Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 26

< January 25	January 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. DS 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doodlebob returns

Page created by a vandal, no references. --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions Send message) 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. I did some research, thinking that it may be an upcoming episode, but it only got 6 google hits and it it poorly put together. Some of the text was blatently taken from another episode. And I didn't look at all of them, but most of the editor's diffs are vandalism ([1], [2]). → JARED ^(t) 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no confirmation of this on the Nick site (only Episode 84A).SkierRMH 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night Light. ShadowHalo 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete HOAX. --Caldorwards4 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, possible hoax. ~ Arjun 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced. Possible hoax. S .D. ¿п? § 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Unplug amplifier and delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect Mistake

Subject of the article does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete "They are currently the top unsigned band in America," sounds notable, but its not cited, and the only source appears to be the bands myspace site. Agree that it doesn't show notablitly. SGGH 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no record label, no releases, no news articles and satisfies non of the other music notability points - Peripitus (Talk) 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely appears to not meet WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep they were on fuse, that's important enough —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
Delete clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Gwernol 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can produce a reference to the Fuse show that's not trivial and not self-promotion it's, WP:NFT Savant45 07:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm googling, but I'm not finding anything useful in the way of non-trivial references to help this band pass WP:MUSIC. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FisherQueen. Gan fon 13:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC JCO312 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom as well as some minor NPOV issues and not cited, meets my criteria! Tellyaddict 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They did win the Fuse contest, according to Fuse itself, but I still see only passing mentions of them everywhere else, and that means they're not quite there. Delete with no prejudice to recreation if they do make it. (And A Step In The Right Direction (Album) needs to go, no ifs, ands or buts - EPs by minimally notable bands definitely don't deserve their own pages.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Only has a myspace link. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 07:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfson Public Relations

Subject of article does not meet the guidelines for notability of WP:ORG or WP:CORP. Possibly an advertisement trying to pass as an encyclopedia article Nv8200p talk 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article currently stands, I'd say Delete, as it reads more like a corporate resume than something encyclopedic. I can be made to change my mind, however, so if somebody can dredge up a few good reliable sources of [{WP:N|notability]], I'd be game for a keep !vote. --Dennisthe2 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam given the substance article creator and tagged as such - Peripitus (Talk) 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability provided. No sources. No WP:V. --Shirahadasha 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete promotional, per WP:CSD G11 Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly

Seems like an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm indifferent to Bill O'Reilly but do we need some sort of "rogue's gallery" of people who do not like the guy? Should we have Critics and rivals of Howard Stern? Or how about List of people who don't like buttermilk? Arthur Fonzarelli 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Certainly is 'an indiscriminate collection of information', has alot of refs but thats just because its info from a lot of critics newspaper articles and such. There are calls for articles on "criticism of..." but they are needed when the parent article is VERY significan, like the Bush presidency or something. Then again, it's valid, referenced info, but it needs to be moved/merged/cleaned up or something if its going to stand on its feet.... argh, I'm torn. SGGH 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to more common Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (e.g. Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Wikipedia). --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion why not cut out all the waffle and merge into Bill O'Reilly (commentator)? --Nick Dowling 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Dhartung. The information here is well-written, well-sourced, and would be far too unwieldy to incorporate into the main article. Seventypercent 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. This article and Bill O'Reilly controversies should not be forked from the main article. Encyclopedia articles are meant to summarize and help the reader get a basic idea of the subject to facilitate further research, not present every quote and every bit of information. Here's a choice quote: While not a fierce or long-standing critic, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson has occasionally criticized O'Reilly's statements as being "over the top". Who cares? Take this crap to POVWarriorPedia. --- RockMFR 01:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bill O'Reilly controversies and Rename the merged article to Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly. There seems to be some duplication between the two articles, but each contains some unique information. However, once merged, the article would need heavy pruning and rewriting to be encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the main Bill O'Reilly article is already large enough to spawn several sub-articles, so I don't think merging there would be much of a solution. There's already precident for criticism forks per Criticism of Mormonism, among others. -- Kesh 01:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. FireSpike 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. Criticism of controversial figures is a legitimate subject, but a controversy has to be particularly significant for a criticism article to be spun off. If separate criticism is kept, Rename to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (standard label). In either case rewrite to summarize and focus on key criticisms rather than listing key critics. Shorten. --Shirahadasha 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge cause I'm a lemming. (And they make good points.) Kyaa the Catlord 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combine with Bill O'Reilly controversies and make it Criticism of Bill O'Reilly per above statements. I proposed this sort of thing on the article's talk page but there was no response. Anyway, this was split from the controversies article because of how large it became. I think the two articles can be truncated to form a more solid article. MrMurph101 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. --Pixelface 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename with Bill O'Reilly controversies to Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly as described by Kesh, to keep the main Bill O'Reilly from becoming overlong with controversies but to keep the important and well-referenced information in these articles on Wiki. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename per Kesh. JCO312 17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for lists of rivals made by people. Not really very notable, I think should go. Tellyaddict 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fall into WP:NOT#DIR. Of course an outspoken national political talk show host (could one be a national political talk show host without being outspoken?) has his critics. Does there need to be more than a paragraph or 2 of the SIGNIFICANT criticisms? "O'Reilly has been criticized for his view of X by Mr.Y and Ms. Z". Maybe it should be renamed to "What others think of Bill O'Reilly" so that advocates and proponents can have their say without adding another separate article. Kill it. --JJLatWiki 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Doesn't seem notable enough to merit its own entry.Caliwiki123 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Dhartung. Edison 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bill O'Reilly. The article doesn't need to be forked. 72.150.232.144 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. If the section gets big enough, you can fork it then. Just H 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename per Kesh. Netuser500 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom reasons. Cricket02 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename per Kesh (i.e. with "controversies"). Marm^(t) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. NTXweather 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Take away the finger paints. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlada Frey

This article makes no claim for no notability. A google search returns three sites: one Italian site that seems to be soccer-related, another Serbian, the third could be Croatian. Anyway, definately not enough to establish notability, unless those Serbian and Croatian(?) sites are somehow really important. Carabinieri 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless notability established/references are provided. Just FYI, there is a very notable Vladimir Stojković, but he is a football goalkeeper and most certainly not this guy :) // Laughing Man 01:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability unless sources provided per WP:BIO. --Shirahadasha 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This man deserve to have page on wikipedia, he may be the leader of the new artistic wave, obscure, yes, some times even scary, but free and passionate, strong and fresh, and what's most important - different! In this sea of mediocre, this guy is bringing something new. Currently he is only popular in the underground circles, as the article states, but wee can only hope that it will emerge and open eyes for many so called artists, and bring something new to this commercialized and conservative culture. There are so many things in the thrash-art that tell us of ourselves and our lives, it is sad that people failed to see it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steff infidel (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC).— Steff infidel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Steff infidel is the creator of this article. SkierRMH 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - If he's only popular underground, he does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BAND. We can't have articles on people who might be famous one day; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Given that, I'd say this one can be speedied per WP:SNOW. -- Kesh 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I must disagree with you people. Vlada Frey is very popular in the alternative art scene in Serbia. The reason he is not listed on many web pages is because Vlada is quite repulsive towards Serbia's modern art and culture overall, thus being in disagreement with many of Serbian artists and art galleries. But that does not mean he is not popular. Many alternative and abstract artists consider him a genius. When one of the users mentioned Frey as "underground" artist, he clearly meant different, a little bit anarchistic and anti-commercial. Just like punk and metal music. And I see these two music genre's, even though, considered "underground", have large articles on wikipedia, as well as many of the bands playing this music. Vladimir Stojkovic Frey is playing a huge part in Serbian performance art of today, and he deserves place on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vuk Filipovic (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC). — Vuk Filipovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Unless you can cite reliable sources to claim he is well known, he does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BAND. Also, no one deserves a place on Wikipedia. There are strict policies about adding articles for living persons, and Vlada Frey does not appear to satisfy those policies. -- Kesh 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Okay, I'm feeling very negative emotions, and anger coming from the user called "Kesh". Listen dude, I don't know if you have anything against Serbian art, culture or people overall, but if you do, I think you should keep it to yourself. Just because you haven't heard of someone, and I presume you haven't got all the knowledge of the world, that does not mean that person doesn't exist. With comments like that you are disrespecting Vlada's art and everything he is fighting. When I sad that Frey deserves a place in wikipedia, I just wanted to make regard, that if whole "underground" punk and gothic scene can find it's place here, one talented performance artist surely can. All I have for "evidence" is complete Vlada's discography. If that will make you feel any more convinced, I will upload it.
  - Calm down. He's just stating policy. I'm sure Vlada is a great guy, and I'm sure he exists. I'm also sure Kesh just loves Serbian culture and has an entire collection of Serbian folk records. We're not doubting he exists, but the article needs to assert notability, and it doesn't. What you need to do, to try and keep this article, is find an independent source to back up the claims. Go to WP:BAND, find the criteria he meets it under, and give us a source. Even if he's entirely underground, if he's leading a new artistic movement, somebody has to have written an article on him. (And sign your posts, please)--UsaSatsui 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I have no negative emotions about either Vlada Frey or the Serbian people in general. I'm just pointing out that this particular musician does not fit Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in an article. I've known underground bands that I loved, but they're not notable enough to put on Wikipedia either. No disrespect is intended, but I have to be blunt: he does not satisfy the requirements for having an article here. Yet. Maybe one day, he will. As for your evidence, a discography doesn't help satisfy WP:BAND. We need articles published in reliable sources about the artist and/or his work. -- Kesh 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no references, let alone citations. Nothing written in the article indicates any real notability and the article reads as if it was written by a close friend of his. He may eventually become notable, but isn't as of now. --The Way 06:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Zero references, no assertion of notability. Reading the article, this person appears to be a college student who has made a handful of self-produced albums, which does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --UsaSatsui 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FisherQueen's reasoning. JCO312 17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Delete The article does seriously lack notability and is generally not really relevant to Wikipedia. Tellyaddict 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FisherQueen. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:BAND for now. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is with you people?So many people are fans of Vladas art,and what is wrong with wanting for whole world to know him.He is a fine young man,passionate and wise.We know of him in Australia too.He has this original vission of future and you will regret that you dont understand him now.Look at the Van Gogh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delirium S (talk • contribs) 12:05, January 28, 2007

Van Gogh is notable because many others have independently recognized his work. That is not the case with Frey (yet).--UsaSatsui 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Submission Wrestling

deleteThe founder of the system was recently deleted for being non-notable. Stands to reason what he founded would be the same. Peter Rehse 07:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete It appears that Paulson started a wrestling dojo and decided to market it as 'his unique blend of traditions from around the world'. People do this all the time. I found a couple of training/fitness DVDs, and minor references under ADCC (which appears to be the Olympics of submission wrestling), but nothing that would really cinche it as encyclopedic. If the style catches on I would say that it might become notable, but as it stands I vote not. Eldereft 01:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears totally non-notable, verging on self-promotion. --Haemo 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability. JCO312 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much relevant info so it lacks a lot of notability. Tellyaddict 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking sources which with this sort of article is quite essential, so hence any sort of possible notability can't be verified. Bungle44 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikyBlog

Does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE. Previously prodded - tag removed by article creator. Policy explained on article talk page, but no references forthcoming. I am unable to find anything that suggests notability myself. CiaranG 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that no other guests have come to the party, including the author/de-prodder, I whole-heartedly support my own nomination. CiaranG 23:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairly innovative use of Mediawiki, but non-notable and does not satisfy WP:WEB. Delete. -- Kesh 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --- RockMFR 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RockMFR. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources provided. No assertion or evidence of notability. No attempt to meet WP:SOFT. --Shirahadasha 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt it exsists, from the evidence of 'Wiki' blog. No sources and fails to meet the policies. Retiono Virginian 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to improvements. Also, the book about Nelson, and the two interviews linked at the end of the article are enough to satisfy WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nelson (photographer)

This was spun off, apparently, from content in Bear community or something like that, but I'm not sure it merits its own page. I tagged it for speedy, but it was contested... I brought up the following concerns on the talk page:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person- sources? A google search only turned up the politician.
In addition, for authors, which you've added: Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. - can you direct me to independent reviews? And Amazon.com-esque and user-submitted ones don't count. He has not so far responded to these concerns. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of proper sources and highly questionable notability. Furthermore, the article is written as if it was lifted straight from promotional materials and may possibly also have copywrite problems. --The Way 06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly referenced and sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly referenced and lacking assertion of importanceDogJesterExtra 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete major edit to Wikify Newstruck 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved since it was nominated for deletion. --Eastmain 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still suffers from a total lack of proper sources so it still needs to be deleted. --The Way 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of sources is not a valid reason to delete an entire article. The fact that this man's work has had a book written about it seems to me to make him notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources is absolutely a valid reason to delete an article. Read the policies -- if it's not WP:Verifiable with reliable sources, then it's not appropriate. /Blaxthos

No, an article must be verifiable not verified. If an article is notable, than it should be kept, and any non-sourced information removed. Read the policy before claiming you know what's in them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable as above, fails WP:RS Cricket02 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Relisting in individual AFDs. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please note this will take me a few moments. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The End.

Non notable song. Not released as a single.

