would look her up in en:WP; as long as they don't, why should we be told her blood group? (Or does en:WP subscribe to this drivel?) Motivation for this "information" aside, how is it related to her "Appearance"? -- Hoary 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT I don't know why but lot's of bios of Asian people (even Asian fictional characters) have blood types listed. I guess it is a cultural thing.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Mortimer

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

    Totally unsourced biographical article (violates WP:BLP). Questionable notability. Marwood 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The lack of reliable sources for this article is a major concern here. A google search shows up few useful links for this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (edit conflict) I don't see this individual passing WP:BIO and there's hardly even anything that could count as an assertion of notability in the article. I haven't been able to find anything about him on Google that would make him noteable either (and, considering that the name is somewhat common, the person I got a few hits on may not even be him). This bio would be appropriate for Myspace and possibly many other websites but this is not Myspace. --S up? 11:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep One source of information was from the SinDef flash website, www.sindef.co.uk. Part of the group SinDef, he falls under the alias of 'Mike Notion'. I will be updating the 'Musical Background' section as soon as possible with information sourced from this website and I also contact Michael Mortimer himself via this website for more information about himself which is of course the most reliable too. He also known for his Freeriding in the South Essex area, in Essex, England, by people who track the sport. I believe this article is a useful bibliographical addition to Wikipedia and should not be removed.

    Daves bots 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Before you do that, please read WP:RS. Thank you. -- S up? 12:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO, not really much assertion of notability. Only webpage cited is a self-published website of a non-notable musical group. Hut 8.5 12:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete failing WP:NOTE - Reads like an autobiography! Corpx 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Reads like an autobiography? Ludicrous. Anyway, if you are all going to act as if you know that this person is not of any notable quality then go for it, you may as well delete it. After all, people don't go round sniffing out wikipedia pages in which to vote to KEEP do you, so in any case the vote will be lost by me. Daves bots 23:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I suspect "the Lank" is a friend of the author. NawlinWiki 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Who's the Lank?

    edit
    Who's the Lank? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced (or rather, has three sources none of which mention the subject), google hasn't heard of it outside Wikipedia. Weregerbil 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Upcoming hip hop albums

    edit
    Upcoming hip hop albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a crystall ball plain and simple. Category:Upcoming albums serves this purpose and even if an album was verified to come out, it should simply stay in its own page and not an "upcoming" article list. Spellcast 09:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect the Prime Minister

    edit
    Protect the Prime Minister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability (WP:N), no independent references (WP:V). I think with game mod articles these should be shown as soon as possible, since there are so many unnotable mods out there. Prod was removed by an anonymous user without addressing these concerns. MarašmusïneTalk 09:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Luquire George Andrews, Inc.

    edit
    Luquire George Andrews, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Advertisement for ad agency Gilliam 08:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Technoport

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

    De-prodded by only editor. Does not appear notable, and no sources. — Coren (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: article previously speedied as spam. [31] — Coren (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Albeit the same subject, this is not the same article as the one that was speedy-deleted. It has been condensed and rewritten from the deleted version and is somewhat less spammy than the previous version. However, it could still use some work to be more objective.
    2. There is a possibility of some notability here. I found about 900 Google hits (admittedly not a lot) from "Technoport Trondheim" and "Technoport Norway".
    I have no opinion on this deletion, but I think we should let it run its course through AFD. However, if the authors cannot provide any more sources and indications of notability, it will likely deleted. ●DanMS • Talk 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vidyashilp Academy

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Vidyashilp Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This page is extremely POV and cites no references. The only two links given are broken. DraxusD 06:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, because it's a real academy, and therefore notable, but trim all POV phrases -- which amounts to a lot of the article. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 08:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete secondary schools are not automatically all notable; this school apparently gets a lot of attention from high levels (e.g The Hindu publishes their sports results and chess tournament standings), but I don't see any non-trivial discussion to support encyclopedic notability. [32] The 91 non-duplicate Google web hits [33] don't contain any additional WP:RS. Might be a "keep" if I saw evidence of a lot of notable alumni or something. cab 09:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep It is well established that all secondary schools are automatically notable. Hawkestone 11:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Thewinchester (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This school is clearly notable. (Also, I fixed one of the broken external links - to the Times of India article.) -- DS1953 talk 15:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Firstly, there is no notability policy specific to schools in existence, so we have to default back to WP:N in the case of this article. The debate on school notability is still out, and I don't see a chance of a reasonable guideline gaining community acceptance anytime soon, and as the Schools deletion queue shows, the jury is still out on the matter. The notability benchmark for this article has not been met, because there has been no significant reliable coverage from sources independent of the article's subject. Further to this, the article does not meet WP:V on account of any WP:RS being provided to support the information included. To top it all off, significant portions of the article breach WP:COPYVIO being lifted word for word from the school's own website. This is another one of those great schoolcruft examples which we have come to know and loathe. Thewinchester (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - WP:BJAODN. Per TWin. Lets look at this article - some of the best b/s i have ever seen. Its so notable they dont even have an official website mentioned. No RS. Google says nothing about it. Aquinascruft all over again. Twenty Years 16:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Thewinchester has pretty much said it all. Eusebeus 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. I've fixed the other broken link and added a link to the school website. The school is clearly notable. It offers a unique but controversial teaching programme as can be seen from the external links. The article is poorly written and needs a complete rewrite but should not be deleted. Dahliarose 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've edited the page and removed the POV parts (which someone should have done before nominating the article for deletion, in an ideal world). Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it had only been a little POV issue I would have. The article looked to be almost entirely POV, reading like promotional material. After seeing two broken external links and no references (I'm sorry, but anything "clearly notable" would be easy to locate decent references for... which nobody seems to have been able to do, even after two AfD's that somehow passed) I decided to nominate it. A fraction of the article's unreferenced material looked salvageable (thanks for doing so), and nothing even links to the article. DraxusD 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't forget that this article is about a school in India. There are no doubt multiple references in the Indian language. The lack of linking articles is more of a reflection of Wikipedia's poor coverage of Indian topics in general rather than any reflection on the school's notability. Dahliarose 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, Seams like a very notable school to me, especially the facilities. Callelinea 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I have not looked at the earlier versions, but it looks OK now with sources and notability. --Bduke 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm glad there are a couple sources up now, but they seem weak to me. Rather than articles about the school consisting of content written by a third party, they are both very short descriptions of the school followed by interview questions and responses. They are almost entirely the school's words, so the bulk of the articles read like promotional material. Honestly I couldn't really figure out a consensus on sources such as these after looking through Wikipedia's guidelines so I may be entirely wrong. DraxusD 01:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I concur with DraxusD, and the article in question has been significantly cut back within the last 12 hours, and a number of the copyvios removed. However, the sources being used are essentially trivial because they are from articles where a key figure of the subject in question was directly interviewed or involved in sourcing of the content, therefore they must be treated with a reasonable grain of salt. I remember this extemporaneous AfD which amongst other editorial issues debated the issue of using newspaper coverage to determine notability where the article subject was a direct participant in the story. The consensus in that case was that the articles were deemed trivial coverage and therefore could not be used as a basis for establishing notability, a point made by the closing admin. Thewinchester (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can an interview in one of the main national newspapers in India (The Times of India) possibly be regarded as a trivial source? The fact that a national newspaper has chosen to focus on the school demonstrates its notability beyond doubt. There can be very few school heads in the world who've been interviewed by national newspapers. Dahliarose 23:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the newspaper which is considered trivial, it's the coverage that is trivial, and particularly in this case with the ToI article being used to assert notability. The article only has a very tenuous link back to the school on the ground that one of it's trustees was interviewed about their educational vision, in which the interviewee just happens to do a bit of marketing for the institution. The article is a puff/promotional piece at best, a Q&A session at its worst (The key point of the AfD I mentioned in my previous comment, which also was from a national daily newspaper from one country). The same is also true of the article from Businessgyan, which too interviews an MD of the school and is just another Q&A puff piece. This makes both the articles trivial and therefore not meet the required standard of WP:N. Thewinchester (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see how the school being covered in a large newspaper demonstrates some notability in and of itself, but the content has to be considered. The articles are just a quick prompt for a repeat of self-published content. What would really establish notability would be the author talking about the school, from an outside perspective. We haven't seen anyone actually talk about the school, be it their opinion or just facts. The only content we have is from the school's mouth. Wikipedia:Notability states ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail...". The source hasn't done that, but merely provided an outlet for the school. DraxusD 04:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both interviews are quite lengthy pieces which clearly satisfy the criterion for significant coverage. The articles are in reliable third-party publications, including one national newspaper. The interviews are conducted and written up by journalists. These journalists have no connection with the school and have made a conscious editorial decision to invite the person to be interviewed. The editor has then accepted the interview for publication. Are you therefore criticising the editorial policy and judgement of a respected national newspaper such as the India Times? I don't understand what you mean about the source providing an 'outlet for the school'. If someone is interviewed about a school where he works he's going to talk about the school. What else is he supposed to talk about? Wikipedia is supposed to provide a neutral point of view and present information from all reliable sources. You cannot exclude a source simply because you don't like the way it has been written or because it provides too favourable a view of its subject. Dahliarose 12:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to argue that the source shouldn't be used to obtain content for the article, of course it should. I don't think it demonstrates much notability though. I'm not asking to exclude the source because it provides "too favourable a view of its subject". The source hasn't provided any "view" of the subject, the school has. The source might as well have said "I'll ask you broad questions, you read from your wesbite.". I don't think it should be treated the same as an article with content researched and written by the source. I just don't see how the source offers any notability beyond "we know they exist". The article is only lengthy because the school has a lot of promo material, not because a third-party party chose to discuss the subject in depth. DraxusD 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The interviewer is the third party and the interviewer chose to ask those questions. You are therefore criticising the interviewer not the school. The school has a unique programme of education (no homework, no exams) and it is only natural that the interviewer should discuss this programme in an interview. It is hardly promo material. The school is far more notable than most of the other, mainly American schools, which come up for deletion here. The only defence for these schools seems to be that all high schools are notable. None of these schools have even had a mention in a national newspaper. Why do you have such a problem with an Indian school which has readily demonstrated its notability ? The Fairfield Union High School above has nothing more than a directory entry but you don't seem to be objecting to that. We have far too many American schools and very little coverage of Indian schools. Don't forget that there will inevitably be many sources Indian-language publications too. I have in any case now expanded the article and added further references.Dahliarose 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not criticising anything, it's a fine interview, I'm saying I think the coverage is trivial due to the fact that almost all of the content is not written, but published, by the source. I'm only commenting on this school because I nominated after stumbling upon it while RC patrolling. Whatever else I don't comment on has nothing to do with this AfD. I'm not targetting this school because it's Indian, I'd have done the same for a similar american school article. Suggesting otherwise isn't assuming good faith. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep this article. DraxusD 09:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the interviews were published by the school then your criticisms would be valid. However, the interviews were written and published in completely independent sources, not by the school itself. Clearly school prospectuses and school websites are not independent sources and must be used with care, but schools do not have any control whatsoever over the editorial content of national newspapers. The newspaper writer has chosen to focus on the school because of its unique 'no homework, no textbooks, no exams' programme, which is hardly a trivial subject. I accept that each article has to be judged on its own merits. I therefore suggest you take a look at the current version of the Vidhashilp Academy article. I've added a few sources, and Terriersfan has also been working hard to improve the article. I fail to see how anyone can possibly think this school is not notable based on the current article. Dahliarose 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Minneagraphers

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

    Article is about dubious terminology that is unnotable and doesn't seem to exist beyond one person's blog (less than 200 hits on Google, the first of which is this article). Entire article may be linkspam. Amake 06:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Baur H-AR

    edit
    Baur H-AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    One-liner article describing non-notable fictional weapon from game. — Coren (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie hábleme 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Ohlman

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

    Generally the situation with aikido teachers ranks above 7th Dan are considered notable in itself. Those listed with 6th Dan have something else adding to their notability and that would have to be exceptional for 5th Dans. There are an awful lot of 5th Dans around. Training in Japan, even Chief Instructor at a dojo in Japan, is not that unique. I've done that and I know others in his aikido organization that have done it. Further the teacher he is associated with does not even have an article so there is no way to evaluate how important that relationship is. There have been a number of deletions of aikidoists for much the same reason.Peter Rehse 05:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    edit
    Medusa and gorgons in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - this is in large measure a rewrite of the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture. Despite the rewrite this is still a directory of loosely associated topics. All of the same reasons to delete the original article apply to this runaround of the consensus to delete. Otto4711 05:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete (again) because this is purely a trivia collection. The content of the article was the focus of the last AFD and I dont see how different formatting makes it any different. Corpx 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Unfortunately, I don't see any assertion of notability, references showing that a connection exists between the information (aside from OR), or secondary sources for that matter. (Personally I find it sad that the authors seem to put so much work into it, as it shows a dedication to quality of work.. but if the topic isn't worthy of an article, it isn't going to be, no matter how much work they put into it..) spazure 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep pending how additional sourcing pans out. Spazure 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep He's now got at least two reliable secondary sources, and is still working on it. Let's not forget that Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc started out as an "in popular culture" section. Due to the author's ongoing dedication to making sure it's not just a list of loosely associated topics, and his willingness to work with the community to assure it's a quality encyclopedia article -- I now change my stance to a very strong keep. Spazure 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Wikipedia is a human endeavor, and as such can make exceptions, especially in borderline cases -- it is for this very reason that the Ignore All Rules guideline exists. Common sense dictates that this very well-written article (which is abundantly sourced) should be kept, even if it violates the no-directory guideline. And I think that such a violation would require a pretty broad reading of that guideline, anyway. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 08:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per User:Tlogmer Taprobanus 14:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Medusa or Gorgon, as the case may be. This exemplary rewrite illustrates the way "popular culture" material ought to be handled. Since it is now adequately referenced, and neither of the chief articles are extremely long, there is no reason for this to be separate from the chief articles. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Strong Keep. I very much appreciate the support of this new version of the article, as I have tried to implement changes to the article based on criticism and comments from other deletion discussions, and am continuing to do so. The more I've researched the topic, the more I believe that much of the information deserves to survive in some form. I think that current detractors may be blinded by the video game references and such; I am coming to see that I will probably not be able to find any sources that will tie them in as support for the general thrust of the article, so I will probably remove the specific game references in my next edit. The scope of the article is now more or less leaning toward the cultural impact of the character, and I am still kind of surprised that I haven't been able to persuade Corpx, etc. of the topic's notability considering I've quoted at least one book written about this exact topic. And that book references others I have yet to explore. Not many other mythological characters are so significant as to inspire so much analysis and dramatization. I was also thinking about merging some of the info back into the Medusa/Gorgon articles (actually just into Medusa, with a link to that section from Gorgon), but I still feel like it may bog the article down. TAnthony 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    TAnthony, when participating in an AFD discussion, please clarify that you are the author of the article when that is the case. You implied it but did not state it directly. Thank you! ●DanMS • Talk 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the transformation this article has gone though since the AfD nom, I don't think deletion is an option at this point. The article has gone beyond the "in popular culture" scope, and ultimately it will be renamed to reflect this. TAnthony 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Meh. This is a much better approach to "In Pop Culture" articles than the standard laundry-list format but it still falls short. It starts admirably by explaining the difference between ancient and modern depictions of the gorgon and its useage in film, but still seems to have a tendency to start regurgitating appearances with extra detail. Trimming out unnecessary references and merging the appropriate content into Medusa (with an inbound link from the section in Gorgon) would be appropriate in this situation. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. User TAnthony has committed to continued improvement and has sourced a book about this exact topic.Canuckle 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He said there were others. Canuckle 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, Corpx, you are not easily swayed. Obviously a single source isn't enough for a "perfect" article but it should be enough to stave off deletion. TAnthony 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the current content is inappropriate, then edit it. Only if it is beyond rescuing should the article be deleted. There do seem to be multiple sources that examine Medusa in art and culture and feminist theory. On examination, I think this should be Merged into Medusa given its length and potential for expansion. Canuckle 15:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont know how any editing can make it not violate the WP:FIVE, which says WP is not a trivia collection. Trivia sections as subsections of articles are discouraged by WP:TRIVIA and one by itself is a gross violation of WP:FIVE Corpx 17:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also would like to say that just because a book is written about trivia, it is not okay to list the trivia here. I would think that WP:FIVE supercedes WP:NOTE in this case. Corpx 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if it's just a list of appearances, then its vulnerable to charges of being just a trivia collection. However, there have been many notable works of Medusa, and there have also been many examinations of the meaning of Medusa in those works. Meaningful is the opposite of trivial (I think). And the coverage is significant such that it's not violating WP:OR to pull out the analysis. Yes, the examination may be by artist(s) or by period (The Medusa Reader did include works from ancient times to advertising [Versace] to pop culture but was criticized by reviewers for lack of analysis) but examinations by period should be encyclopedic. It isn't OR and it is consistent with WP:FIVE as is Being Bold. Canuckle 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldnt mind if this was something like "List of works about gorgons and medusas" or something, where only works about gorgons and medusas are listed. Currently, anytime a gorgon or medusa has appeared in a book or movie, it could be listed here. Corpx 02:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Unlike 90% of "X In Popular Culture" articles, this one is sourced, provides meaningful commentary on its subject and mostly steers clear of cataloguing trivial mentions. It would be improved by having less reliance on a single book for sourcing, and the Use of the Name section could do with more context, but there's definitely potential. Could merge into either Medusa or gorgon, but as it's a similar length to those articles I think there's a case for keeping it separate. Iain99 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. I'd like to see more improvement and varied sources, but I definitely agree with Tlogmer that the article does not blatantly fail WP:NOT#DIR, and Ignore all rules seems to apply. Anyway, what constitutes OR can be blurry. I would argue that simply putting a reasonable and sourced reference in an article and letting the reader assess the relevance is not necessarily the same thing as asserting a connection. TheRhani 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that "Keep" supporter Canuckle made the suggestion on the article's Talk page to ultimately merge this article back into the Medusa article. I think this may be a good idea if if this article continues to develop in the "cultural impact of Medusa" direction; it would be an appropriate part of the Medusa article, which itself needs development in the art and literary sections. This would also reinforce the film references as examples of the character's iconic status and evolvement etc. rather than stand-alone culture references (though in a merge I would probably get rid of more of the smaller refs). Even now I think the article has gone somewhat beyond the "in popular culture" scope. It should definitely not be deleted at this point, as it is involving. Perhaps there is a more appropriate article name. TheRhani 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Blatant failure of WP:NOT#DIR, just had the bullets removed. Should have been speedied because the concern from the previous debate has not been addressed at all. Jay32183 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you even looked at the article lately? The revision goes way farther than just taking the bullets out. There may be some extraneous things I haven't gotten around to sourcing or removing yet, but the opening, the "Dramatizations" and "Name" sections are pretty well sourced with analytical quotes from a secondary source. I'm sure you're sick of defending your opinion, but perhaps you could be a bit more specific about items that bother you. At this point I don't think your previous argument that "This entire article is an unsourced assertion" is valid. TAnthony 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing that can be done to the article that would make it not fail WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nonsense. It's not a "list of" article, it certainly CAN be rewritten to have no directory aspects at all. The fact that you are too lazy to do so does not give you a rationale to delete it completely. With that logic any article on the site that was less than perfect would just be deleted instead of improved. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem. DreamGuy 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, but this is the language:

    Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted.

    • It is not specific at all about what constitutes "loosely associated topics" and says nothing about references or how items may be used as examples ... it doesn't actually say a whole lot of anything. You may interpret this or another article as containing "loosely associated topics," and you may be right or you may be wrong, but nothing in the above policy makes your opinion anything more than your opinion.TAnthony 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly do understand how you can see it that way. However, though the article's scope needs clarifying, I see it this way: the lead paragraph(s) make the referenced statement that Medusa is "one of the most popular and enduring figures of Greek mythology" and subsequent sections begin to illustrate how. The Lost ref may be pushing it, but hey, there's a reason they didn't name the attractive, paralyzing spider Petunia Pig. TAnthony 04:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I would normally vote delete on something like this, but the article seems to have some value. My concern is that almost all of the references are to a book whose contents I cannot readily check. This worries me because 1) can't check for copyvio, and 2) not sure if the connections between the pop cultures references are from the book or if they are original research. In any case, I vote a weak keep because I think this article is reasonably encyclopedic and provides value to Wikipedia, despite my reservations. --Jaysweet 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the contents of the book are not available online, the thing to do is go to the library, not delete the article. :P Not that I have time to do that (or most people, for that matter). Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Touche. But yeah, I'm not going to the library. ;p Hence the weak keep vote... If I'm not willing to do the research myself, my only other choice is to assume the references are legit. --Jaysweet 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with citing books - in fact most professional scholarship is still only available in print form (or at exorbitant rates online) so often the best sources available are print ones. Until PLoS and similar projects take off we'll just have to get off our bums and go to the library occasionally. :-( Iain99 22:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Online access should not be a requirement for sources, but Medusa: Solving the Mystery of the Gorgon is actually viewable online through Amazon.com's "Search within the book" feature. TAnthony 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to clarify that I wasn't trying to devalue books as sources for Wikipedia. Many of the very best written Wikipedia articles rely on a variety of print-only sources. I was just saying that it worries me a little bit that about 2/3 of the references are to a single source that I doubt many of the participants in this AfD are going to check. That's not a knock against the article; it's a knock against the level of dedication I suspect that most AfD participants (including myself) will have to verifying everything that goes into a particular article.
    But it's sort of moot now anyway since it's available online. --Jaysweet 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I wanted to note here that since the above comments, more varied sources have been added. TAnthony 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This article is very different from other "in poplar culture" articles that have been deleted. THis article does not present a list of trivia, or describe every looseley associated appearance of a gorgon in contemporary media. Instead the article gives a factual (and fairly detailed) overview of the evlution of gorgons from classical mythology to popular culture, the symbolism that they connote, andtheir implications, with examples serving as a support, but not as the entire article. I could make a better argument for the deletion of Satan in popular culture than has been made for the deletion of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Extravagance (talk • contribs)
    • Keep - The rush to delete "in popular culture" articles in most cases, and certainly in this one, completely violates the concept of deletion. Deletion is for articles that are unsalvagable and add nothing to Wikipedia. If an In popular culture article has too much trivia on it, delete the trivia, and keep the good refs. It's much easier to manage the unending flow of people wanting to add crap to articles if pop culture sections are split off from the main articles, and it's been the standard and wholly consensus way of handling these things for years. Anyone voting delete should not be allowed to do so without from then on adding the main topic article to their watch list and aggressively removing crap fictioncruft that gets added from then on, otherwise the deletion vote just ends up bringing every part they thought was abd to the main article instead, which is one of the major problems with Wikipedia. DreamGuy 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • People wanting to add or retain material are the ones responsible for making sure it follows the inclusion criteria. In fact, the people arguing to delete an article don't want any of the content kept, so there's no point in doing anything to the article. Jay32183 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolute nonsense. If you don't want it kept, you are saying that the article itself CANNOT meet Wikipedia standards. If you are saying it currently doesn't meet them but could there is no rationale to delete. I mean, I can say I want your editor account delete because it serves no purpose on Wikipedia, and you can say that's not a valid reason to delete a user and I can say, hey, it's up to you to demonstrate your worth as a user and since you haven't you should be deleted and since I am arguing that you should be deleted and I want you gone then I shouldn't have to be bothered to come up with any sane and rationale explanation. You need to follow policies, not just say "I don't like it." DreamGuy 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am, in fact saying that the article will never meet Wikipedia standards. Which is why I said it does not make sense for you to tell people saying the article should be deleted to do clean up work. Jay32183 22:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but what gives you the knowledge to be able to see that this article will "never meet Wikipedia standards"? We may as well all pack our bags and leave the project to you to manage, if you can be so sure about what will meet standards and what won't. This is an article not a list - and I see nothing wrong with lists per se - but have you bothered to read this one? It's a work in progress for heaven's sake, it is referenced - much more than many many articles here - and this is absurd. Tvoz |talk 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per the comments of DreamGuy and Extravagance. Better to have popular culture stuff in its own article than cluttering up more serious and intellectually-oriented articles. It also does serve a purpose in illustrating the modern usage of gorgons, which is a substantially different thing than classical usage, and researched enough (as evidenced by the plethora of refs) to be it's own article. --clpo13 06:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, better here than there is a terrible reason for having an article. If the information is "clutter" in the main article then the proper course of action is to remove it, not preserve it by dumping it off into its own aricle and onto the laps of other editors. As for the "plethora" of references, eleven of them come from within a handful of pages of a single book and the rest are from such scholarly works as Yahoo TV listings to capture such important references as a fictional poison and a fictional spider that are not in fact depictions of either Medusa or a gorgon but are simply things that share the same name and are otherwise not associated with the mythological creature. Otto4711 15:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What does it matter if the current references are from a single book, are any of the quotes/claims unbelievable or fabricated? You are in such a hurry to delete this, give a person a chance to research the article further, we all have limited time to dedicate to our endeavors here. And I think it's become pretty obvious that much has been written on the topic of Medusa, the sources are out there.
    The poison/spider references are perhaps trivial, but are perfect examples of the earlier statement that the name itself has connotations, infers paralysis, etc. TAnthony 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Proper course of action"? According to whom, exactly? --clpo13 06:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This is a sourced piece, used by researchers and writers. This seems to be part of the knee-jerk reflexive wholesale deletion of lists of popular culture-related material without careful review and consideration or specific reason why this one is not valid. The project is being damaged by these deletions. We are not Britannica - stop trying to narrow our scope. Tvoz |talk 07:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this article was created less than a week ago I have to dispute the contention that it is used by researchers or writers. I must also protest your blanket condemnation of the dedicated effort to clean up the "...in popular culture" mess as "kneejerk." Otto4711 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies if the word offended, I didn't intend to do that - let's say "reflexive". But I think if indeed the article has only been here for a week, my point about the deletion nom is accurate: it is part of an ongoing wholesale deletion of what you call the "mess" of "in popular culture" articles, and I think they are being deleted in an indiscriminate fashion for no valid reason. My shorthand summary "sourced piece, used by researchers and writers" could have been better worded as "sourced piece, that has value to researchers and writers". Would that make any difference to you? I expect not, as you seem to be determined to remove the scourge of popular culture lists from the project, and I for one object to it. Nowhere, in the Afd's I've seen, have you made a cogent case for what harm is being caused by these or why they should be eliminated. As for this being a runaround, I didn't see you objecting to the rapid renom for deletion of another list that had been kept as "no consensus" recently, so let's be real here. Tvoz |talk 17:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think the sourcing is the problem. Nobody is arguing WP:NOTE. Problem is that this is in violation of WP:FIVE, which says WP is not a trivia collection. This does not make an exception for trivia that's well-sourced. Corpx 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Does it matter that WP:TRIVIA says "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary"? Maybe I'm missing it but I don't see the word "delete" on that guidelines page. Canuckle 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Practical_steps says If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it., and Avoid very general names like "In popular culture" or "Miscellanea." . And Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Trivia_articles says Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided. Corvus cornix 23:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. And in my own clumsy way I am trying to improve the article. I've been bold and removed unimportant items (not articles) and suggested kicking appropriate content back into the main article so as to avoid a standalone trivia article. Could connections be stronger. Yes. Can they potentially be made stronger? Given the scale of scholarly review of these, quite possibly yes. Canuckle 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. May I suggest that "current" be removed from the title, at any rate? We write for posterity, you know... Sandstein 09:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Current diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article needs a complete rewrite. Besides, an article covering the same topic already exists: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747. I suggest we keep the later with a re-direct from the present article to the UN resolution and delete the present article's content because all material facts are included/reported in the UN resolutions. It will keep the content's quality high WITHOUT any loss of information SSZ 05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we create a re-direct from this article to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 instead? May be it is the best thing to do :-) SSZ 05:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why?--SefringleTalk 05:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the title here is more explanatory than "UN resolution 1747" but the content is much better in the later case. Many facts are missing here and both documents cover the SAME subject. SSZ 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The resolution may not discuss everything related to the topic of diplomatic tensions b/t the U.S. and Iran. There is more to the topic than just the resolution.--SefringleTalk 06:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure you have read the article completely. If so, please tell what has been omitted in the later case?? As said previously, any significant new developments will be covered by new UN resolutions. The article as it is written now, looks more like a political soapbox to me. SSZ 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This doesn't seem to fit for a variety of partially-effective arguments: it's something of a POV fork, it's SYN-thetic, recentist, and so forth. But I don't feel that the UN resolution even begins to cover the breadth of the topic. On the other hand, especially the way the article likes to dig up the old background reasons, what we really need here might be something closer to United States-Iran relations, only split to be United States-Iran relations since 1979. I think the scope of the article is that broad and that focus will serve the article better than trying to present itself as a Wikinews up-to-the-minute update about why X minor event is important. I think there's plenty of material for such an article and it would be much more beneficial to the article to have a more historical perspective.--Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For info, this article's title has changed several times follwing edits wars between other editors. It used to be "Current diplomatic tensions between Iran and the International Community" or something like that. The scope of the subject covered here is broader than just United States-Iran relations. The title, as it is now, is somewhat misleading. The pupose of this article was to regroup all aspects of the dispute between Iran and the International Community in one article. With time, it became something without form and of poor quality. I repeat, ALL subjects covered by this article are treated in the UN security resolution. Topics covered are: Nuclear program of Iran, United States-Iran relations, Sanctions against Iran, Iran and weapons of mass destruction, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, Iran-Israel relations, and Opposition to war against Iran. This article has no real use in my opinion: it is redundant, NOT encyclopedic, poorly written, incomplete, and POV.
    SSZ 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Same comment as above. SSZ 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • checkY Keep needing a complete rewrite or any other variation of cleanup is not a reason for deletion. This is very important and currently developing topic that will only beg more coverage as time passes. If something needs fixing, get out and fix it. Be bold (and have some balls) people. VanTucky (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article sure needs some major work but the subject is highly notable. I would, however, change the name to something like "US-Iran relations since 2004". The United States-Iran relations article is already quite long and could be divided at milestone dates.--Targeman 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as per SSZ. I can't believe that someone would ask why. Who the hell is going to know to look for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747? I only memorized the Security Council resolutions up to about 1,200. Mandsford 02:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Probably needs a new title. Current... may be out of date in two years. What if the US patches things up with Iran? Imagine if Wikipedia had existed in 1987: we might still have an article named Current tensions between the USA and the USSR. ●DanMS • Talk 04:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I remember working on this article. There was much trouble deciding what events should be included. Deciding the title alone was difficult. The problem is that we, the Wikipedians, are deciding what facts to tie together in under this title. Our sources, for the most part, support the facts themselves but do not support tying them to other facts to narrate the "Current Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States." This unique narrative created on Wikipedia constitutes original synthesis. This article should be deleted unless we use supporting sources not just for the individual facts but for the narrative itself. The Behnam 06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and perhaps rename along the lines suggested by Targeman and DanMS. TewfikTalk 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ☒NStrongest Delete You couldn't get a better example of a recentist povfork. See SSZ's answer to Dhartung's comment--Victor falk 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to "redundant, NOT encyclopedic, poorly written, incomplete, and POV.", it is an edit-war bait.--Victor falk 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 04:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nader Khakpour