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

FLW and WTTBP are both singles, so I crossed them out. icelandic hur ric ane #12 _(talk) 01:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmeister_talk 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep they were realesed on CD's...good enough for me Nickmanning214 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not crazy about this nomination. That's a lot rolled up into one, and it's not like songs are a straightforward issue. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. Too many songs for one AFD. These should be relisted individually. --Dennisthe2 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless we want to eliminate most individual song articles, or which there are many... IronDuke 03:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do doubt that every song on The Black Parade requires an article, especially the b-sides. Though there does appear to be original research in the form of lyrical interpretation and speculative trivia, you should have done some more research yourself (not nominating the prominent singles). Pomte 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Forgot to remove them from the list. --Richmeister_talk 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist individually before we move on per Dennisthe2 - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm not completely opposed to relisting, I am really skeptical that any of these would survive individual AfD's. Not many individual songs are notable enough to have their own articles; the album they appear on should be sufficient. Granted, there are certainly notable enough songs (Stairway to Heaven, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Wish You Were Here, for example, but I doubt any song by My Chemical Romance is. However, if any of these songs are particularly noteworthy (have they garned special attention by the media? have they been made into a single?) then someone should point it out. --The Way 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep to relist, several of these items should be merged instead. hateless 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist if you must. "Not released as a single" is not good enough, per The Way, although yes, I would be surprised if any of these turn out to be notable. However, for any that aren't Keeps, Merge/Redirect would probably be the better option anyway, which doesn't require an AfD. CiaranG 08:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - there is of course an undeniably notable song called The End, also not a single. CiaranG 08:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget [[The End (The Beatles song) which, admittedly, is not a single either. I doubt that My Chemical Romance's 'The End' is even remotely close to being as notable as either of these. --The Way 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist individually. What's really needed is some kind of consensus on notability of songs at WP:MUSIC- I've been puzzled about what to do with articles like these before. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the 'inactive' Wikipedia:Notability (songs) which perhaps ought not to be inactive, though I don't know the history. Interestingly, if you browse the talk page there, you will find a discussion about My Chemical Romance song AfDs, and links to previous AfD debates. CiaranG 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. It's impossible to handle a list like this. I see a couple of nominations have been withdrawn as well, casting any potential delete votes (not that there are many yet) in doubt. Let's try this again. 23skidoo 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have lots of individual song pages. Also, see WP:NOT#PAPER. Mcr616 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist too much to deal with in one nomination. seems like fancruft to me. I would say delete most. simply because the band is notable, it does not mean that all of the songs on an album necessairly are. keep the singles. kill the rest.--Tainter 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to add that a lot of it seems like original research, which is grounds for deletion unless sources are cited. and also simply because other bands have non-single songs with articles doesn't mean that this one or everyone should--Tainter 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I could possibly see the B-Sides being deleted however the main songs in the album were released on the album itself and there are also many other bands with all if not most songs in a article. But if the B-sides need to be deleted then they should but the main songs are from a notable album that was released.
Keep. There is plenty of relevant information about the songs themselves and the stories behind them, and if that can be provided, then, no matter how insignificant the articles seem to you, then they have a right to be posted. Also, though it is a b-side, there was a lot of speculation, argument, and confusion over Kill All Your Friends because it was mentioned in passing in the album's limited edition, but no one verified when it was coming out or what it sounded like, so several people thought it might be Track 14. Thus, this article, if not the others, should be kept, as there is still some confusion about it.American_kohaku

Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many non-single song pages by bands less notable. Logically, these deserve to stay. Godlord2 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While some could argue the point that keeping the songs is pointless, some songs such as Dead! have gained some attention. For example, "Dead!" is scheduled for release on Guitar Hero II as a bonus track and I Don't Love You has received a critic review even though it has not been released as a single. And as American_kohaku pointed out, the confusion of Kill All Your Friends and Blood is addressed by the pages. 70.160.181.113 00:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge inot album articles. --thedemonhog 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: all the songs pages are useful. they help you to undestand what the band wanna say, specially for people who doesn't speak a good english, like me.--Moraleh 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete pretentious to think a single MCR song is notable. Rehevkor 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist individually per 23skidoo. Lovelac 7 10:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per above comments. -DMurphy 11:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramone and Frunkis

Existence of the show this page is about is disputed. No citations at all on the page. Seems odd that no citations can be found for a radio show which featured someone dying on air. One editor reinstated text on the basis that "no evidence could be found for non-existence"?? If this show is merely a joke mentioned once on another radio show, is that notable? Bad for Wikipedia's reputation to have reference to a joke as if it was real. The onus is on editors to find some sort of evidence of the show's existence - if anyone does then of course delete request should be withdrawn Hobson 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I was writing the above, an editor re-wrote the page - now saying the show did not exist - with citations. I don't believe the show is notable if it was a one-off joke, but the current version (as I write this - it seems to get reverted a lot) is not as bad as the one ten minutes ago. Hobson 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here's further proof that it's not true. [3] [4] please note that some of the posters are going along with the bit. -anonymous

Delete and redirect. A one-time joke with no evidence that it got much nontrivial attention... Redirect and add to The Opie and Anthony Show. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page has been poorly put together and is only one sentence long. Google hits: 10. (I do commend the effort of the editor in trying to source it, but the source if YouTube, which really isn't too reliable, save for a video.) → JARED ^(t) 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However it should be noted that Ramone and Frunkis is and has been mentioned numerous times and while you may not google search the show and find other references, it should be noted that Wikipedia puts the issue to the forefront regarding its existence or non existence and its mention on CNBC which is not disputed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.248.186 (talk • contribs) 19:41, January 28, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. DS 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death erection

Link is not respectful nor tasteful. There must be some other pictures/illustrations that can help people visualize the death erection "phenomenon", which is actually a natural event given under certain circumstances.Frikg 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)frikg Frikg 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)frikg[reply]

Keep the nomination is inappropriate as it does not make an argument for deleting the article, in fact you make the point that the subject is a real event. If you object to the link there are better ways to handle the situation rather than deleting the entire article. More to the point, Wikipedia is not censored: we don't delete articles because you find them distasteful. Gwernol 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting, referenced, notable physiological phenomenon. I don't like it is not a good reason to delete an article. Dar-Ape 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep best article ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
Delete Article is tasteless, very poorly sourced (one picture doesn't make something encyclopedic) and non-notable. --TommyOliver 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, see no reason to remove it. Diabolical 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - On the one hand, the article is horribly sourced and as-is doesn't meet WP:V. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored, and the nominator's entire argument boils down to "this is offensive." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda gross, but we aren't censored. Speedy Keep. --Dennisthe2 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. We ain't censored, but I see nothing verifiable here from reliable sources. With a mere 528 ghits [5],I see no evidence it can or will be improved. Source it from a medical textbook if necessary, but it's got to be something more than a blog. - Aagtbdfoua 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhat seems like a "Idon'tlikeit" nom. Anyway, wikipedia is not censored, the article initself just needs some work...which shouldn't be to hard. ~ Arjun 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the nomination was for the wrong reason, the article does need improvement. The condition could very well be documented by reliable sources. Pomte 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to something more appropriate. It's a valid article, but it should be named something more mature than "Death erection". RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 03:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with keep and rename. How about "post-mortem erection"? Means the same thing but is more scientific. "death erection" could be a redirect.Plymouths

Keep. Nom has no valid deletion criteria, and I just added a link to a scientist mentioning that the phenomenon is real. DMacks 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added a couple of better references, but the article seems to be using a wholly WP:OR explanation (blood engorgement via gravity) which is not supported by what I can find. Needs more rewriting to sources. The name isn't really used in literature, but there isn't a specific name for it that I can find other than "postmortem priapism". --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. It's referenced and noteworthy. I like "Postmortem priapism" with redirects from "postmortem erection" and "death erection," personally, but am open to better ideas. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references do not support the article. See review of references Talk:Death_erection#References. Jeepday 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jeepday. The "references" do not actually support this article at all. The first is sheer speculation. The following two have nothing to do with the phenomenon described. And the last is a forum post, which is not an reliable source. That leaves us with an unsourced, unverifiable article full of original research. -- Kesh 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The last is a message from a scientist speaking near his area of expertise. The forum is at least sanity-checked and the contributors verified by other experts. Not quite referreed academic journal, but not some anon poster on blogspot. See "Non-scholarly sources" in WP:RS. DMacks 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that would open do not appear to be reliable ones. The book of wierd medical anomalies is from the 1890's and cites things anecdotally going back to the 1700's. It is not at all a trustworthy source for medical information today. There is a photograph which could be a hoax. There is a comment from a blog, and there is a cite to a WebMD site which I could not get to open, but even if it did, one possible citation is not "multiple." Edison 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No arguments presented for deletion. WilyD 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the reason given in the nomination is invalid grounds for deletion, this article has no reliable sources documenting notability and authenticity. The first and fourth are unreliable and unusable sources by Wikipedia standards, the second source does not mention death erection, and the third concerns neck trauma, which is totally unrelated. Nick Graves 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The neck-trauma article contains a list entitled "Signs of spinal cord or brachial plexus injury", which states "Priapism and loss of the bulbocavernous reflex may occur". That supports the claim that erections can result from neck trauma, which is certainly what hanging creates, so that's an apparently reliable source confirming the effect in some situations (though not for the reasons or situations described earlier in the wiki page). DMacks 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The second source, which you say "does not mention death erection", contains the sentence, "Death by hanging is often accompanied by partial erection." It is a medical text published in 1900. Since there are medical sources documenting that cerebellar or spinal injury is the cause of priapism in dead people, I don't know why pointing out that it also causes priapism in people who survive their injury is a real problem. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Weak Keep condition on renaming and better sourcing, although this condition exists, better sources are needed then photos and a 110 year old book of medical anomalies.-- danntm ^T _C 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The tastefulness of an article is not criteria for deletion. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Pilotguy per WP:CSD#A7. BryanG^(talk) 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BasketsFX

This does not seem to be a notable website, very few Google hits. Dar-Ape 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Additional note: was prodded, but prod removed. Dar-Ape 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has no references, and does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Almost certainly self-promotion, per the POV material. --02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs).
Delete. No sources or evidence of notability per WP:WEB. Googling didn't turn up ay evidence of notability when I tried it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources at all. Notability. Hoax. Retiono Virginian 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-web}}. Marked as such. --Wafulz 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-web}} and per nom. Big top 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Games, Part Two

Delete as nom. Non-notable, poorly written episode article. I suspect the author was originally 190.57.108.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP vandal who contributed poorly written (and often unverifiable, factually inaccurate) information throughout this encyclopedia. It should also be noted that the user appeared to abandon this article infavor of Mind Games (Spider-man), which has also been submitted. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Episode descriptions, cast and trivia are already at Spider-Man: The New Animated Series. Pomte 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Games (Spider-man)

Delete as nom. Only a little bit better than its fellow submitted article, this is a non-notable episode of a cancelled TV series. Due the user apparently being more familiar with Spanish than english, the article looks like nonsense. Further, it offers little to no actual information, just "coming soon" messages. Wikipedia is not a TV.com or IMDb, though I doubt this contribution would be fit for even those sites. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Episode descriptions, cast and trivia are already at Spider-Man: The New Animated Series. Pomte 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - per consensus episode articles are encyclopaedic, notable television series, and remember Wikipedia is not paper. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a consensus that episode pages should be worked on, not deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I cannot imagine this would or should apply to any and all episode articles. Furthermore, this the only episode article related this cancelled series, and was made by a well...known vandal. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get out of the old state of mind, people. These articles suck ass, no one will ever fix them, and they only encourage people to use Wikipedia as their "OMG" fansite of useless trivia. There never was a consensus to make articles for every episode because a minority can so easily make episode articles. Then people come on to Wikipedia, see that, and assume it was a thought out decision. It's not, it's just a big mess of "OMG, others have episode articles, we should have episode articles" misconception. Why can't we end this insanity? This episode is not notable on it's own, and does not need a dedicated article. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no concensus to create articles for every little episode ever created. Works perfectly fine in the list of. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability (Tv.com and IMDB list pretty much anything), no content, and fails wikifying in so many ways. Tiakalla 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page was nominated for deletion less than one hour after it was created. That's not enough time before deleting.- Peregrine Fisher 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most like vandalism, bad articles should not be allowed to exist indefinitely. While I didn't feel this was a candidate for the speedy process, it was surely worth an AFD submission. Furthermore, as one user once told me, AFD brings problems to our attention, and rarely makes mistakes. If enzyme inhibitors had been submitted within the same timeframe, I'm sure it would not be deleted. This article, however, does not have same potential, nor the notability or interested editors. The author has abandoned it, and the only edit since—not counting mine—was yours. One edit, which has clearly done little to change the emerging consensus. I'm sorry, but you and Matthew are fighting the wrong battle. If a fictional character article like...Stiffler's mom is made and deleted/merged, articles like Batman and Supes still have nothing to fear. The deletion of inherently bad episode articles will not hurt or endanger good ones. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter if the creator hasn't edited it since, or how many edits it's had. If it can be improved, and it can, then it should stay and be improved. It takes a while to create a comprehensive television encyclopedia; deleting this page just makes more work for when it's recreated. - Peregrine Fisher 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, but every single article theoretically can be improved to be something in the possible future. And although we are not on a timetable, there is no reason we should cripple wikipedia with these kinds of articles for current readability either in my eyes. There is a perfectly well working and well agreed upon method of avoiding this, which is to create "List of .. episodes" articles and expand from that if something proofs notable enough. It's an encyclopedia, not a factbook, nor a directory, nor a mirror of the web etc. etc. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Tetzel