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

    Though quite amusing this is clearly a hoax. This article (and the addition of Nader Khakpour's name to a list of authors in the John Larroquette article, which I have already undone) are the only references to this author to be found anywhere on the internet. Anlala 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The_Grand_Horror

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    The_Grand_Horror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article does not include reliable independent sources or any other hint at why this film would be notable. Fails WP:V, WP:NN, WP:SPAM. Looks like a blatant publicity snatch. I would nominate for speedy deletion. Tromaintern 05:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Angeles Aikido Club

    edit
    Angeles Aikido Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The club is not that notable - even more so in that very few dojo are actually mentioned in the Aikido category. The one or two that are - are because they are Style Headquarters or the dojo of a very eminant Aikidoist. This dojo does not cover either situation. Peter Rehse 05:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Biblical character, several references. NawlinWiki 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eutychus

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

    A google search does not have any clear hits to this article. Moreover, there is a question of failing to meet notability guidelines for this article. Siva1979Talk to me 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a link which indicates that he has been the subject of at least some scholarly discussion. Chubbles 05:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Cowie

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

    The subject matter is not notable in nature. He is a third choice keeper for a very small club --Siva1979Talk to me 04:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 could be recreated later with some good sources (not YouTube) Jaranda wat's sup 06:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevjumba

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

    Oy gevalt...ever since I began regularly editing wikipedia/perusing the deletion log I have been hoping, hoping, hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but still, it's my obligation to nominate this page for deletion. Kevjumba is indeed Youtube's most subscribed comedian, but otherwise he fails the notability criteria. Despite having a very large, strong fanbase, he has literally no coverage outside of YouTube, and is far from being as notable as other YouTubers who have Wikipedia articles. Calgary 04:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. He is verifiably the single, #1 most subscribed comedian, and by a large margin, on the most popular video streaming website in the world. That alone is sufficient to meet the notability criteria. —Lowellian (reply) 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I fail to see how that meets the notability criteria. Take note that he has very, very little coverage by any sort of independent source or media outlet. Also, being #1 subscribed in a particular category is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, take note that the #1 subscribed YouTubers for the Gurus and Musicians categories do not have their own articles. Also, take note that he has only recently become #1 most subscribed, and that no other previous holders or contenders for that title have Wikipedia pages (with the exception of drewtoothpaste, but he is not noted because of his status on YouTube. Finally, if YouTube notability is criteria for an article, take note that he is only the 16th most subscribed YouTuber of all time, and that of the other 15, only a handfull have Wikipedia articles, and all of them are notable outside of YouTube. Calgary 05:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Compare to another YouTube video blogger, Emmalina. Now, "Emmalina", unlike "Kevjumba", is also a common personal name in addition to being the handle of a specific YouTube blogger. And yet, despite the additional hits for "Emmalina" that come from it being a personal name, Google currently gives 89,400 hits for "Kevjumba", more than the 85,000 hits for "Emmalina", suggesting that Kevjumba has considerable web presence that extends beyond YouTube. —Lowellian (reply) 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I'd say something about how we shouldn't make judgements simply by comparison, but I'm the one who opened the door to that. All I'm going to say is that Emmalina has considerable web presence and is the subject of numerous reliable second-hand sources, whereas Kevjumba has slightly more web presence, and is the subject of no reliable second hand sources. Also, I'm not sure how easily a "web presence" translates into a fan base. Calgary 05:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete notability should not be based on youtube views or number of bookmarks there. If this person was notable, then there'd be "significant coverage from independent media" Corpx 06:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per nom and attempting to locate other sources via google. He's not notable outside of youtube, so no verifiable secondary sources. spazure 06:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At 16th on the YouTube Most Subscribed of All-Time list, the dude has more subscribers than NBC. Could a claim be made that he fulfills WP:BIO's The person has demonstrable wide name recognition? While I agree he's probably not notable according to current Wikipedia policy, YouTube shouldn't be treated like any other content hosting website. Ichormosquito 07:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Please give a backing argument to your statement about YouTube being treated like any other website. Exceptions to the policy can happen, but not just because you want it to, we need a reason. spazure 07:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response According to Alexa, it's the fourth most visited website, making it the most visited website that's not a web portal. Its hits, its name recognition, its amount of coverage in the mainstream media dwarfs that of things like Newgrounds or YTMND. Largely because of it, Time Magazine pulled its Person of the Year, mirror on the cover stunt. It brings up about as many Google News results for this month as Jesus. And major media companies take it very, very seriously. Ichormosquito 08:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response A reference for the phenomenon of YouTube celebrity in general: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/technology/26ecom.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=9670fbf567afd78d&ex=1330232400 Ichormosquito 09:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to remind you that the actual National Broadcasting Company has far more viewership, and that their television programing has a much larger audiencethan their YouTube channel. Calgary 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Well, yeah. I wasn't arguing he was more notable than NBC. That more people took the initiative to subscribe to his channel than they did to NBC's is not insignificant. And his subscription level of 40,000 is more than the publishing rates of most comic books, all of which get a free pass at an article. I think he might fulfill WP:BIO's Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; but the lack of outside sources keeps me from voting. Ichormosquito 08:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no independent sources attesting to notability seem to exist. If being "most subscribed" is notability, then having the most friends on Facebook would be too. --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response It's not a perfect analogy: people subscribe to him in order to periodically view his artistic output. He's an author of copyrighted works and an entertainer; his subscribers can be characterized as a fanbase. CNET considers a YouTuber's subscription rate his regular viewership. [36] I see where you're coming from, though. Ichormosquito 08:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Still, unless we're using this information to compare a YouTube account with another YouTube account, subscription isn't a very accurate way to measure these things is it? For example, there are people who subscribe to other peoples' channels simply to promote themselves, and the like. Still, a more important question is that of how large a fanbase is required to assert notability, or even cult status. Kevin has around 40,000 subscribers, which is around the same size as a small town in upstate New York. Now, compare that to any other cult figure who has a wikipedia article. Such people, even if they're not in the mainstream, have a much larger fan base, comparable at least to the population of Ottawa. So can a person with a moderately large fanbase on YouTube, and no documented fanbase outside of YouTube be deemed a cult figure?
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgary (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 July 2007
    Response 40,000 is the count of dedicated fans who have both registered an account with YouTube and are subscribed to Kevjumba. The vast majority of YouTube users do not actually registered accounts, and besides them, there are probably thousands more casual fans who have accounts and who have seen his videos without subscribing to them. Also see my more recent comment on web presence above. —Lowellian (reply) 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response A publication with circulation of 40,000 is not inherently notable. If so, why isn't there an article for the Queens Chronicle? It's a newspaper of Queens, New York and has readership well over 40,000, but it's still not a notable publication. Or, more to the point, why doesn't every YouTuber with more subscribers than Kevjumba have an article? Calgary 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response If my count is correct, 11 of the 15 YouTubers who have more subscriptions than kevjumba have articles. One is CBS; and, of the four without articles, one has his bio merged with another article, and at least one could get an article that would be relatively deletion proof. And I don't know why the Queens Chronicle doesn't have an article; but readership is different than subscription rate. I realize the newspaper/YouTube channel analogy only goes so far; but if we're talking about something on planet YouTube analogous to readership, kevjumba's is at least double 40,000. Each of his 21 videos has 100,000-300,000 views. My stance is tenuous, I admit; but YouTube is so significant and its viewership so massive I wouldn't mind Wikipedia's guidelines' setting an arbitrary benchmark to gauge notability. I think all the top twenty most subscribed YouTubers should at least have a stub. Ichormosquito 10:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response See, what you seem to be forgetting is that virtually all of those 11 YouTubers have recognition and notability outside of YouTube (with the possible exception of Smosh, but they're the #1 most subscribed of all time, so I could uncerstand making an exception). Most of them currently have projects outside of YouTube that support a claim to notability, and virtually al of them have recieved significant coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources. To the contrary, kevjumba has recieved no media attention whatsoever. And by the way, CBS doesn't count, as most of it'snotability comes from outside of YouTube. Calgary 12:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I understand and sympathize with your argument. I'm just suggesting we take a new approach at gauging YouTube notability, as there really isn't a site like YouTube, and it might require special guidelines. Ichormosquito 18:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, at its heart notability is subjective to the audience to which the person is admired by, and if this is within youtube then so be it. The fact that this guy is subscribed to by 40,000 people, and even if he hasn't been recognised by an external media (itself biased to reporting only matters of interest to its viewers) noone can deny that his videos are popular, and if they are popular to such a large audience they are notable even if it is only to his 40,000 subscribers 144.137.105.243 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC) - actually me, didn't realise I wasn't logged in Guycalledryan 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment is there any coverage anywhere that counts as a reliable source (per WP:RS)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambc (talk • contribs) 07:51, 13 July 2007
    Response I don't think so, no. Actors or actresses with significant roles in TV shows get free passes at articles, though. And I can guarantee you that if he were documented in a reliable source, that source would write about him as if he were already notable. News publications tend to have an appreciation for YouTube's significance and wide audience. Ichormosquito 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTE makes no mentions to google hits or youtube hits. This is basically a video blog of some person. If the blog was notable enough, then it would've received "significant coverage" from independent sources. I dont think youtube views should replace "significant coverage". Corpx 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response The issue here isn't factual accuracy, it's the issue of secondary sources used to establish notability, or in this case, the lack thereof. As he's admittedly an "internet phenomenon", if there were indeed reliable secondary sources, we would be able to find them via google -- and we have not. Spazure 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Maybe youtube et al warrant new guidelines, maybe they don't, but we have to work with the policy and guidelines that we have or it would just get silly. SamBC 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Fair enough. I think it's a question worth asking, though. Ichormosquito 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Notability guidelines may be subject to exception, should we deem that such an exception is within reason, and in the best interest of Wikipedia. Extravagance 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm starting to feel uneasy about my "weak keep" vote. kevjumba's "Comedian" designation, and thus his number #1 spot on the "Comedian" list, are arbitrary: there are comedians on YouTube with more subscribers than he has. "Comedian" is just a label he chose at the outset of registering for an account. His strongest claim to notability is his being among the top twenty most subscribed YouTubers, most of which the news media find notable. Does this attention mean there is something inherently notable about all the top 20 or so most subscribed YouTubers? Possibly; but the closing admin, if he or she decides there isn't a consensus to delete, should probably encourage that editors feel free to reassess his notability at a later date. Ichormosquito 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Whether someone is a "comedian" is subjective. Kevjumba is the highest ranking "dedicated" comedian, the highest ranking YouTube content provider who identifies himself as primarily such. ALL YouTube content providers are required to categorize themself in one of seven categories — really, more like only four since "Partners", "Sponsors", and "YouChoose 08" are very special cases that do not apply to general content providers. Every single one of the four major categories has many, many thousands of content providers and is highly, highly competitive. Kevjumba is the highest ranking individual for one of the only four ("Comedians", "Directors", "Gurus", "Musicians") major categories in YouTube. That's a major and notable achievement. —Lowellian (reply) 23:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Just a small comment, you're not required to belong to a category to upload content. Calgary 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    edit
    Charles Manson in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Yet another very trivial "pop culture" list. I had prodded this, but of course it was removed with no good reason. These pop culture articles are out of hand here. Here is a cluttered category (that I mentioned in another recent afd): Category:In popular culture. 128 articles in it, as well as 13 subcategories. I'm not saying all of them are horrible listcruft, but a good percent are. Moving long sections to new articles isn't needed, if it's just trivial notes with little to no notability shown. RobJ1981 04:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom.--SefringleTalk 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 05:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It's just a list of loosely associated topics (per WP:NOT) and is not an article treating the subject of Charles Manson in pop culture. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Another trivia article without sources.--JForget 01:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Although there is no denying the influence of Charlie Manson on the world (I personally think he's the reason that people no longer though hippies were cute after 1970)-- this article is the usual IPC checklist of every mention of Manson in a TV show or movie. Manson in popular culture would lend itself to a thoughtful, intelligent article, but this just a tally of times that scriptwriters thought of Manson. Now I see why people hated the "Let's get out of here" article so much.... but hey, I'm learning. Mandsford 02:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the comments above. Unfortunately, "in popular culture" is synonymous with list of trivia in Wikipedia terms almost every single time. (jarbarf) 03:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Oe of you admit that "Manson in popular culture would lend itself to a thoughtful, intelligent article". If that is so ,then it's a subject of cleanup, not delete. If it's "Another trivia article without sources", then it's a cleanup, not delete. Learn your terms, don't just take the easy way out and delete. -Violask81976 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that strong keep. Cleanup, not delete. Manson has loads of references in popular culture. Abeg92contribs 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is somebody volunteering? If I see anyone make the move, then I would urge strong keep pending a revision. Not me though-- I'm no fan of that cold-blooded, self-important sonofabitch. Mandsford 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kurdistan. Note that merge is a form of keep, and the history remains.