This article seems to be generating little interest, lacks sources, and seems to have been edited mainly by anonymous users. Also it has a rhyme on it that seems to translate too perfectly in the English, however, I'm not the best translator so can't comment on that. Chooserr 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, obviously this character is notable, he has a Catholic Encyclopedia entry [6]. Wikipedia is supposed to be editable by anyone, no need to discriminate against anons. It should be sourced better and cleaned up, but I see no reason to delete.-Andrew c 02:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd call being the inspiration of the 95 Theses sufficient notability. As for the rhyme, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry cited in the article has essentially the same rhyme with slightly different wording. BryanG^(talk) 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - when I first nominated it for deletion I didn't know about the interwiki links, so it probably should be kept, but I still think it needs a desperate rewrite. And While I haven't checked New Advent, I browsed the German version and didn't find the rhyme. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so. Chooserr 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the German wiki article. de:Johann_Tetzel#Der_Ablassbrief. It says "Sobald das Geld im Kasten klingt, die Seele (aus dem Fegefeuer) in den Himmel springt!" or "as soon as the money in the box clings, the soul (from purgatory) into the sky springs!"-Andrew c 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was noticed on Talk:The 95 Theses, as it appears Tetzel was one of the individuals targeted by Martin Luther when the theses were publicized. From a quick glance around Google, there seems to be sources for this, but the article currently lacks much citation at all. I think this can be made into a valid article, but it needs work. -- Kesh 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the causes of the early Protestant movement, I can't see why he got here to start with. Article needs work though and many more references Alf photoman 14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - clearly notable, even if the New Catholic Encyclopedia calls the jingle 'spurious'. -- Bpmullins | Talk 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sparking the Protestant Reformation is a pretty notable achievement, however unintended. Numerous sources cite Tetzel as a major factor leading Luther to write the 95 Theses, and support the truth of Tetzel's marketing jingle. Why is a rhyme unlikely? Remember the OJ murder trial and the repetition of "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" Added an easily found ref to the 1911 Britannica, but literally dozens or even hundreds of print references exist going back several hundred years, and he is prominent in any good history of the Reformation. So he is a notable subject, and the article can always be edited and improved to show both the Catholic and Protestant perspectives. Edison 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sourced article is about a historical person who appears in multiple standard reference works. FWIW, the rhyme moves easily from German to English because the underlying root words are cognate. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Historical figure, sourced article. Edison pretty much sums it up. -- Docether 18:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A necessary article on a notable person. A trip to the library's worth of books will beef up this article, and looking at the German equivalent couldn't hurt. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. i found the article informative and useful. Amirman 06:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Cool Hand Luke 22:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Abiamiri

Tagged for speedy deletion and then contested. I don't think this meets the CSD A7 criteria, but I also don't think the subject meets WP:BIO at this time.--Isotope23 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely does not meet CSD, and meets WP:BIO because of the sports athlete clause in addition to being rated highly in numerous reputable sports magazines (thus meeting the primary subject of multiple non-trivial sources clause). —bbatsell ¿? 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of devil's advocacy here (I have no strong opinion either way here, this was just a procedural listing), but that isn't actually what WP:BIO says. It says "Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level." I don't think any of the sources are reporting that he is playing in a fully professional league. I still don't see that he meets WP:BIO, but as Montco pointed out below, college atheletes are a fine line and WP:BIO is a guideline, not a hard rule.--Isotope23 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That iteration of "fully professional league or at the highest level" is used to shorten what was previous established as notable, which states, word-for-word, "including college sports in the United States." It's not limited to "fully professional league." —bbatsell ¿? 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a WP:BIO observation but "at the highest level" is lousy shorthand for "including college sports in the United States" because in the case of several sports, college would not necessarily constitute "the highest level".--Isotope23 02:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep College athletes are a fine line. If he was a backup at Northeast Arkansas Pig Farmer and Teachers College, I could easily support a delete. But in this case the subject is speculated by respected media organizations to be a potential first round draft pick. If you wade through all of the Mel Kiper-wannabe fantasy football nerd pages, the sources are there.[7], [8], [9] While some will say thats crystal balling, the major draft watchers are pretty good. Even without that, he is a three year starter at (and I hate to ever say good things about ND) but a pretty storied and highly-regarded college football program. Montco 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mildy high profile college athlete on a major college team. --Wildnox (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, article desperately in want for citations and references. It does not matter if we know if the person is notable, it has to be made sure that those reading it 20 years down the line also understand it Alf photoman 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article now has seven in-line citations to the article. Johntex\^talk 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is expected to be drafted within the first 2 rounds in the 2007 NFL Draft.--Bucs10 01:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Bucs10[reply]

Delete - nothing in article verifiable per WP:V; thus notability not demonstrated per WP:N. Add cites per WP:CITE and perhaps this can be remedied. CyberAnth 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please don't confuse "not verifiable" with "has not yet been verified". With just a few minutes of work, I've added seven in-line citations to the article. A lack of citations is generally a reason for improving the article, not for supporting deletion of an article. Johntex\^talk 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; would retract opinion if notability proved with more independent sources; paticulalry the draft claims. --Robdurbar 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to Keep, sources now added and notability confirmed --Robdurbar 08:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UNBELIEVEABLY STRONG delete Drafting doesn't justify keeping. Delete per nom and CyberAnth. Meets WP:CSD#A7. Fails WP:OR, since there's no relible source. Not notable as per WP:NOTABILITY.Hondasar e good¡Hable conmigo! 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bbatsell ↔NMajdan•talk 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate weak keep - No college football players should have an article unless they play in the pros or win a national award/earn All-American status/do something equally notable, PERIOD. Anything past that opens the door for literally hundreds of thousands of articles to be made on college players. But in this case I think it is pretty obvious he is going to be drafted, so deleting this will just mean the article will be recreated after he is, which is pointless. If he is somehow not drafted, DELETE IMMEDIATELY. VegaDark 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The player meets WP:BIO easily and started for 3 years at, arguably, the most notable college football program in the country.--Thomas.macmillan 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. It states that notable people's published works must include all published works.Hondasaregood 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High profile player at a high profile college football team (perhaps the highest! profile college football team!). --MECU≈talk 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seancp 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this doesn't count. Please add a reason.Hondasaregood 00:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is up to the closing admin what counts and what doesn't. Johntex\^talk 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - verifiable and notable. ~~Article needs sources, but that is not the same as being unverifiable.~~ Johntex\^talk 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references to the article from verifiable reliable sources. The article now has more in-line references than our article on Shrimp. The subject is notable and the article includes numerous verifiable sources. Johntex\^talk 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Fibonacci number

Neologism for something already covered in Fibonacci number and Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers. Nothing from two Google searches. Mathworld doesn't use the term either. Wafulz 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion. I don't know whether "anti-fibonacci number is a neologism or not. It's clearly not fully covered in the other two articles you showed me. I think the most logical choice is to merge and redirect with Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers. Either that or keep it as is because the content belongs in the general subject of Fibonacci. YechielMan 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only material not present is the convergence on 1/phi, which I have not seen published anywhere, and its derivation is not given in the article. The inverse phi doesn't even make much sense intuitively- seeing as the sequence is just basically the Fibonacci sequence with alternating signs, it should converge to negative phi. The rest of the article is basically listing some of the numbers. --Wafulz 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term does not appear to be used anywhere outside pages that copied this article. If the sequence is notable (I don't know what it'd be called if there is a name for it - alternating Fibonacci sequence?), then merge to Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers. Pomte 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not worthy of its own article. A mention in Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers would be sufficient. Also, -1/phi is suspect. -phi seems more likely to me. Stephen B Streater 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is already covered on Wikipedia and lacks sufficient verification.-- danntm ^T _C 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is a common-enough extension of Fibonacci numbers to negative indices. The recurrence is still F(n) = F(n-2) F(n-1) for all n not in {0, 1}. (The ratio -1/phi corresponds to F(n)/F(n-1) as n goes to negative infinity in this way of viewing the sequence.) Merge to Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers and redirect it and Anti-Fibonacci numbers (plural) there. Gimmetrow 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fibonacci number. Plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. delldot | talk 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fibonacci number. per comments above.DaveApter 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; do not redirect. We are not going to have this term in Fibonacci number; it's not sourced. No one uses it, and if anyone searches just to find out if there is such a term, Fibonacci number will come up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is an unreferenced term, it shouldn't have mention either on the parent article or any other until it canbe verified. SGGH 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Can also be found in the OEIS (ID:A039834), where it's also linked to Wikipedia. Can-Dutch 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So it looks like someone read the Wikipeida article and submitted it to OEIS, and there are no independent sources of the term. Pomte 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But, unless it's removed from the OEIS, too, then the article should be redirected, instead of deleting it entirely. Can-Dutch 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirects are cheap. WP has all sorts of informal redirects. Redirects are often kept at RfD with the argument that someone created it, therefore it must have been considered useful. A fortiori here, where someone created an entire article based on the term. If the term "Anti-Fibonacci number" is not used by professional mathematicians, then perhaps it shouldn't be used in an article. However, that does not mean a redirect from the term to Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers isn't a useful search aid for someone who knows the concept of a negative-indexed Fibonacci sequence without knowing a proper name. Also in regard to previous statement, the value -1/phi is the same as 1-phi, which is mentioned in Fibonacci number as the "other root" of the defining equation. Gimmetrow 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looked for various uses of the term, and found two academic sources, both in music, but with different meanings. One refers to an "anti-Fibonacci expansion" where something typically developed using a Golden Ratio is reversed or reduced by that ratio. The other refers to "anti-Fibonacci" pitches, which are associated with numbers missing from the standard sequence after some transformation. (The latter sense is used in Cessu's blog.) Also found a page at The Media Desk, which refers in passing to "Anti-Fibonacci numbers" without explanation, but with a link to A00045 it suggests the WP page.
  - Newman W. Powell. "Fibonacci and the Gold Mean: Rabbits, Rumbas, and Rondeaux". Journal of Music Theory (1979), v.23, n.2, p.258 of p.227-273. (JSTOR)
  - Tae Hong Park. "Towards Automatic Musical Instrument Timbre Recognition". (Ph.D. Thesis)
  - Cessu's Blog. "Anti-Fibonacci Sequences and Rings of Saturn".
  - "God's Sequence". The Media Desk.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top gun mach 2

This is the recreation of a previously speedily deleted article. This is a supposed "mythical Canadian band of great status." The "sources" do nothing to indicate meeting WP:N (one is a simply a mirror}. Fails . . . well, this fails everything. janejellyroll 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt G4 (repost), with a nice little side note that the page directly criticizes Wikipedia for deleting things per policy. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they shouldnt b chastized for pointing out the events in the past. dennis u r a loser
- Please be civil, and don't resort to name calling, as it doesn't change what I've said. Please also see this link for verifiability, this link for notability, and this link for fictitious creations.
  - ...erm, yeah, I said that. Forgot to sign. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the sites are not mirrors at all, jane if u actually clicked the link u'd know that --Clayzer 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis "source" [10]? janejellyroll 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThat reputable source is not a mirror, the facts are that it is simply running the same software as Wikipedia. GunnerMike89 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact remains that you can't use the article as a source for . . . the article. That sort of circular cannibalistic "sourcing" doesn't prove anything about your "mythical Canadian band." janejellyroll 03:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - formatting change for User:Clayzer's commentary was done for readability. --Dennisthe2 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as apparent hoax and unverifiable in any event. Zero relevant Google hits [11] for a "myth of great status" that has a "has a long and historic history" does not jibe. References cited are completely unreliable. I have removed the speedy deletion tag. G4 repost criteria is only for articles deleted after debate at an xfd, not for articles previously speedied.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow got over 500,000 related hits when I searched Google. [12] Just 2 minutes of following links and I found those 2 references.GunnerMike89 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, Google is kinda funny that way. --Dennisthe2 06:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed you did. That is because you searched without quotes and therefore got hits for every page in which those 4 words appear in any order. Or put another way, I just searched for rock 4 flag umbrella and got over a million results.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not quite. Order is actually part of Google's algorithm for finding and sorting search results --GunnerMike89 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did I say differently? Your citation of 500,000 results, as if that means something relevant to this subject, was what was referred to and my point stands. The number is irrelevant and a search for those exact words returns no relevant hits. The fact that the ordering algorithm sorts results to the top, and none of the links in the first few pages are to this fictitious thing also proves the point, though there is no reason to search in this untargeted manner unless you wish to cite a large number that doesn't tell you anything about how often the actual thing searched for appears online.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, you did say differently. You stated that without quotes you get hits for "every page in which those 4 words appear in any order". This is not true. The order of those words creates different results, not only a different sorting order.[13][14] Of course, since no common phrases can be created by rearranging the words rock, 4, flag, and umbrella, there will not be a great difference in search results. If you rearranged the words in a phrase such as these two searches[15][16] you will notice a drastic difference in results, an increase in hits of approximately 296%. GunnerMike89 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I would like to remind you both that we are not here to discuss how to search on Google, nor are we here to discuss the results of different combinations. GunnerMike89, the point that Fuhgettaboutit was making was that searching for the terms sans quotes will indeed look for pages with any or all of the search terms in it, ergo your massive result. Search for the term "Top gun mach 2" without quotes results in thousands of results; putting it in quotes results in precisely four, and putting a more refined search ( "Top gun mach 2" Ontario band) results in precisely zero. --Dennisthe2 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your "refined" search method is fatally flawed, and negates your argument. For example, this reasonable search would "prove" that the Holocaust did not occur. I'm sure you ~~were~~ weren't implying that the atrocities of the Holocaust did not happen, but I think Google, while an excellent search tool, should not be used to prove or disprove the accuracy of an article. --GunnerMike89 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You know, it figures that sooner or later, Godwin's Law would rear its head here. Put a fork in it, the argument is done. --Dennisthe2 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Delete. I would like to point out that the band's name, according to the article itself, is actually "TopGun: Mach 2" and searching Google for this results in a blocked user's page, and the administrator's noticeboard. Bwahaha! Salad Days 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Another failed argument attempt. The Nazis were not mentioned, nor was an attempt at comparison made. Remember how Iran made news recently when it held that Holocaust convention, where they evaluated the likeliness of the Holocaust occurring? The organizers were largely Islamic fundamentalists, right wing maybe but certainly not Nazis. Therefore I reject your attempted use of Godwin's Law, please come up with a valid response. -- GunnerMike89 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You can say whatever you want. I stand by what I have said, and have nothing more to say to you. My !vote stands. --Dennisthe2 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable hoax, article creator has landed on WP:AIV for his messing around with this AfD. Sandstein 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete no user related to this article is located at WP:AIV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by clayzer (talk • contribs).
- comment - Clayzer, please note that the reason you are no longer at AIV is because the issue has been dealt with and closed. --Dennisthe2 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - wow way to make an unverifilable claim. i think that comment should be deleted dennis--Clayzer 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can find where you edited this here, note your name on top and the part in green where this was added. Sir, I will be blunt: lying about this will get you NOWHERE. --Dennisthe2 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about attacks from people including Wikipedia administrators is vaguely amusing. The "fictional band industry?" "Overwhelming evidence for the case of fictional presence?" Uhm... Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable soruces provided, and none are findable via Googling. -- Whpq 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - The sources are highly reliable, how much more reliable could one hope to find? Anyways it's a great band that has had a great effect on Canadian culture. Is there a Canadian Wikipedia that is unbiased towards Canadian life?--GunnerMike89 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources? You haven't shown us where they are. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - noting that User:Clayzer is vandalizing this AFD. Recommending salting, and reporting again to AIV. --Dennisthe2 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of this vandalism includes changing votes of other users [17]. I've undone these edits. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ya beat me to it, man. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Commit acts of aggression~~ ~~Oppress~~ Delete Fails WP:BAND, insufficient reliable third-party coverage, and the vandalism sure isn't helping. ShadowHalo 09:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At least someone has a sense of humour. --GunnerMike89 01:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only two proponents of this article thus far consist of two people - one of whom is attempting to distort what he pulls up as evidence to the point of being untruthful (case in point, stating that he didn't say anything about Nazis in response to my citing of Godwin, which was in response to his...well, mentioning nazis by way of a bogotified google search), the other who was blatantly vandalizing the AfD. Under the circumstances, can we close and delete on the grounds of WP:SNOW? --Dennisthe2 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that my analysis of the "evidence" that the Delete proponents present has distinctly proven the inaccuracy of their arguments. For example, their twisting of the Google search engine, etc. Let's get some input from Canadian members. They'll inform you of the significance and notability of TopGun: Mach 2. --GunnerMike89 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Canadian here. Never heard of'em! My opinion above stands. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I would recommend against closing this after only two days; finding reliable third-party coverage can sometimes take a couple days. Plus, keeping this for a few more days should prevent any reason to recreate the article on the grounds that there wasn't enough discussion, etc. (and then the page can be speedied without any worries, assuming the page is deleted). I've watchlisted the page to make sure that nobody's votes get changed/removed again. ShadowHalo 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense/hoax (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and close early per Dennis. Natalie 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; this article is admitted trolling per [18]. I would speedy db-nonsense myself but might be considered an "involved" admin per an earlier block. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (comment removed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GunnerMike89 (talk • contribs).
- Yes, and I also remember blocking you indefinitely, but I thought there was some hope of getting actual contributions out of you after you admitted on ANI you'd been playing games and that you'd been caught. Read this page and see how many people's time you wasted. Are you going to stop now, or do we have to indef-block about five more accounts? Newyorkbrad 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - {Comment by blocked user removed, GunnerMike people who are blocked for trolling don't get to participate in this discussion) 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GunnerMike89 (talk • contribs) — GunnerMike89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    - Wow, why is my narrow field of expertise being brought into this discussion? I'm deeply offended, whoever posted that tag, please remove it. I take personal attacks very seriously; I'm proud of my great knowledge on TopGun: The Band and TopGun: Mach 2, please don't try to take that away from me. GunnerMike89 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I put it there because you posted the comment under a pseudonym - which if this behavior is any indication, is you. I am not removing it. --Dennisthe2 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, it would be very fair to say this. --Dennisthe2 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above /Blaxthos 17:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --InShaneee 19:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jump up on top of page until it is driven into the ground and deleted, that article is serious funny (regardless of it it means to be or not!). Should be added to bad jokes and other nonsense before it is deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN?! Surely you're joking! --Dennisthe2 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, I really am being deadly serious with wheels and knives! Read for instance the intro sentence (TopGun: Mach 2 is a fictional band, a great Canadian folklore myth of great status in Southern Ontario and The legend has a long and historic history, with many different stories of the bands many memorable tours, albums, and cameo appearances in big-budget Hollywood movies), and the entire subsection "Denial of TopGun: Mach 2". Mathmo ^Talk 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ....yeahhhh. You gotta point there. Tack a BJAODN for me as well, with an emphasis on N. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete LazyDaisy 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bjaodn that is is definetly where this hilarious article belongs, i completely agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.31.129 (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — 70.48.31.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'BJAODN I could not agree with you more this article is the funniest BJAODN i have ever seen! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.31.129 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — 70.48.31.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
BJAODN - I agree with 70.48.31.129, this article is very humourous. We should have it enshrined in Wikipedia's history. GunnerMike89 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ncaa pool