    List of major cities with Kurdish population

    edit
    List of major cities with Kurdish population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    If the contributors to this page want this information out there, it should be added into the article on Kurdistan or Kurds. Otherwise, it doesn't warrant having its own encyclopedic article.K-lit 04:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Patrick Garcia

    edit
    Charles Patrick Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    NN autobio, tagged with {{notability}} since November 2006 - ∅ (∅), 04:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. The article certainly needs some editing but the man has a long list of accomplishments including his appointment to the United States Air Force Academy Board of Visitors by President Bush and his election as Board Chairman as well as being the author of a business book that was #6 on the NYTimes best sellers list (these are in addition to his business success and all his business awards such as Hispanic magazine's "Entrepreneur of the Year"). Notability isn't about the quality of the writing, it's about the person. This one meets the test for me. -- DS1953 talk 05:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep although it's hard to sort out the real accomplishments from the puffed-up ones in a PR piece like we have before us. (The guy who wrote the story that became the movie Stand and Deliver wrote his book's foreword? Gobsmacked, I am.) The notability of the company has some bearing on him but the accolades cited were mainly for the company itself. Minor political appointments with a probable eye to campaign donations and ethnic representation are not real notability, either. I'm more interested in the TV appearances and the Hispanic business accolades than anything else the article is throwing at the wall. Desperately needs cleanup if kept. --Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, He is Very notable. and with references.Callelinea 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Chairman of the board of visitors is the equivalent of chairman of the board of trustees, and this i think would be recognized as very major institution with international visibility. I am not sure every member of the board would be notable, but the chairman certainly is . DGG (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Crocker (internet)

    edit
    Chris Crocker (internet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Lack of Notability Dan Leveille 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Torchia (fitness trainer)

    edit

    Non notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (have any sources? That could be helpful in determining notability) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Entry was apparently written by Torchia or a friend or work mate. (See COI noticeboard.) Taking credit for Spacey's Oscar is a bit much for me. Just because he's been on TV or worked with stars doesn't mean he's notable. -Jmh123 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. When the biggest independent reliable source cited by the article is a "miscellaneous crew" listing on IMDB and a "camera operator" credit on Hollywood.com, you know a subject is non-notable. Winning non-notable competitions doesn't create notability; working for notable people doesn't create notability. My mind might be changed if someone can cobble together a credible article from these puff pieces, but I'm skeptical that this would be anything but an orphan, and NPOV would require an extensive rewrite of the spamcruftisement feel of the current piece. THF 07:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - unsourced WP:BLP, vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Melbccr

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

    Non notable car club - No mentions found from a google archive search Corpx 03:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 15:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Schooner Jenny

    edit
    Schooner Jenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    AfDs for this article:

    This article was nominated before, but I am nominating again because I have been unable to find any reliable sources. In the previous debate, it was claimed that a Rosemary Dobson poem The Ship of Ice, was the source for this article. Another editor found a source through a Google search, but that, too, used the Dobson poem as a source. Poetry fails WP:RS, causing this article to fail WP:V. I really tried to find a verifiable source, even checking LexisNexis databases for a reference. Poets romanticize history, and just because Dobson wrote a poem about a ship, doesn't mean the ship existed.K-lit 03:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm willing to switch my vote, but my problem with the books cited is that they don't cite any sources relating to the Jenny. Given the similarity between the poem and the accounts in the books, I'm thinking that they had the same source as the original; a poem. Then there are things like anyone living 71 days without food in antarctic conditions, most people at best can't live longer than 40 days in ideal conditions without food and the fact that one would freeze to death before they had a chance to starve makes me skeptical. (By ideal conditions I mean people on a hunger strike who don't have to deal with issues like keeping a fire going, operating the ship, or melting chunks of ice to drink. Anynobody 09:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm skeptical of the colorful details as well, but the book Antarctica: An Encyclopedia doesn't seem to "cite" the poem, and the review of Antarctic fiction (my first link below) says that "Headland, R. K. Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions and Related Historical Events. Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1989." cites a 19th century source, Globus (whatever that was), for an 1840 date. I would assume such an academic work would not rely on just a poem. The poem itself gives a specific date of 9/22/1860, so that seems to be the first major embellishment. In any case, I've always felt this is the kind of thing that would have more print sources than online. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, as for survival, remember that Shackleton's men survived for nearly two years without provisioning. They were well-prepared, of course, but there are options such as fish, seals, or penguins that could conceivably have extended stores, as well as breaking into whatever they may have been carrying as cargo. The greatest oddity that I find is that the ship wasn't broken up, as happened to the Endurance, but that again may be embellishment. The original could have been found on top of the ice or something. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A poem known to the Antarctic constituency, it appears, and one which did win an award, and whose author is at the highest rank of achievement with national recognition. I'm unclear which of "my" sources "cites the poem as the source". Most of them mention the poem. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Dhartung. Two appropriate sources for this is enough. JulesH 08:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The poem only came after the publication of the story in Ripley, See Talk:Schooner Jenny. Admittedly Ripley is not the most reliable of secondary sources, but the story must have appeared somewhere before that Mighty Antar 19:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep article has citations and it would have been notable at the time but Google News didn't exist then. ~ Infrangible 02:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I have been digging through old books for several months tracing the origin of this story, but I haven't had time to get my findings organized yet. While the story may not be true, it is definitely notable because it has captivated so many writers over the past ~160 years. Unfortunately Ripley got a hold of the story and made it absurd. Its origin appears to be the same as the Octavius. I plan to do a major rewrite of both articles in a few weeks. Griffinity 05:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Interesting. Do you suppose that Ripley or Dobson combined bits of two real events or what exactly? I had been considering reorganizing the material to indicate that at least some of the dramatic details might be fictional despite other apparent non-fictional references. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was nom withdrawn thanks to massive re-write and sourcing. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RIU Hotels

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

    I would consider prodding this or tagging it A1, but I'd probably get told it wouldn't fit or have the prod removed. As such, it's about a hotel chain, with no proof of notability, and as the article stands, it's just a list on where the hotels are located. Kwsn(Ni!) 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep. This article makes a mention of the RIU Hotels, stating how they have a particularly bad reputation in Jamaica. That's the only Google News Hit, but it seems like they have enough locations to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. According to a recent press release from a business partner "Today, RIU Hotels & Resorts has grown into Spain's second largest hotel chain enjoying international prestige with 45,000 beds in 110 hotels in 18 countries, 18,000 employees, and 2.1 million clients per year." Regardless of the quality of that source, a simple Google search proves that the company certainly has hotels in resort areas all over the world and is unquestionably "notable" by its size and presence. However, the article definitely doesn't need to list every hotel in the chain and needs a major haircut. -- DS1953 talk 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some information and another source and deleted the list of hotels. For a view of the original article when the AfD began, see this version. -- DS1953 talk 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since this has already been sent to BJAODN, it can be deleted, meeting CSD. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dance Dance Evolution

    edit
    Dance Dance Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Caution: lame joke article

    This is a joke article. The game doesn't exist. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I take that back actually. I think this might be good for BJAODN (if it ever comes back again). TheLetterM 03:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vayalur Subramniya Temple

    edit
    Vayalur Subramniya Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Doesn't seem to be notable - 3 unique ghits, which are all lists of Temples. Also, not sure how much here can be salvaged into a useful article CitiCat 03:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gryphon (Warcraft)

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

    The article's subject non-notable game creature by itself. I propose that the article be redirected to World_of_Warcraft. However, I also think this article should just be deleted since it doesn't contain any useful information. Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actions

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Actions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable album by non-notable (deleted article) band. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums Precious Roy 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam for nn book. Daniel Case 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An Introduction to Awareness

    edit
    An Introduction to Awareness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    An article on a self-published book created by a single purpose account, it fails to meet the criteria called for in WP:BK. Victoriagirl 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Peacent 03:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Doctor Leery

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

    Unimportant comic book character. He appeared for one issue and died in that same issue. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that he will be used again. The writer involved didn't even give him a first name. Stephen Day 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    edit
    The Chronicles of Narnia in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article consists of a collection of references to Narnia in popular culture. In order to write a proper article, the article would have to be based on reliable sources that discuss the book's effects on popular culture ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Lots of mentions doesn't make it a notable list subject. A massive list of mentions = trivia/listcruft. The article has no sources as well. So it's unsourced trivia and listcruft. Notable mentions (if there is any) should be in the main article, and leave it at that. A list of any or all mentions isn't the correct way to prove popularity. RobJ1981 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Would like to see more cites, however I wouldn't argue lack of being reason for deletion. The machine512 07:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is a lack of available secondary sources that will be able to establish a connection between The Magician's Nephew in a Lost hatch and the overall importance of Narnia in popular culture and similar other trivia bits. Do you have a reason for keeping the article (which is different than saying it shouldn't be deleted, I believe)? María (críticame) 12:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, pop culture references for any well known piece of work always add to the intrigue and quality of the article or topic. The article appears to be a break off from The Chronicles of Narnia and while not fully cited most of the information seems valid. A lot of work has been put into this over time and it would be a shame to delete it just because it is untidy. Propose cleanup and validation tags. The machine512 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Richardshusr. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I.S. 55

    edit
    I.S. 55 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Propose deletion.Badly written, unclear text which does not meaningfully identify its subject. It may be about a school, or possibly about a teacher, but it is so badly-written that it is better deleted than improved. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Horrible grammar and sentence structure, requires massive cleanup, revolves almost entirely around the principal, is nowhere near being notable, among other things. SpecialAgentUncleTito 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that at least one editor said "Delete, barring substantial expansion" and substantial expansion has occured since then. The sole question here seems to be one of notability, and that is a judgement call, on which the editors commeting here are deeply divided. Ther is a general principle that notability is not gaimed by association, but on the other hand all works by highly notable authors are normally considered notable. Those favoring keep largely favored a rename, which i plan to do as an editorial action after the clsoe. DES (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tokyo Red Hood

    edit
    Tokyo Red Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non notable comic. Prod was removed by an IP. Delete, unless sources are found proving notability. J Milburn 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Any particular reason you're still gunning for this article? Its now a lot more substantial than a LOT of completely unsourced anime stubs that nobody seems to bat an eye at. Maybe there's something to it if its been so substantially expanded. Snarfies 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still gunning for this article because I still do not see any reason to keep it. It has been expanded with unsourced details about the characters- I could write a far longer article on any book or comic of a decent length if that was all that had to be included. If I came across said stubs, I would bat an eye at them. Maybe there is something to this article, but if all these people saying 'yes, keep it' can't find any evidence of that, I am not too hopeful the evidence is out there, and any closing admin would see that too, and delete the article. J Milburn 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I added more to the article and I really don't know why this article has any reason to be deleted besides someone saying the author isn't important enough to be on wikipedia. Which isn't a good reason at all. Jinkapo 03:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being translated absolutely does make a series or an author notable. It's the most basic and simple way to determine notability, and standard practice in these threads. If the author is notable, a series by him is certainly notable enough to warrant an article. Doceirias 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I am missing something, a comic being translated is not an indicator of notability- what about books? Is every book ever translated notable? And an artist being notable doesn't make a notable comic- in the same way that not every book by a notable author, song by a notable singer, or statue by a notable sculptor is considered notable. J Milburn 17:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what you just said. A book being translated does not make it notable. But it does make the author notable. (Assuming the book is translated by a notable publisher.) I don't think either translated series by this author deserves a page - Blood is just a mention on the anime page - but Tokyo Akazukin is his most notable work. Mind you, the third sentence in the lead makes it pretty easy to dismiss the entire thing. Doceirias 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Palumbo

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Nick Palumbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    For one thing, the article was probably created by and written by either Palumbo himself or one of his shills; the entire thing read like a huge press release (quotes include, but are not limited to, "This was as gentle as a droplet of rain compared to the maelstrom to come with his next slasher film", "Palumbo once more wanted to tackle the slasher genre. However this time, going to Hell would not be easy, and the hard part would be ever leaving", "It seemed everyone involved with the film were ashamed with their involvement and hoped that it would simply go away. Everyone that is except for Nick Palumbo. This was his dream, and he was not going to let it go down without a fight" and so forth) and most of the other edits that the creators made were just inserting Palumbo's name into various articles. (This is not hard to believe; Palumbo is known to spam various messageboards to promote his films) When I reported it to WP:BLP the entire thing was all but removed.

    Second, he's not really notable. He's made two or three underground films which don't even have their own articles. Although there is a bit of press surrounding his last film (Murder-Set-Pieces) its mostly due to his attempts to promote the film. There's very few links from other articles. CyberGhostface 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Ditto SpecialAgentUncleTito 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Barely satisfies the requirements means he does satisfy the requirements, and therefore should be included. Notable for the wrong reasons was because he was called the "the lowest form of cinematic life", not for trivial reasons Guycalledryan 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indie cred

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

    although referenced, seems to appear under WP:NEO. No neologisms please.
    "Street cred" has more cred than indie cred... (forgive me) ZayZayEM 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment By nominating, you already voted to delete. Also, because I determined that the topic was notable does not mean that I back every dumb statement in a badly-written article about that topic. WP:SOFIXIT. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I teased out the full NYT definition within their article: Used in rock since 1985 or so, it refers to an unhyped credibility based on unpredictability, on the thrill of new MUSIC that is not formulaic. So in 1999 the Times said it was a term that had been around for well over a decade. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie hábleme 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Black_Oasis

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Black_Oasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Film lacks notability, due to still being in production Merkinsmum 01:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    comment from the nominator:- I'm a beginner at reading AfD's, and would be interested in what people's views are as to what to do with the article. I don't really want to kill it and put off the new editor, whose Historical_people looks set to be deleted.Merkinsmum 01:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. The movie is garnering some relevant Google hits, has a reasonably prominent lead actress and a reasonably prominent director, and is at least listed in the Internet Movie Database. I have cleaned the article up some; although the article could still use some improvement, I don't think we need to delete it since the movie is likely to be notable and verifiable through reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The vast majority of films since early 2005 have had their articles created prematurely. This one is better than a single line substub which is the common format. —Xezbeth 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Director, lead, and subject all appear to be notable, and it would appear that the film is likely to be finished. Maxamegalon2000 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, especially after discounting the one-liner WP:ATA opinions either way, so default to keep. Sandstein 10:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James W. Walter