An unencyclopedic topic already adequately covered at NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. Moreover, this article is currently nothing more than a discussion of the tournament itself, a blank section, and a how-to guide. Maxamegalon2000 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Half of it is at the NCAA article, the "how to run a pool" half is unencyclopedic WP:OR. - Aagtbdfoua 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can refine to make it more encyclopedic talking more to the point about a pool. give me a chance here. --Dr.richard.indiaz 05:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is not enough encyclopedic here to even suggest beefing up betting pool. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --Rockstar915 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 04:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Kyle

Extremely minor Star Trek character. Amounts to fancruft. Wikipedia is not Memory-Alpha. NMChico24 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into recurring characters. Kyriakos 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit part, Memory Alpha already has him. Gazpacho 05:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor role, minor character. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), but do not consider the character to meet any of the four main points for inclusion. If the character can be shown to have a major impact on the plot of an episode, I would reconsider. -- saberwyn 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of minor characters in original Star Trek (not sure if such a page already exists). Walton monarchist89 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into a suitable list of minor characters. Definitely not sufficiently notable for own article. WJBscribe 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although this article needs a lot of work and cleanup, the character was a recurring one throughout the original series and was also brought back (played by the same actor) for Wrath of Khan. I'm actually surprised an article on the character hadn't been made a long time ago. Kyle is actually more a major character than some of the one-time characters that do have articles about them. Memory Alpha is not Wikipedia and just because something is covered by them doesn't mean we can't do it too; I don't accept MA inclusion as any criteria against Wikipedia inclusion, barring an actual policy being implemented. 23skidoo 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, however, I don't accept that other similar characters having articles is a criteria for keep. --NMChico24 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand per 23skidoo. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish the out-of-universe significance of this character, as required by WP:FICT. JChap2007 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right now there's no good place to merge minor TOS characters. Eluchil404 08:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Cmdr. Argyle

Fancruft. Extremely minor Star Trek character. Wikipedia is not Memory-Alpha. NMChico24 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into recurring characters. Kyriakos 03:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit part, Memory Alpha already has him. Gazpacho 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor role, minor character. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), but do not consider the character to meet any of the four main points for inclusion. If the character can be shown to have a major impact on the plot of an episode, I would reconsider. -- saberwyn 10:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments on Commander Kyle. Walton monarchist89 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to suitable list of minor characters but def not notable enough for own article. WJBscribe 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Walton monarchist89. Unlike Kyle, Argyle appeared only once and therefore is a more minor character and therefore should be rolled into a minor characters article. 23skidoo 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per discussion. 23skidoo, note that he did appear more than once - once in The Naked Now (chief engineer), once in Datalore (helping reassemble Lore). I don't remember if he appeared beyond that, but it was early occurances. --Dennisthe2 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the article on Commander Kyle, fails to establish the out-of-universe significance of this character. The Trekcrufters have been busy. JChap2007 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood North

Neologism and Blatant Advertising Donteatyellowsnow 04:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is up for deletion for the reason: neologism (specialized and unclear terminology and/or misnomer) per Wiki criteria for deletion - neologisms.

To quote from Wiki "AVOID NEOLOGISMS": "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers ABOUT the term — not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)"

The references cited do not DEFINE the term, nor do they DISCUSS the term. Furthermore, there is no such place as "Hollywood North" and it is vague, not widely used, and undocumented and unverified exactly what "Hollywood North" is. Unlike other citys named "Moscow" or "Hollywood" it is not a specific, nor documented "place". The editors of this page have argued and fought over whether it is Vancouver, Toronto or the entire country of Canada. Again, this is vague. It is also confusing because there is a real city called North Hollywood, California as well as an already existing Hollywood, California and a real Hollywood filmmaking community (which this is not) -- so it is misleading and confusing and is attempting to make contact by nefarious association with the real Hollywood, California film community and attempting to benefit financially from it. This page also has original research as well as unverifiable and/or uncited or completely inaccurate or self-serving PR-based research and propaganda. It is also blatant advertising for the Canadian film industry and various related groups and companies. If not deleted, this page should absolutely be renamed the "Canadian film industry". - Donteatyellowsnow 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's documented and verified, the article just hasn't been verified per Wikipedia standards, and whatnot. It's a common term used to desribe media filmed in Canada. ---theblueflamingo^Squawk 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable as the refs demonstrate- if confusing titles are a reason for deletion, we should delete everything in Moscow (disambiguation) save the capital of Russia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not a "documented" nor verifiable term. It has never been defined in any common form -- those from Toronto trying to claim it as well as those from Vancouver (and apparently others). The attempt to define it without appropriate sources for its definition constitutes "original research" and is not permitted. There is only one Hollywood proper and it is not in Canada. Also it is blatant advertising for the Canadian film production community and various film commissions and/or groups. 76.174.42.95 04:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the above comment is the sole edit by that anon. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The wording and style of the previous item by "76.174.42.95" is identical to that of User:Donteatyellowsnow. An IP address search is unable to locate a point of origin for this IP address, suggesting it originates in a corporate network rather than a nationally/state/city-identifiable locale. Given these considerations, and the various demosntrations of misleading and misrepresentative nature of Donteatyellowsnow's role in the recent history of this article, as well as the near-identical wording, a checkuser report should be filed to determine the validity of this "vote". Even though IP address "votes" are automatically discounted.Skookum1 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, while IPs are discounted at RfA, they aren't at AfD. In addition, donteat could have accidentally logged out. Altogether, though, I'm convinced it's the same person. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - While I'm not taking sides here, AfD's are not a vote but a discussion to achieve consensus on the action to be taken. Luke! 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's why it's a "vote"/!vote and not a vote. ;) Carson 05:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very well referenced, does not read as advertising. The article does need some cleanup to be encyclopedic, though. No need to Wikilink all those movies and TV shows there, when there's a See X for complete listing right above them. Those sections should be rewritten in paragraph form with just a few choice Wikilinks and citations. Still, not a valid reason to delete. Satisfies WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. -- Kesh 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-documented, all one has to do is listen to, watch, or read the news in Canada and elsewhere to find the term in use. Notion that a Wikipedia article will influence major Hollywood producers to film in Canada is ludicrous. Misuse of AfD process, related to edit disputes at Hollywood North and Runaway production. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Indeed, the term is routinely used up here. Geo Swan 04:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is well-established term in both Canadian and American media, and has currency within the US film industry, and not just when its personnel are in Vancouver or Toronto or any other Canadian film centre; a simple Google search will find innumerable references, not all of them from Canadian points of origin; even if they were, if it were only a Canadian-only term this still doesn't not disqualify it as being of encyclopedic interest. This AFD is spurious and only the latest part of a hostile and destructive campaign by User:Donteatyellowsnow to undermine the article, which has included misrepresentations of edits and content and references placed by other editors; this campaign is in and of itself apparently a p.r. campaign and entirely self-promotional on the part of a Hollywood-industry loyalist hostile to Runaway productions (who has also attacked the Canadian film industry in that article...)). Please note above that Donteatyellowsnow has called this AFD a "candidate for speedy deletion", which an AFD is not, although earlier tonight this user tried to place the speedy deletion template, as well as other "nuisance templates", all to advance a one-sided campaign to erase "Hollywood North" as a term from existence at all. It has over 15 years of history and a widespread literature attached to it. A literature to which Donteatyellowsnow is hostile, but which exists nonetheless, and will continue to despite Donteatyellowsnow's insistence that it be done away with.....Skookum1 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this is a "Neologism" or "Blatant Advertising". I'm sorry but I find it hard to assume good faith in this nomination. --Wildnox (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Even if the term were an exclusively Canadian PR campaign, that in itself is notable. Pomte 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — many citations from a wide range of sources. Can't be advertising because nobody decides to move their production to Canada based on just a Wikipedia article. Carson 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per Ckatz and Skookum1's reasoning. As indicated in the article, the subject is very well referenced by non-governmental organizations, government and by other publications on both sides of the border. Luke! 05:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Luke! Killroy4 06:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've spent a considerable amount of time on this article, and considering the references are the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, City of Vancouver, Government of Canada, Statistics Canada, Government of Toronto, Vancouver Mayor's Office, Toronto Film Office, and the Vancouver Film Comission, I would say those sources are even more notable than any magazine. Furthermore, this article is not truly about a place but about the origins of a term, why this term exists, and the factual evidence that supported the creation of this nickname. Mkdw ^talk 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Even Calgary sometimes tries to pass itself off as Hollywood North. Well referenced, verifiable information. Does need a little cleanup though, as the random list of productions in Vancouver is unwieldly, and adds nothing to the article. Resolute 07:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a title such as Film production in Canada. --Metropolitan90 08:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about film production in Canada. Runaway production and Cinema of Canada are more about the Canadian production industry. Also the Canadian Film Production industry is vastly more complicated than the scope of Hollywood North. Essencially the articles would also talk about different subjects since Hollywood North mainly talks about how the term "Hollywood North" came to be and the evidence to support. While a lot of information about productions is included such as the number of productions, the article Film production in Canada should truly talk about independent films, Canada Council, Canadian film process, IATSE, budgeting, world scope, competition with US films, etc. and not about records held by Canadian cities on a North American plane. In my opinion =). I think Hollywood North is a fine article that talks about a well documented and interesting topic. I mean, some diversity in articles is acceptable, afterall we technically for the same reasons could put it all under the article Canada. =) Mkdw ^talk 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable term, widely used, and the article has an abundance of sources. If an article is made about the film of this title, there may need to be a DAB page created, though. 23skidoo 17:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - encyclopaedic, sourced to the extreme - I assume the nominator must be joking, right ... ? WilyD 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - bad faith nomination. WilyD 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep term I have heard in conversation and the press. TonyTheTiger 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complies with content policies and guidelines. The article is verified with reliable sources. Agent 86 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is utterly unconvincing. The article is well sourced and its subject is notable. WJBscribe 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding Donteatyellowsnow's changes to the AfD nom: I don't see how this qualifies as a neologism. More appropriately, it seems to be a toponym. And the article does show citations for notability of the term, which can be verified. That, plus the response here, means I doubt this nom has a snowball's chance. -- Kesh 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You don't have to like a term for it to be valid, nor does it have to have a single specific meaning or be otherwise non-confusing. A google search for "Hollywood North" Vancouver turns up over 93,000 hits; change Vancouver to Canada and it's over 150,000. Bobanny 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable, encyclopedic, seems like a decent article to me. ShadowHalo 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well referenced, it is not blatant advertising. It should be kept --Borgarde 09:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to User:Donteatyellowsnow, its nothing but WP:SNOW. I also find it relatively difficult to believe that anyone who has done any in depth reading of any of the articles, critically thinks about what they're reading, will see that such references such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's article Hollywood North to grow again directly mentions the name, and the boost it will get from tax concessions made by BC's Premier Glen Clark. Lois Siegel, award winning journalist and photography who is named in Capital City's Top 50 People by the Ottawa Citizen wrote, "In my mind “Hollywood North” is synonymous with the phrase “runaway productions” which the new governor elect of California has sworn to terminate. The British Columbia film industry is firmly convinced that it has an exclusive license to the name, and that it should only be applied to Vancouver." Mkdw ^talk 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important, well written article that has recently received some needed edits. I firmly believe that this is a bad faith nomination (one of several) by User:Donteatyellowsnow who I believe should be blocked from Wikipedia for being a heavily biased troll. GeeCee 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be about a phenomenon/industry which is generally known by a term that merely originated as a neologism. This is the same as Silicon Valley or the Research Triangle or for that matter the United States of America. I can't imagine that we wouldn't keep this article. Although I would take yellowsnow's suggestion and create a redirect at "Canadian film industry". --JGGardiner 02:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consider moving to a more formal name such as Canadian film industry. A sector of the economy that's this important warrants a serious and well-rounded article. The focus on its nickname looks a bit strange. Kla'quot 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Bobanny. 11:29, 29 January 2007 — 154.20.77.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note - This page was originally about the meaning of the name, not about the Canadian film industry by extension, and at least by its origin it didn't include all of (as the definining characteristic of "Hollywood North" is out-of-country productions/production money, not the Canadian film industry per se, and as already accounted in Cinema of Canada and also apparently Film production in Canada. CanCon is not, originally at least, relevant to the concept/phenomenon of Hollywood North. Skookum1 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Eastmain 22:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with most, commonly referred-to term both in and out of industry.--Keefer4 05:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was respeedied'—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Davies