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    James W. Walter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    First Deletion Reason: Not a single Google News hit, except to a PR release, which is just a ref to his name, but says nothing about him. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Person was briefly a celeb for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward, and to the extent that he was a recognizable public figure, that star has set. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Serves as Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement for the 9/11 conspiracy "movement".  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I think that Bigtimepiece is correct. While Walter is certainly not notable enough to have his own article, I think there is potential to merge pieces of this article into the 9/11 Truth article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails notability guideline. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and probably merge some content into the 9/11 Truth Movement (or maybe 9/11 Conspiracy Theories) article. Walter himself does not seem notable enough, he got some mainstream coverage back in 2004, but this seems to have been for his campaign, which itself does have some notability. I don't know much about the 9/11 articles, but I think some info from this article with respect to his ad campaign should be dumped into one of them (2 or 3 sentences). Spending nearly 4 million on advertisements questioning the "official" 9/11 story is interesting, and Walter should be discussed in some article for that action.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - another coat-hanger for presentation of conspiracy theories; lacks independent reliable sources. Any significant material would be better presented at 9/11 Truth Movement or 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, per Bigtimepeace above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The article has sources from the following: Reuters, New York Times, St. Petersburg Times, Der Spiegel, ABC News, RAI. Are these not independent reliable sources? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete good to see that the cabal is still on the watch for cruft. GabrielF 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nominator. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep!. The nominator's Google News search is a flawed metric, since Google News only turns up very recent stories. Many subjects on Wikipedia would flunk that test. A more valid search would be the Google News Archive,[41] which returns over 100 hits for that search. Examining them will show that many of them relate to his father, Walter Sr., and many are press releases. But that search will also leave out many relevant articles, because Walter is usually called "Jimmy," and elsewhere appears without his middle initial. Even after slogging through the dross, there are reliable sources not reflected in the current article. For instance, it doesn't mention his double-night segments on Anderson Cooper 360, debating Gerald Posner.[42] [43] There's also a Creative Loafing article[44] that provides enough detail to fill out his biography beyond "coatrack" status. It also makes it clear that his role as sugar daddy to the 9//11 Truth Movement goes beyond running ads. He actually funded and put together many of their symposiums. He also produced a documentary, Confronting the Evidence, and distributed 300,000 free copies, including mailing 17,000 copies to every household in Tony Blair's Sedgefield home district.[45] There are foreign-language articles, illustrating the international scope of his activities. While not avoiding self-publicity, he's apparently content to let the focus be on the cause, making his importance in the 9/11 movement greater than it seems from the current article. Frankly, I consider this AfD to be anti-conspiracy WP:IDONTLIKEIT dressed up in non-notability concerns. Even the nominator admits he was "briefly a celeb," While I want conspiracy theories presented in an NPOV way, I do not share this desire to purge all traces of their existence from Wikipedia. In its own way, I regard it as a form of POV-pushing just as much as the efforts of the believers to dominate legitimate articles with their theories. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for regularly appearing in media, resulting in a number of focus pieces on him and his endeavours. The 9/11 component of this bio is balanced. John Vandenberg 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nominated. The problem is that he is not widely recognized in that his coverage/exposure (both modern day and historical) is trivial. Since his coverage in mainstream media is minimal at best (most of the references provided are "fancruft" sources), any notable fact about him should be merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories and/or 9/11 Truth Movement article where appropriate. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Lexis Nexis Academic full text search for 10 years of general news shows only a handful of items, (about 3 out of 21 articles and the other 18 are mostly obits or other items not related to this man) that actual refer to this James W. Walter. They all relate to his publicity stunt advertisement. The Tampa Tribune even goes so far as to end its article about the ad entitled The Fantasy Of A 9/11 Coverup (November 12, 2004) saying, "Let's be clear on one thing: James Walter is from Santa Barbara, Calif., not Tampa." Wikipedia need not bother with an article for a person with so few Lexis items who has no notability beyond a single publicity stunt. --Dual Freq 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Query - did you just search for James W. Walter, or does that include results for Jimmy Walter and James Walter? --Groggy Dice T | C 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Well, that's certainly not what our policy says. See WP:BLP#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event, where it says:
    at WP:BLP1E.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, that's why I went on so much about those multiple and different events there, in that comment you're responding to. Since he mounts multiple campaigns, it should be clear that each individual campaign isn't a "larger subject".--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right again. The thing that makes the buyer of the ads notable is "The person has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That's called the primary notability criterion, among other places in Wikipedia:Notability (people). In other words it's the coverage by ABC, and Reuters, and New York Times, and Der Spiegel, and CNN, and the St. Petersburg Times that shows he's notable.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those mentions were all done in the context of a particular event: buying ads (WP:BLP1E). The coverage was about the ad-buying, otherwise, Walter is not known in the press.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The subject of multiple news articles in mainstream sources, including significant profiles. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per AnonEMouse.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable enough and crufty.--MONGO 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Despite the sources provided by AnonEMouse, I still don't think there are enough to consider Walter notable enough and make a decent biographical article about him. --Aude (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Groggy Dice. It seems the nominator just failed to do proper searches to verify, which is obviously not their fault. What I see in the nomination is faulty search terms that lead to their misunderstanding of the subject and its notability. I think this article should be expanded to include the great research Groggy Dice was able to come up with and flesh out the article more on the located biography. I had not even noticed the previous AfD's which seem to contain much of the same faces here again voting for deletion, this is apparently the nominators second attempt at deletion. Oddly after reading through it further, to address the no reliable sources claims. The article has sources from the following: Reuters, New York Times, St. Petersburg Times, Der Spiegel, ABC News, RAI. These also do not seem to be a "walled garden" of conspiracy "cruft" --SevenOfDiamonds 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Cruftilicious. - Crockspot 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This definitely meets the notability guideline not to mention our attribution policies as well. Burntsauce 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - here is another independent and a famous and popular, if not particularly respected, source, Maxim magazine, March 2006, calling him "the Truth Movement’s most prominent promoter", and devotes a 7 paragraph section to him. Notice he is still called that 2 years after the earlier articles, proving that it's not a "15 minutes of fame" case. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is yet another, from Australia, respected newspaper, Sydney Morning Herald, Nov 21, 2005, a rather large piece, devoted to him as much or more than his ads. " ... He inherited a fortune from his father, a successful builder, and intends to spend it on uncovering the truth, as he sees it. So far he has spent more than $US5 million - three-quarters of his net worth. Why is he spending his money on this? "I'm 58 years old, I have no kids, no wife, no family." He is now living in Austria, where he moved after his car was attacked. ... " Remember, the New York Times article was on November 8, 2004, over a year before that. So he's getting continued coverage in multiple continents, over multiple years. Pretty clear evidence of notability. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, notability is established. Everyking 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Parcopresis

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

    An article about being unable to defecate in public, apparently a lesser known cousin of paruresis, being unable to urinate in public. Text copied word for word from its only reference, possible copyright violation. Besides, nobody likes to poop where other people can hear them. Candy-Panda 10:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the lead into Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. Sandstein 10:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yu-Gi-Oh! Online

    edit
    Yu-Gi-Oh! Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Although Yu-Gi-Oh! is notable, this online version fails to meet both WP:NOT and WP:WEB Jauerback 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge as suggested above.--JForget 01:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mushin Karate Club

    edit
    Mushin Karate Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Creator's only edit, note left that further development was coming but nothing has happened in four weeks. But, even with some development, this remains a non-notable karate club in SE England that does not have the makings of a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia entry. Emeraude 14:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedily deleted as advertising. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ONE Vote '08

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    ONE Vote '08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is WP:NOT#SOAPBOX for advertising political agenda for the 2008 elections. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. NN Opinion piece on politics Hu12 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Valsartdiary

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

    websites with a PR of 3 [47] are not popular Misterdiscreet 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Nearly every keep was from a single-purpose account, and the evidence against this article is overwhelming. I will salt if needed. --Golbez 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    California University of Technology

    edit
    California University of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This page is a spam. This "university" does not have a .edu address, the article has been created by a single person [48] who only edited this article [49]. A WHOIS reveals that the name is registered with Go Daddy [50] and there are two websites hosted at the same IP (66.199.247.26, vickersfinancial.com and caluniversity.com) Tony 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Institution appears to be non-accredited and non-notable. Several of the Google hits are obviously erroneous references to CalTech and many more are run of the mill listings of institutions with no quality checks. It's quite "scammy" looking to me and doesn't appear to meet the bar of notability at all. --ElKevbo 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Appears to be a scam university. Definitely doesn't meet notability standards. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't help but remember that diploma mills and other scams can be notable through notoriety (or can become notable that way...). This outfit seems to have hired consultants to help set it up, including http://www.neted.com/ (domain name is the same as the name of the contributor who edited this article) and SchoolBuilderPlus. Not all diploma mills invest that much... Maybe those consultants should become subjects for articles (wink).--orlady 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added: This outfit has been investing heavily in PR. For example, see http://www.prleap.com/pr/69289/ --orlady 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DO NOT DELETE Do not delete this entry. I am currently enrolled in the MBA program. Being a software professional,I have taken online courses at other schools, but my experience so far with this university is extraordinary. They have built interactive online learning guides which are not common and a user friendly learning system. I was given complete training on using the system plus the faculty are easily accessible and helpful. Moreover, My councelor advised me clearly on the status of school, invited me for a visit, introduced me to the Academic Dean who also guided me on my academic track. I am currently in term 5 in Org Development and HRM. They have used modern technologies in their Learning Management System and in their elearning content which are highly noteworthy.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Technopreneur (talk • contribs) 03:33, July 18, 2007— Technopreneur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • DO NOT DELETE I'm right there with the other students on this one. I'm a DBA student currently enrolled at the university, and my four to five hours of homework each week are a testament to the fact that this is no diploma mill. Because of my technology background, I have worked in several post-secondary institutions. At my level, I'm not concerned with accreditation. It is a 'club' who, like any club is subject to its own politics and interests. A big limiting factor of accreditation is that it's not innovative and schools who want to innovate suffer like anything modern in a rule based system. I chose this school because I got a chance to see the curriculum, learning guides, LMS (you can just request to review a course on their website) and faculty lists. Their complete transparency was enough to allow me to make an informed choice. Plus, I went through the scholarship qualification process and was able to reduce my tuition. Honestly, you can't beat the price anywhere. The classes are application based (a key factor in my decision to do DBA rather than PhD. And what's with the whole 'can't transfer' bit? Who cares if the credits transfer when you actually plan to complete the whole degree at that school? Just my $.02.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Autodafey (talk • contribs) 04:37, July 18, 2007
    Besides, there are some secondary resources referencing CalU faculty even in search engine research which means it does not fail the notability tests. These are articles by faculty, not advertising.
    http://www.1888articles.com/learning-miracles-learning-at-the-speed-of-thought-0t251j3m5j.html
    http://www.articlesbase.com/online-education-articles/how-the-interactive-learning-guide-benefits-an-online-education-149461.html
    http://sg.sun.com/sunnews/press/2006/13mar_a.htmlAutodafey 09:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)— Autodafey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Those are most certainly not peer reviewed articles; the third "article" is in fact a press release. In fact, I don't see evidence that these "articles" were published in any venue. They appear to be pure advertising. --ElKevbo 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with ElKevbo, but would not call those "articles." Rather, they are "promotional materials disseminated via the internet." DELETE. If this school should demonstrate notability in the future, then it can have an article. --orlady 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • DO NOT DELETE We received the temporary approval from BPPVE in mid-2005, which was upgraded to a permanent approval just last month. We are yet to receive the certificate of permanent approval, which is the reason why the link on the website was defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caluniversity (talk • contribs) — Caluniversity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 04:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation Overkill

    edit

    Over a year, no evidence of notability supplied. Crossmr 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_13&oldid=1081099833"