I TOLD you guys this would happen. Speedy delete, recreation of deleted content. If not that, poorly sourced article on individual of questionable notability (due to a moderately popular YouTube video). Thunderbunny 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation of previously deleted material. -FisherQueen (Talk) 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per the same reason as FisherQueen.--Wildnox (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wilkin-Guest Band

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notibility per WP:MUSIC. Does not meet WP:V Nv8200p talk 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to think there is any notability here. --Wildnox (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. Mitaphane _talk 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was} speedy delete as yet another re-creation of a deleted dictionary of slang. This is simply List of street names of drugs re-created, under a different title 3 days after its last deletion. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy applies. This article is nothing but a set of (stub) dictionary entries for slang words — not even good stubs in many cases, at that. There is no actual encyclopaedia article content, on the subject of drug street names, here at all. We had a consensus to get rid of this dictionary of slang words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs (2nd nomination), and in different forms this dictionary has already been discussed several times before, including at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street name and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of marijuana slang terms 2. For a dictionary of such slang words, see Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Wiktionary has had WikiSaurus entries and appendices dealing with these words for several years, now. It has wikt:Wikisaurus:marijuana and wikt:Appendix:Cannabis slang, for examples. Indeed, until this edit (some of which has yet to be reverted) cannabis (drug) used to link to them. Uncle G 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug street names

This list has not a single reference. I would love to go through and clean it up using Wikipedia standards for sourcing (and also notability)... but it would be empty. This is simply a harbor for neologisms. Notable slang terms, if there are any, should be (and are) included in the articles for the particular drugs they're referring to — "marijuana" at cannabis, "coke" at cocaine, etc. 98% of this is simply intoxicant-listcruft. Let me reiterate: there are no sources for anything on this page, either for notability or even simple common, widespread use. Delete. JDoorjam JDiscourse 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is dead on here is appears. --Wildnox (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NEO and those that aren't subject to that are already mentioned in their corresponding articles(or they should be if not). Mitaphane _talk 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lists like this get e-mailed around the police community and then back out to the public, but who knows if any of them really see use. It's by definition almost impossible to verify. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not appropriate for here House of Scandal 09:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is, at this time, unverifiable through the use of reliable, third party sources. As an unsourced, indiscriminate list, I would support deletion. I would also support the inclusion of any major, externally verifiable terms into the article on the related drug. -- saberwyn 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a classic example of a faxlore compilation. Too bad this is too long for WP:BJAODN; the revelation proposed here that "weasel feed" is a slang word for marijuana made me smile. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator: I certainly wouldn't object to some of the more ridiculous ones being excerpted to BJAODN, like the very first entry for cannabis slang which defines "8th Row tickets at the Nuggets game" as "An Eighth of Dizzity Dank." JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a question of appropriateness, given WP:NOT#CENSOR. The article is clearly not up to par as far as verifiability, and it's unfortunate because it looks like a well put together list. → JARED ^(t) 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, so maybe this list isn't sourced right now. Here's three [19] [20],[21]. If anybody wants to rewrite this article using these sources, or others, they certainly can, and probably should. So the only question is whether or not this kind of information should be collated on Wikipedia. (The nomination certainly supports including the information in articles on the drugs themselves, so the inclusion of the information is not immediately at issue). So far as I can see, I don't see why not, none of the opinions here have expressed any kind of argument addressing that issue. The names themselves are important enough for law enforcement to care about, and while articles shouldn't use slang, that's not the same as saying we shouldn't have articles on slang. Somebody get back to me if you can address that issue, and not the unimportant one about sources. That, as the links I provided show, is easily addressed. FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this list certainly seems to qualify as. Your sources actually strengthen this point: the second source, for instance, lists 536 different slang terms for marijuana alone. Your third source is equally long-winded; your first mercifully only lists a few examples for each. But this demonstrates that even "official" lists such as these are not at all definitive, unless you're suggesting we include everything on their list simply because it's there? Those other sites allow themselves the latitude to randomly compile information; we do not. If individuals are interested in the slang names for particular drugs, they're able to look those up and find them in their respective articles. Better yet, they can go peruse urbandictionary.com, a project dedicated to documenting exactly this sort of information. If there were a source stating the importance to police of being up on drug slang, that information would be relevant at slang. But neologisms huddling together for warmth as they do here, or being put on a context-less list by drug agencies, do not make them Wikipedia material. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, your nomination(and several of the further opinions expressed) complained about sources, I demonstrated that it's not a real issue, as there are numerous sources available. It took me literally seconds to find these. Thus it would be better to not even try to argue that, as it's rather easy to show why it's meaningless claim. If you want sources, they exist. Perhaps you could strike that reason from your nomination? That might concentrate matters on more relevant reasons to delete. WP:NOT#DICT is probably a better argument in this case, and I suggest seeing if Wikitionary has it already. You aren't objecting to the information itself after all, as you have supported putting these slang terms on the individual drug articles. I think a collation is helpful myself, but I don't care if it's here or there. FrozenPurpleCube 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I would agree that the article does not necessarily meet Wikipedia standards per se, I do think that it compiles an interesting amount of information, not necessarily inaccurate. Is that not what Wikipedia was meant to be? And yes, they're neologisms but I think they're very important socially. If it's not here, it won't be anywhere. Just my two cents. --Rockstar915 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, bad faith nomination by banned user: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DogJesterExtra. Part Deux 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadev Rozenfield

fails WP:BIO; lacks notability Shopstermax 04:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to satisfy WP:BIO per this line: Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league... .--Wildnox (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Professional wrestlers are entertainers, not athletes. Respectfully, by your logic, every single professional wrestler (of which there have been over 50,000), deserve Wikipedia articles.Shopstermax 04:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there are even more professionals in other sports(yes I realize this is staged, but I still think in many ways it is an athletic event). Unless the guideline changes or I missed something, this person does not fail WP:BIO as you assert. --Wildnox (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking at the edit history, something seems fishy because there are two editors who have no talk page and have edited most of the page. It seems that whoever wrote this wrote it about himself (against WP:AUTOBIO). → JARED ^(t) 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable wrestlerDogJesterExtra 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that creator is under investigation for being a WP:SOCK account of User:JB196 and if proven, the AFD will be Speedily deleted as a Keep (with no prejudice against renomination) See section on WP:AN/I for more details. SirFozzie 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bomb (play)

Doesn't seem notable, possibly created by the person involved in it as an advertisement, new user removed prod without commenting on notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of every play ever created and this is certainly a minor one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be likely COI and advert.--Wildnox (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:N House of Scandal 09:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was suspicious of its notability when it was created, and listed it on the polish noticeboard. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appleseed (Talk) 02:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a minor one, it is the biggest commercial play in Poland, also many actors are most notable. But still I agree that an article needs improvement for which I do not have time right now. I hoped that someone (Polish speaking) could visit web page of a play and expand the article. --Nizarpl 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a minor one, it is the biggest commercial play in Poland, also many actors are most notable. But still I agree that an article needs improvement for which I do not have time right now. I hoped that someone (Polish speaking) could visit web page of a play and expand the article. --Nizarpl 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations or sources for the notability claims you make would sway me over to keep. --Wildnox (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' unless reliable sources that establish the fact that it is " biggest commercial play in Poland" are introduced - need proof. Cricket02 05:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your proof Second paragraph--Nizarpl 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a Sense

Article was previously deleted 9 days ago, under A7 (failing notability). Recreated with the same content, its prod was removed without comment. Reason for the prod was again failing music notability. The only notability claims the article does are releasing albums under an indie label ("Symphonic Illusion Records", I cannot find much about this label through Google), and that it has had some of their songs remixed by other bands. ReyBrujo 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One album, and the only Google hits for "Symphonic Illusion Records" refers to this record, so it may be just their name for a self-release. No entry on allmusic.com (the string takes one to "Inasense", an different entity). If "has a strong following" is true, it doesn't show on their web site, which lists no upcoming shows, and a grand total of two previous shows, in suburban spaces - in February and March of 2006. Granted, they may just not update their web site, but what else are we supposed to go on? In the "News" section of their website, what do we have but "IN-A-SENSE on Wikipedia" as their big news, which doesn't put me in an especially good mood toward this whole endeavor. To the bit bucket with them! Herostratus 06:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (which will make reposting nuke-on-sight as {{db-repost}}). Not notable, even its flimsy claims of notability are not cited; also most of it is somewhat hopeless spam/promotional material. DMacks 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion and nomination. Seems to be a promotional entry - ain't what we're here for. --Dennisthe2 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreator did not follow WP:UNDEL which states that the article should be requested for undeletion, not just recreated. → JARED ^(t) 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Feels a bit spam-like too. WJBscribe 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 08:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim frazier

Probable hoax. Google search of "Tim frazier" Towson would indicate this individual is a collegiate athlete. Article author's only other edits before creation of this article were vandalism. Robotman1974 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity! I would love this individual to be real - it read like a genuine and interesting biography. However, delete unless actual sources that prove this person exists are found. Flyingtoaster1337 05:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no apparent sources for this one, I call WP:HOAX. Delete with prejudice. --Dennisthe2 05:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V at minimum. Dates are a bit dicy. Leading a major bus boycott at 15 is problematic, to say the least. Fan-1967 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ah... if I had better math skills I would have caught that too. ;) Robotman1974 06:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Another point, cracker (pejorative) has been around for hundreds of years. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX.-- danntm ^T _C 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a hoax; lacks any reliable sources to confirm the existence of this person. WJBscribe 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax. Wryspy 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoaxes aren't speedyable. =( --Dennisthe2 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak as nonsense. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Resolute 07:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smartass (2nd nomination)

Contested speedy (attack page), removed by potential sock without improvement; still appears to meet speedy criteria, AfDing since process tags likely to be removed again. Possibly also speedy deletable as {{db-repost}} of previously-AfD'ed page DMacks 05:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody got a G4 already. I'd still say Speedy Delete. It's not an attack page, but one, it's nonsensical, and two...well, we're not Urban Dictionary. --Dennisthe2 06:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding attack...in addition to defining the term as being non-complimentary, it appears to apply that term to some individual. DMacks 06:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, I think you might be right. Close enough, but it doesn't specify - I mean, who is DJ? Plenty o' them out there. --Dennisthe2 06:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus – Pea ceNT 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie diet

Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review, so article was restored and listed here so you-all can offer your crumbs of wisdom. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam, only link is to the promoter's website. No evidence that this is widely accepted. Walton monarchist89 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One contributor found this in deletion review, there's another source within the article and the creator of the diet has published a book on it, which doesn't seem like a vanity publisher either. The book is listed as being published by 'Warner Books', according to the warner books redirect here on WP these are published by a group belonging to the largest publisher in France. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless of the quality of the article I think the mentioned sources and book secure it by themselves. This was just a very quick check, let me look for further sources, this doesn't seem like a clean-cut delete. QuagmireDog 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a reliable source for a citation, but this article also points out that the doctor has written several books. Perhaps an article about the subject himself with a mention of the cookie diet underneath? The rest of my search results seemed to be pure PR advertising and blog posts. QuagmireDog 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a verifiable. Editor does not establish such as well as could be done however. TonyTheTiger 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks notable and has links. Unfortunately it's not sourced quite enough, but it gets 63,900 Google hits, which seems like a sufficient number. → JARED ^(t) 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Spamerectomy. A suspicious number of single-purpose accounts seem to be interested in touting this, but notable enough, e.g. Good Morning America article [22], etc... The less than glowing reviews from nutritionists quoted in the GMA are not (gasp!) included, so perhaps an intrepid editor will ad them. - Aagtbdfoua 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the Freudian misspelling above. - Aagtbdfoua 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notability is sufficient. Wryspy 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten Celeste

Delete Though featured in more than one game in the series, not much information is known about here in either game to merit article creation. See also plays no major role in the game, even in her respective level (besides needing to be rescued). Page needs to be deleted plain and simple. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 06:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge into article containing minor characters from the series. Resolute 07:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the TimeSplitters article. As an aside: when nominating articles about minor characters in works of fiction for deletion, it's helpful for AfD browsers if you give us context like the name of the work or series itself. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. Sorry. I'm still somewhat new at everything. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 05:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small blurb about her to List of characters in TimeSplitters series, then redirect there. Oddly enough, she's not currently on the list.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just noticed that the list is up for deletion too, and I think that may be for the best. A list/article on minor characters from TimeSplitters may be viable, per Resolute, but I think we need to delete and start over.--Kubigula (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Aero

Autobiographical page. Near as I can tell, the bio fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Possible userfy. --Dennisthe2 06:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting case. He is intricately tied with Tommy Lee [23] [24] [25], but I have been unable to find much of anything that describes DJ Aero on his own, ie: multiple non-trivial sources do not seem to exist that would establish his notability apart from Lee. Given the article is unashamedly vanity, I would suggest delete, and add a mention of him in the Tommy Lee article. Resolute 07:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does his partnership rise to the level of bandmember? TonyTheTiger 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interracial Politicians and Activist

Since there is no agreed upon notion of "interracial", I don't think there's any way for this list to survive without being a POV mess. Note also that if we're going to actually list any politician or activist which has parents of different ethnicities, the list will be endless and would pretty much be on the same level as Blonde politicians. I could maybe see an article about "interracial" politicians, whatever that means, who are particularly known for addressing issues related to ethnicity and race. But the current content,imho, is salvageable. Pascal.Tesson 06:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scope is arbitrary, as interracial is not defined, and activist could include a broad range of public figures.-- danntm ^T _C 18:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename as "List of multi-racial politicians" - current title makes very little sense. Walton monarchist89 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of multiracial people. This was an old POV fork out of List of Black/White people (now a redirect to list of multiracial people). I seem to have missed this set when I merged the POV forks back into the list. I don't really care if this is deleted, but it probably has history content that needs to be preserved under GFDL. ColourBurst 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus the name makes absolutely no sense. Otto4711 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noureddine Maamria

Football (soccer) player from Tunisia, was deleted along with other players, but the deletion was overturned in his case as a player for the U21 national side. Relisted here to get new consensus. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability strictly according to WP:BIO; the fact he played for the Tunisia U-21 side does not make him notable at all, or do we also want to include all the U-21 San Marino and Andorra players?!? --Angelo 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, I would be of the opinion that an U-21 international is certainly worthy of an article. I'm also of the opinion that the Conference National Division is now a professional league with three semi-pro teams in it rather than the other way around, so I'd vote to keep Maamria on that score anyway. - fchd 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for me, the crucial question is whether playing for a team in the USL First Division (Charleston Battery) counts under WP:BIO as playing in a fully professional league. Robotforaday 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving apart my own opinion about the WP:BIO rule (I always thought the inclusion of every single professional player to be way too exxagerated for a serious encyclopedia), I have serious doubt about the notability of USL league club players (are USL clubs fully professional?!?), especially when regarding players on loan from a non-professional English club such as in this case. --Angelo 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no evidence he satisifes WP:BIO, although he comes close. Qwghlm 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly delete both the original article and the redirect - I went desperately through the league tables of each team in each season he played for them, and none of them had made it past Conference level at the time he played for them.. though the progress of Doncaster into League One since his exit five years ago has to be highly commended. Bobo . 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:BIO. Playing for an under-21 national team is not a sign of notability. – Elisson • T • C • 18:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Avi 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in TimeSplitters series

Delete or Transwiki It's truly, utterly ridiculous that this article has existed more than 0 seconds. 90% of the stated characters do not have noteworthy appearances in the TimeSplitters storyline. The only character I know is noteworthy is Sgt. Cortez, the main character in TS 2 and TS:FP. I stated the "Transwiki" vote for the possibility that this info may not be in its respective wiki, though I'm confident most is. This article needs to be obliterated, let alone deleted. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 07:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also feel that, not only does this article needs to be deleted, but all connected articles dealing with unnoteworthy characters should be deleted, as well, if that can be done easily enough. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 07:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm tempted to call it db-empty. I voted in above to merge the individual article into a list such as this, but this list needs to be pruned down significantly, and the notable characters explained in greater detail. Perhaps the best way to do this is to start over. Resolute 07:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but delete the spinoff articles - this article contains a number of links to bios of characters who do not merit their own article, e.g. Booty Guard. If all this info is merged into the article it will contain enough info to be viable; and most other fictional universes have their own "list of minor characters in..." article at present. Walton monarchist89 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How would it be "viable?" Like I said above, most of the characters in this article are, by any means, noteworthy because, for one, most only appear in multiplayer, and not enough information is known about them to merit an article any bigger than a stub; I feel they don't even deserver article creations. Also, they, technically, aren't even minor characters, in most cases, but miscellaneous characters, if that makes any sort of sense. Most other articles that list minor characters list characters that have some sort of influence on the plot of the game, if not a minor one; this details characters you don't even see more than once (if at all) in the story. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That there is information, but not enough information for a full article, is exactly the scenario where the WP:FICT guidelines state that merger into a "list of characters in X" article is appropriate. This article is such a list. Uncle G 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So one ounce of information justifies the additions of literally insignificant characters to this list? Like I said above, 90% of these characters have no important role in TimeSplitters or its story. More than half of the info pertaining to each character is consisted of large amounts of OR, at best. ~~If this doesn't get deleted, then all unimportant characters should be removed from the article, i.e., all characters that play no major role in the storyline.~~ ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole article should still be deleted. Upon further examination of the article, I discovered that this article doesn't even address the main characters, let alone the supporting ones. This article, in it's current state, is utterley useless. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 20:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over, per Resolute.--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1B6 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Most of the descritions are taken from the Gallery function, and written completely incorrectly. Seriously, the person responsible for this needs to be blocked.[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croomed

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

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

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

previously {{prod}}ed as non-notable neologism; also db-attack may apply, checked links in article going to espn.com and did not find any which contain the word "croomed". — MrDolomite | Talk 07:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The link to espn.com had nothing to do with the word "croomed". It was a link proving that Mike Shula had been fired. None of the links below that point had the word "croomed", but was included to provide information about the specific firings. Did you even read those? Croomdawg 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Croomdawg -- Note: Croomdawg is the article's creator.[reply]

Delete Like the nominator, I don't see any mention of the word other than in blogs. CiaranG 08:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the manner in which blogs are changing the world, is this such a bad thing? Wiki is really nothing more than a big blog with some citations. Radical ralph 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not appropriate for here House of Scandal 09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see nothing inappropriate here. Minnesota twin 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)-- User has six edits, four of which are to this AfD.[reply]

Delete per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 09:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the greatest article, but worthy of inclusion. Fits very well in the Football terminology category. MaximusWiki 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has five edits.[reply]

I didn't even know there was a category for it. Cool. Croomdawg 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination that it be deleted. I'd have suggested it much earlier if I knew how. What work I have done on it was to improve an already pointless and slanderous article.--Wvenus 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ Good enough for SI, it should be good enough for Wiki. Croomdawg 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - Hmm, not a lot of faith in Croomdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) based on these edits to this AFD. — MrDolomite | Talk 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It seems like a good article. I don't know why it was nominated for deletion and you can't reason it for delete because you like the nominator. Perhaps a good re-write could help the article. Retiono Virginian 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Plenty good enough for inclusion. Iheartseeplusplus 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has ten edits, two of which are to this AfD. All edits made within a ten-minute period.[reply]

I think you misread. Like the nominator, I don't see any mention of the word other than in blogs. I'll try to be clearer in future, but it still makes sense to me. That means there are no reliable sources (WP:RS), it's unverifiable (WP:V), and not notable (WP:NOTE). My view is that you can't give 'it seems like a good article' as a reason for keeping it. (WP:ILIKEIT). CiaranG 19:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ 'it seems like a good article' is as good a reason as any. He doesn't say he likes the subject, but he likes the article. There is a huge difference. Croomdawg 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of any kind. Wryspy 19:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a fine line between a dictionary and an encyclopedia and I don't think that this article crosses it. Blizzardman2007 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has three edits, all to this AfD.[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ Wikipedia is a place for pop-culture references. It was in Sports Illustrated for goodness sakes. Croomdawg 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ Also mentioned in the Jackson (MS) Clarion-Ledger newspaper. It is far more significant and more widespread than a few fan blogs. Although it is unverifiable for the purposes of Wiki, the word has also been used on ESPN Radio. Croomdawg 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Croomdawg[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia standards. N0n1in34r 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has only five edits --[reply]
~~Keep~~ Seems okay to me although I would remove the picture of the axe. Blizzardman2007 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What axe??? Minnesota twin 19:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the axe is probably a little over the top. It probably should be removed. Croomdawg 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Croomdawg[reply]

Strong Keep Could benefit from a rewrite, but otherwise alright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Landisfan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The last two editor's only contributions have been to this AfD discussion. CiaranG 15:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am confused as to why this page is even being considered for deletion. It clearly should remain. LudaKristopher 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has four edits, two of which are to the article or to this AfD.[reply]
Strong Keep Seems fine to me. Fits in well with Wiki's trend towards inlcusion of many new elements in the sports lexicon. Defintite keeper. Radical ralph 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has six edits, four of which are to this AfD.[reply]
Keep I verified the links and they seem accurate. Not notable to me, but might be to some. Should not have been nominated. FUManu2007 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -- User has five edits, two of which are to this AfD.[reply]
Delete blogs are not usually considered reliable sources and as such this should be deleted both as a non-notable neologism (WP:NOT) and for failing WP:V. QmunkE 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NeSSI

Initally prodded as an advert (which it is). Tagged for speedy as a copyvio (which it is not). I am bringing it here for consideration. I say delete because it is non-notable, far too specialised to justify a WP entry. -- RHaworth 07:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Individual research programmes at universities usually aren't notable to get their own articles. Flyingtoaster1337 09:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the comments from Veltkamp in Talk. I don't agree with the reasons given above for deletion:

Advert? No, the entry is describing a technology development which has been taking place since 2000. Three competing companies which have produced products meeting the standard are named but no individual products are identified or endorsed. Images of their products are included to enable the reader to see what completed systems systems look like. The focus of this article is to describe the design concepts and the advantages of this approach.

Too specialised? This article deals a technology set, Process Analytics, which is present in every single refinery and petrochemical plant in the world, and in each of those plants there may be hundreds of such systems. Put another way, Process Analytics is a technology sector worth several billions of dollars per year. There is a Wiki entry for Laboratory. Process Analytics has a similar degree of specialisation as Lab Analytics. In fact I'd recommend further expansion of both Laboratory and NeSSI to describe analytical technologies in greater detail.

Non-notable? There are tens of thousands of Process Analytics systems in the world. The NeSSI approach will dramatically change the way that such systems are designed and used. This is noteworthy.

Individual research programmes at universities? No, this is an industry-wide initiative with most of the work being done by industrial companies (both vendors and end-users). CPAC at the University of Washington has provided a neutral umbrella under which these companies have been able to meet and make progress. --JJG UK 13:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an encyclopedic article. should be on the homepage for this project, not here. not notable enough.--Tainter 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --

The volume of public articles (over 20 ) in trade publications and journals and the series of presentations and devoted sessions at national and international conferences (50 ) should lay the notable issue to rest. The remaining issue of whether this topic is too specialized seems like a weak argument for deletion -- all new technology is specialized when it is first introduced. Just because the community this page serves is a technical one is not justification for deletion -- there are many (most?) Wikipedia pages that serve small special interest groups. In writing this page we attempted to distill the essence of the topic down to a broad introduction that would give the reader a sense of what NeSSI is and why it is important. Most of the specialized technical content (including a complete history of its development as reflected in technical presentations and papers given at various conferences) remains on the main NeSSI web site included as an external link. Veltkamp 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --

In response to the argument that this is too specialized, how is this different than an article on SOAP (Single Object Access Protocol). That is a protocol that was developed for commercial use in a specialized environment. The functionality that the NeSSI initiative is attempting to bring to current analytical sample system designs mirrors the type of development that SOAP has gone through.CIRCORTech 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, if you also read the talk page of the article, it seams a site has been created by the developers of the program to create a wikipedia page, surely this is an advert? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we simply pointed out that that we were publicizing the planned submission of a Wikipedia article on our existing web site as a "heads-up" and a mechanism for soliciting comments from our site visitors relative to the proposed content for the eventual Wikipedi pageVeltkamp 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh...I cannot beleive this is so controversial. The NeSSI Wikipedia page was submitted based on 2 criteria:
1) The growing maturity and acceptance within the chemical processing and manufacturing communities of the NeSSI concepts for developing new sample conditioning and handling systems as a viable alternative to tradtional sampling system practices. The NeSSI effort (while it started, and is obstensively managed, out of the CPAC consortia at the University of Washington) is an open industry-wide initiative open to anyone. The NeSSI effort is not interested in private commercialization as a goal (although we do encourage the development and commercialization of products by interested companies which support the end-user's ability to implement the NeSSI concepts) nor do we collect any fees, royalties, or compensation for individual or corporate involvement or use of NeSSI. We currently have 300 individuals suscribed to our mailing list and the active participation of over 50 major international companies. To date the NeSSI effort has resulted in over 600 new commercial products, an ISA/ANSI standard, and over 150 installed systems in companies around the world. It is fair to say the NeSSI concepts are being embraced as a de facto standard for many sampling system needs within industry.
2) Our view is that Wikipedia serves as an open-source repository for information (general and specialized) that provides a reference point for individuals using the internet to research a topic. Our NeSSI page submission was prompted, in large part, by the volume of requests we have received for background information from editors and reporters wishing to provide media reports of NeSSI, as well as requests from individuals wishing to learn more about this topic. We have made a sincere attempt to craft the NeSSI Wikipedia page to conform to the encyclopedia-nature content consistent with the Wikipedia guidlines. Perhaps we fell short in this attempt...but isn't that what the discussion facility (suggestions for how to improve the content to make it more suitable) in Wikipedia is designed to address? It seems that suggesting a contribution be deleted simply based on a reader's lack of familiarity or understanding is counterproductive and limits the "openness" Wikipedia is attempting to promote. Of course, we could simply write-off Wikipedia as a potential reference source for disseminating NeSSI information and continue to provide our own resources (web page and mailing lists which we plan to maintain independent of Wikipedia) to serve the public requests. Obviously, we still believe that there is a place within Wikipedia for information about emerging trends and new technology -- but if that is not the community view then so be it.Veltkamp 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NeSSI is not an advertisement. It has been featured or covered as an example of new technology made possible by industry/academic collaboration by several chemical and process analytical journals. For example (short list): Chemical Engineering Progress (Dec. 2003), InTech (August, 2001 and Feb. 2002), Control (March 2003), Chemical and Engineering News (May, 2004), Instrumenta UK (Dec 2003). RD Canada.

Keep We received some constructive comments from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryanpostlethwaite and its clear that some edit is needed to more clearly define the nature of NeSSI and its relationship to University of Washington, companies participating in NeSSI commercialization, end-user companies supporting NeSSI, and the general public. This edit will likely appear early next week. Also, we will also attempt to supply more of a context for NeSSI that is less technically orientated (again next week). Hopefully that will help make the page more generally interesting and informative. Veltkamp 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having studies this kind of stuff eons ago, it's certainly not over-specialized (or written beyond reasonable comprehension levels) for people with any kind of interest or curiosity in this area. This is an encyclopedia after all. Too many people running around who think that shouting "NO!" is a positive contribution, if you ask me. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Smilek

Nom and vote...
Del on this promotional-toned bio of non-notable figure. With all hits displayed, G-Test is

12 of 12 for "Fred Smilek" OR "Fred J Smilek "

with, BTW, at least 2 purporting to concern "prohibitions" imposed by 2 different Federal finance-related agencies. Jerzy•t 07:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absense of any sources in the article, my research says it's so non-notable I can't tell if the subject and content are simply obscure, or made up. CiaranG 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very strange WP:OR. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion or sources available to indicate notability. Doesn't even come close to any of the criterion on WP:BIO. James086Talk 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This information is NOT fiction. The information about this person is all fact.I did some research on articles of incorporation and a background check and everything that has been stated is current and real. [WP:BIO]]. ~~James086Talk 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Contrary to the above forged sig, this contrib (now de-shouted) is by User:72.156.48.177 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTM)[reply]
- The nom is based on non-notability, so mentioning WP:BIO without offering evidence of notability is confusing at best.
Even tho
illogical votes are routinely deprecated by AfD callers,

so are votes by newcomers, and

it's hard to imagine what in incorp papers could establish notability,

it could be interesting to hear why you expect us to take seriously the claim of an anonymous, one-edit 'Net user that "I have in my hand..." documents whose contents we can't quite make out at this distance.
--Jerzy•t 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed history

As I said when I put the prod tag on the article, "This article has little to no encyclopedic value, it is simply a collection of random events. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". After looking at it a bit more, I believe it also violates no original research and avoid neologisms, as the title itself is not a term in general use, as shown on the article's talk page. —Mi ra 07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, original research. Consign this article to the realm of articles that failed to be kept. Flyingtoaster1337 09:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any citations, no evidence that the term exists, just a long list of disconnected factoids. WP:NEO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V --JJLatWiki 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Walton monarchist89 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR in the sense it's just semi-related facts linked together. SkierRMH 19:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be made-up term to describe a plethora of things - none of which are "failed history", whatever that means. Agent 86 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Title is a non-notable neologism. Content is an indiscriminate collection of information grouped by original research. WJBscribe 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- I think that this article could theoretically be salvaged (currently it's basically a collection of quaint and curious anecdotes, mostly unsourced), but it seems it's very unlikely to happen... AnonMoos 07:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the comments I made on the talk page (which see), which I will summarise here:

There are effectively two parts:

The list of items and texts (with a passing reference to the TV programs changes) and the science fiction/technology segments. The latter can be adapted and posted to the Science Fiction and the History of Technology pages.

I used the term "failed history" as a working title - some variant on "Commemorative objects which weren't" would be appropriate, for the "list of things" - which is at least as "useful" as the entries on Paul Katzoff, Sam Chisholm, Grand Prairie Independent School District and Fauntleroy, Seattle, Washington - to pick out four entries I called up on Random Article. ("Nothing against" any of them.)

Jackiespeel 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair to compare one insignificant article to another insignificant article as justification to keep one. This article also seems to introduce a new term (WP:NEO) with no reliable sources ([[WP:RS}]) to indicate it existed prior to WP. This article also seems to be simply an outlet for original research (WP:NOR). I'm sure a couple of the articles you mentioned are good candidates for deletion but for some reason haven't been, but that doesn't mean that all more useful articles should be kept. --JJLatWiki 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be some marginal articles which the viewer considers too marginal to keep (bland generalisation).

Alternative suggestion regarding the list of objects (which do exist - many people will have seen the photo of Truman holding up the newspaper in question, and some of the others could be traced otherwise. As the objects are ephemera/commemorative items, the list is transferred to those pages (or the talk pages thereof) and reference to the individual items on the several topic pages. Thus, if someone wishes to reconstruct the article under a better heading and with more references etc, it can be done.

I was kite flying - and sometimes such articles develop into something interesting - eg New Year's Resolution and Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (both of which I suggested were potential Wiktionary terms) and at other times there are alternative solutions. Jackiespeel 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --Zsinj^Talk 05:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Theft Auto

(1st nomination)

~~Delete per WP:WEB.~~ Only sources of notability are no good. Screenshot of FilePlanet front page is a trivial and inappropriate source. Youtube video is copyvio (someone recording G4 segment off TV with camcorder). Press coverage link is broken, and wouldn't be reliable if it was (being on official website, though it no longer seems to be a wiki). The Csports page seems to show that only 20 people are playing the game now. Drat (Talk) 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no non-trivial, independent coverage (WP:V). Recury 14:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless proven otherwise. If the press is out of sight, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Exactly what bearing does the fact that the video on YouTube is a copyvio have in this, anyway? That's not the point - the point is, the mod was discussed on G4TV! Interviewing the creators, no less! That's one non-trivial reference. (Though, in all honesty, one can debate whether or not this is trivial =) I remember seeing a bit about Multi Theft Auto in our local games TV show, though I'm not sure (the search function appears to be available for registered users only). Another non-trivial reference. I'm guessing here the rest of the alleged press isn't entirely trivial either. Also, I wonder what WP:WEB has to do with this anyway, this is not a website, it's a game mod. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and since the nominator forgot to provide a link to the previous nomination, I added it. Appears to me there's plenty of press coverage based on that debate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's only a mod. Not notable. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm... a lot of mods are notable. Few make their way to the television, for example. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So wait, is Counter Strike not notable? How about Team Fortress? Plus, it is the first (and I believe only) third-party unlicensed multiplayer modification to a singleplayer game in history. PC Gamer UK, which ran an article on it (I remember reading said article) is the bestselling magazine in the UK and therefore can be considered a highly respected source. Just because the availability of such sources is scarce, that's more a flaw with the policy of Wikipedia than because those sources never existed! Besides, having clicked 'random page' 3 times, I came up with 1-0-8, Nandi Award for Best Villain and the Than-Thre-Kull. Now really, are any of those less trivial for an encyclopedia? - Rushyo
Keep Very notable, as it is the original multiplayer mod for GTA. There is quite a lot of press coverage aswell. Pretender2j 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name said press coverage and provide proof. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly suggestion but how about instead of trying to remove information from Wikipedia, why don't you try and improve the article so that it does meet your standards? Going around trying to remove articles because you 'don't think there good enough' really defeats the whole purpose of having Wikipedia in the first place. Pretender2j 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the previous delete debate, the pointers above and even the article itself. If it was good enough of press coverage last time, I don't see why it should not be any longer valid. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, can you point me to said press coverage. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, since you don't bother to read the pointers in the previous AfD debate... here's a list. Now what's wrong with these? These were obviously discussed in the earlier AfD debate and found to be decent enough. Please be specific. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most/all of the print media links result in 404, and all but a few of the Internet publication articles are no more than a few paragraphs; some are nearly outweighed by the quote from the developer blog.--Drat (Talk) 10:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... this is getting profoundly silly, so apologies in advance. You do realise what print media means? There's this "printing house" that "prints" things to "paper" and then "distributes" these copies via "postal mail" to "subscribers". There are even "libraries" that "order" these copies and make them available to you if you "walk" in the library and "ask" for them to be viewed. Quite a lot more complicated than the Web, but also quite a lot more effective in preserving the information. In short, if the site says the mod was mentioned in PC Gamer May 2003, you go to the library and see if it checks up by looking at a real copy of the real magazine. The fact that they have provided a scan of the article and it happens to be 404 right now has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. (You also say we should delete Socrates because the guy's printed works don't exist? Heck, that guy's own teachings are so 404 these days ...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any press coverage outside of game sites; seems like nothing more than a popular mod, that said popularity only generated by the popularity of its respective game. Not even G4 has even done anything big to cover it. Since you, apparently, can't find any real press coverage, i.e., any televised or printed press coverage, then I still vote delete.

(⇐ Outdenting...) So this is a "popular" mod now - I thought our general principle was to keep the mods whose popularity can be demonstrated! In case you haven't noticed, our notability guidelines do not talk about "anything big". The only big thing we've always needed were multiple non-trivial third-party sources. The G4 bit isn't much, but it's not exactly trivial in the sense we've usually defined it (generally entails something like "there's this mod", and a web link, and nothing else - interview with the creator, no matter how low of journalistic merit (generally speaking), is in my opinion light years ahead of that!) Have you checked all of the mentioned magazine articles and can honestly claim all of them qualify as trivial mentions? Even the alleged two- and three-page articles? The bottom line is: If you want this thing dead, say the sources don't check up, or say that they do and are entirely trivial. Don't claim they don't exist. Point the second: What makes "popularity only generated by the popularity of its respective game" a bad thing? (That description covers most of the mods and even commercial add-ons, incidentally; few mods or expansions cause role reversals of Counter-Strikean proportions.) "Nothing more than a popular mod" is a bad thing now? We could delete a whole lot of stuff with that attitude. (Let's just delete some article about a random president with the rationale "nothing more than a popular bigwig, I don't find any press coverage that says he's anything more than an instantly forgettable ribbon-cutter.") In closing, I'd actually appreciate a point-by-point rebuttal; I find your arguments a little bit too vague myself. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't feel that you can compare a mod to a video game to a president of the United States; a game and someone who has ran a country can't possibly compare to one another. The "respective game's popularity" is, in my opinion, it's only notable characteristic. Plus, some of those article links are broken, and, by some, I mean all; I don't know why or if it's temporary, but they are. Also, its reason of nomination brings up good points too: G4 bit is breaking copyright (though, maybe not likely, a better one can be found), and a screenshot, perhaps the only valid source, as far as availability, is unnecessary, and the "press" link is broken. Pertaining to my "popularity" statements, I said its only popularity was generated by it's respective game and nothing else; I never truly called it popular on its own; even then, I feel that another major part of that popularity is only generated by, not necessarily the mod, but its concept: Grand Theft Auto multiplayer, which has been "wishful thinking" among fans of the series for quite a while. Pertaining to the sources, once again, I don't seen any press outside of game sites and shows that specialize in games; how can we call it "press coverage" when only those that either have an affinity or specialize in games have covered it? Why not find some 3rd party sources outside of the gaming community? In the end, I still feel its nothing more than a popular mod, once again, that said popularity being "run off" from its respecitive game; I don't feel anyone would be "jonesing" for a Hitman: Blood Money multiplayer mod, which popularity is dwarfed by GTA's. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point for point: 1) I wasn't comparing this mod and a PotUS (and specifically, I was just saying a "president", think globally =). I was making a comparison between allegedly popular game and an allegedly popular person. It was a decidedly exaggerated comparison to make a point: You can say this is absolutely inconsequential mod, and demand it deleted; I can say some random president of the US is a competely unknown person and demand it deleted. (I have absolutely no idea what most of the US presidents did. Heck, I have no idea what most of the Finnish presidents did, and we're only up to the 11th president right now. =) Sure, we're just both ignoring the big picture entirely, which is why neither of us would have anything valid to say in these cases. That was my point. 2) The game is popular. Apparently, the mod is popular. What, again, is the real sin here? I do get the idea what you're chasing here, but the logic really doesn't check up: There's many reasons a mod may become popular, and this just happens to be one way. One might say the Camera Hack for Neverwinter Nights was popular before the client had tunable camera, but that was a minor functionality point; this one has potential for a bigger article, don't you think? We'll need to think of the scope; what would you say about merging, if this really is even minorly popular mod? Abundance of sources clearly says that this can be covered in an article. 3) I already said this above: these are print magazine references. The fact that scans of them aren't available any more is irrelevant; such is the case for quite a lot of articles. Our sourcing policy doesn't require online sources. 4) Like I said, the fact that the video-as-posted-on-Youtube is breaking on copyright is completely inconsequential. You don't rely on YouTube to verify a source anyway. The source isn't YouTube, it's G4TV. Go to the G4TV web page, find the contact information, and politely ask them "hey, you showed a segment on Multi Theft Auto with an interview of the author, is this correct?" Or grab a telephone. That's source checking. 5) Please educate a dumb foreigner: is "PC Gamer" nowadays a "game (web)site"? The PC Gamer article says it's a magazine; has it turned into a website before May 2003, and no one has bothered to update the Wikipedia article since then? It still says it's a magazine. (I assume this is a rhetoric question, but if this really is the case, the article clearly needs updating.) Same with GamePro, and other magazines listed in the list. 6) What, exactly, is the problem with "shows" that focus in gaming? Are you discrediting television as a journalistic medium? (hint: another question exaggerated for rhetoric effect) 7) Now you're demanding something a little bit too much: Mainstream media (that is, general news media, not mainstream videogame media such as nationally or internationally distributed gaming magazines) rarely touches game mods at all, and whatever coverage they have of gaming at all is very shallow. If we started demanding sources from "outside gaming community" (whatever that means again), we'd be on a very shaky ground. Should we also get sources to theoretical physics or microbiology articles from "outside the scientific community"? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per my above response to "press coverage." ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've already voted.--Drat (Talk) 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah I did. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments made above - Rushyo
Keep I'll be a good sport and change my vote; I'll admit, I'm not fully acquainted to Wikipedia and all of its procedures, but, due to recent statements and evidence, I've changed my vote, although the article still should be overhauled somewhat, and the other, more credible sources actually put up. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to keep, per above, seconding that the sources verified and cited. Not withdrawing nomination, as the process may as well run its course.--Drat (Talk) 05:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Bucketsofg 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Admirer of Machiavelli

This play is not published, and only staged once, at a theatre of dubious significance, It is also part of a massive selfpromotion by Mehmet Murat İldan; se also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehmet Murat İldan Orland 08:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because neither of the following plays by Ildan have been published nor staged:

I am also nominating the following related page because this book of poetry by Ildan has no given ISBN:

Merge anything useful (which may be almost precisely nothing) to the author's article. If the author's article ends up being deleted, then so be it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments above apply to all the plays listed (titles and first production dates would probably be enough - no need to spin out a plot summary or anything else). The book of poetry should ideally be given the same treatment assuming verifiability, which may have to be done by a Turkish-language search. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Big Haz's solution sounds ideal. And by merge, I mean "give a list of plays". yandman 08:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. I totally agree with BigHaz's opinion. If the article about the "writer" stays, merge while reducing swifly the amount of autopromotionnal info, otherwise delete. Clem23 09:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - No attempt to establish WP:N House of Scandal 09:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as well as all articles by this vanity author. --Dalgspleh 09:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all: self-promotion of a non-notable author. --Goochelaar 09:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All WP:N not met, and since even if there were primary sources for the plays (and I can't find any on Google) most of us won't be able to read them, thus we can't verify them either. I can't find any primary sources in English on Google either. From the comments in the AfD for the author I am convinced that there is certainly some intent of self-promotion.--inks ^T 09:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of those articles are quite long, it would not be possible to merge all of them. Merge the short ones, keep the longer ones. Baristarim 10:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The long articles consists of plot summaries that are unreasonably expanded (compared to for instance King Lear or Hamlet plot summaries). If we exclude the possibility that the writer is unfamiliar with wiki editing, these play synopses seem to fit in a style that an author would use to promote himself towards theatrical agents. --Orland 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering (I'm asking in the nicest possible way) if you might provide some argument or reasoning to justify your vote to keep?--inks^T 10:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am modifying my vote to merge useful content - or delete if that is the concensus. On a closer look, there does seem to be serious notability issues - However the only thing that had ticked me off was that there were edit-wars about the speedy deletion templates for these articles yesterday, so I wasn't sure what to make of this AfD. I should have taken a closer look before I had voted the first time, sorry about that. Baristarim 11:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, contingent on their author surviving AfD. "Self-promotion" is rather irrelevant to this discussion, and we don't typically go around deleting publications of "notable" figures. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty certain that even if the author himself scrapes through the notability test, he's not notable enough to make every single play of his worthy of an article. yandman 13:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your strong disagreement. We do not have articles for many works of Friedrich Schiller, Molière, Carlo Goldoni which are among the foremost dramatists of their nations; we have stubs for several Nobel prize winners for literature, and we should have articles for every single unpublished play of a minor writer? I know that we judge each article for its own merits, but even so, I cannot see the merits neither of these plays, nor of having sometimes dragged-out plot outlines, with no hint at their notability... --Goochelaar 15:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest a compromise? Contingent on the author being deemed notable - which is far from certain anyway - we move all the plays into a list in his article (keeping the long summaries somewhere, userfied to someone's page would seem the best option). Then, when a Turcophone editor or two is able to verify any more details about the play, we can eventually spin it back out as a separate article. Essentially, we'd be doing the same thing as we do with songs on an album: As they get released as singles and generate press coverage, they become viable articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really sensible. People searching for the plays don't want information on the guy who wrote them. Meanwule, if we're missing articles on works by Schiller, Moliere, and Goldoni, we have a lot of work to do, don't we. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have indeed. As for people searching for these plays, I do not foresee there will be that many. Anyway, this is the whole point of ascertaining notability. Who inclines towards the deletion believes not many people are going to look for these articles (and so miss them if they are deleted). On the other hand, if you know the title of a play, chance is, you also know its author and could get the idea of looking for his article... --Goochelaar 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I do not see the significance of individual books. The author page already has the list, which can be extended. OttomanReference 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to authors page. --MaNeMeBasat 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Do not merge. Notability is insufficient. Wryspy 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as well as all articles by this author. Prittglue 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Caine

NN person, fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO as far as I can see. Dismas|^(talk) 08:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should honestly be a speedy, since notability is not presented in the article and the article itself is nothing more than a micro-stub. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Valrith 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Adrien

Reason Non notable, non-profession athlete, probable vanity article

Delete- Non notable, non-profession athlete, probable vanity article created by User:To The JA Adande Lounge. -- House of Scandal 09:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 10:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is barely asserted (on Talkpage) but in any event a College basketball player does not meet WP:BIO. WJBscribe 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. -Doc^g 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Day of Remembrance Webcomics Project

Notability not asserted, lacks any third party reliable sources and I couldn't find any: there are only 20 hits on google bogdan 09:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V; ~~possibly a hoax~~. Walton monarchist89 11:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that I am now satisfied that the article is not a hoax, per User:Coelacan's comments on my talk page. However, my vote is still Delete. Walton monarchist89 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's interesting that some of the 24 webcomics that are included in 2006 don't list the fact on their sites (Google doesn't pick up anything on them!) With lack of 3rd party coverage, fails WP:V as well as lack of notability. SkierRMH 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After as thorough an invsestigation as google could provide, I can see no indication that this fulfills our notability guidelines, WP:WEB in particular. There is a single external link on Transgender Day of Remembrance and I think that is appropriate and sufficient. — coelacan talk — 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, y'all are even going after the articles I DIDN'T have any kind of hand in! That's four this week! I was joking about taking this personally, but now I'm not so sure. Anyways, seeing as I didn't write anything involved in this, I'm not gonna vote to delete it. However, seeing as I really don't want anything involving me here anymore (especially after this), I ain't even gonna vote (even though it really doesn't meet notability (for once)). Wow, you guys are vindictive! Jenn Dolari 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would be interested in hearing what the nominator has to say about this. --Kizor 12:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to say, in User:Bogdangiusca's defence, that I do not believe this is a personal vendetta at all, nor am I going around saying he's personally responsible. I'm looking more at the general "Webcomic Deletionists." I have some pretty jaded eyes, sure (I left Wikipedia for a reason), but the timing of the AFDs all at once, particularly this one, sure leaves me feeling I'm being singled out. Jenn Dolari 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Google doesn't capture everything. Relying on it alone and not doing a narrower manual search is academic laziness at best. I have participated in the DOR webcomics project for two years, and my entries can be located here and here. Many of the webcomic artists elect to post their entries temporarily as either a splash page or as a comic page. After the event, these pages are often removed so as not to interrupt the flow of the comic to archive readers. Furthermore, That was Zen This is Tao's entry can be located 2006, Grey Matters 2006, Misfile 2006, Transe-Generations 2004 2005, 2006, Triquetra Cats 2006, and Venus Ascending 2005. This is what I've found with only 20 minutes of time and there are far more I could find with another 20 minutes. Just in case this is a vendetta against Jenn Dolari, I have purposely omitted her entries. Google does not find everything. --Tessmonsta 13:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being mentioned on a couple of blogs does not make one notable. bogdan 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to say, in User:Bogdangiusca's defence, that I do not believe this is a personal vendetta at all, nor am I going around saying he's personally responsible. I'm looking more at the general "Webcomic Deletionists." I have some pretty jaded eyes, sure (I left Wikipedia for a reason), but the timing of the AFDs all at once, particularly this one, sure leaves me feeling I'm being singled out. Jenn Dolari 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a noble aim, don't get me wrong. The project has my full support, but does not currently meet our notability requirements. - Francis Tyers · 13:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per User:Tessmonsta - Alison ^✍ 14:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is important, and notable, to a lot of people. Kether83 15:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being TG, I can't vote without bias, so I refrain, but this VfD may be subjected to Meatpuppets. KittenMya 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - It seems that User:Bogdangiusca has a personal vendetta against user User:Jenn Dolari as evidenced by the fact that he has been going around deleting anything Jenn has been associated with. It is in violation of Wikipedia policy, and I vote this article is to be kept, as he is in the wrong here. Not only that, but as mention prior, several popular webcomics have featured a Day of Remembrance comic on their website. --JBladen 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to say, in User:Bogdangiusca's defence, that I do not believe this is a personal vendetta at all, nor am I going around saying he's personally responsible. I'm looking more at the general "Webcomic Deletionists." I have some pretty jaded eyes, sure (I left Wikipedia for a reason), but the timing of the AFDs all at once, particularly this one, sure leaves me feeling I'm being singled out. Jenn Dolari 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - important to a lot of people, and I see no reason it doesn't meet the notability criterion. Even if it did, a strong enforcement here would stink of prejudice given the looseness elsewhere. The article needs improvement, not deletion. -G.E. Wilker 18:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I second the statement by User:Tessmonsta and also the concerns raised by User:GEWilker. tonei the genderqueer alaskan 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only would a Google search be ineffective with regard to the Day of Remembrance project but this is an important social and political project that certainly deserves its own article. It's important, it's notable and it's a big shame there's little more than a stub about it so far. --Zoe.R 01:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Transgender Day of Remembrance. I don't think that the article itself is notable (though I may have a bias against webcomics). As SkierRMH mentions, a number of the comics don't even mention this project on their site. However, a mention of it on the remembrance page might help to emphasize that page's subject's importance within the transgendered community, and help to make the notability of that page a little more evident to people outside that community. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (same) Verfiability, original research, and reliability concerns are ungrounded due to readily confirmed primary source material. Specificly the site itself and multiple involved webcomics. Notability is legitimately in question, but the merged article can be sourced to the Washington Blade, the University of Maryland Diamondback, et al once notability is established the high reliance on primary sources is not an issue69.140.15.143 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:V WP:OR WP:N WP:RS /Blaxthos 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge As the original author of the page, I may have misunderstood the WP:N criteria when creating this page in good faith. After doing a Google and Alexa seach just now, I found a combined total of less than 50 hits. Some of this may have to do with the fact that it is an "internet event" in which individual pages of the contributors may not be correctly meta-tagged or commented by the authors (due maybe to using a template system to produce those pages), and hence slip through. In either case, it fails the strict WP:N criteria, and it's initial inclusion reflects my lack of experience in editing wikipedia. The page should be merged with Transgender_day_of_remembrance, for reasons listed under the 2nd and 3rd points at WP:MERGE#Merging Laura Seabrook January, 29, 2007 - 21:17:08 (UTC)
Strong Keep Verifiable if one actually goes further than a google search and visits the actual webcomics, it is an event as such OR does not apply, the only real issue is notability but Wikipedia does not assert that an event be famous for it to be notable, only that it have meaning. I can assure you for the thousands of transgendered people out there, it is very significant and notable.
Delete While I agree that it's a noble project, WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep criterion, and WP:V is necessary but not sufficient. It exists, but while I was hoping otherwise, I can't find a single reliable non-trivial secondary source mention, let alone multiple. Seraphimblade 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Nun

Non-notable musician. Having googled, Beit Nun does not appear to have any reliable source external links, all that google threw up were entries by Beit Nun as are all of the external links on the page. I appreciate that as a musician, Beit Nun has to pass a lower threshold of notability than for other types of articles but this musician appears not to have completed a national tour nor released anything other than a demo. I can't find any cultural impact of any kind. If this article were to be deleted, I would also recommend the deletion of Innit Records for the same reasons. MLA 09:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I have a low threshold for articles of this sort, but I'm afraid that this one still doesn't make it (note that the "Innit Records" site has been suspended, and I've speedily deleted it as making no claim of significance for its subject). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The latest news on his website is that he's working on a new four song record - and this was from last April. Shows little potential for future notability, and none for current. -Freekee 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails RS and WP:V. Nonnotable as above. Cricket02 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beit Nun not a noteable artist???? you havin a laugh?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Tevildo 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Coffee

NN band. A google search for the band name (which would otherwise garner a rediculous amount of hits) with a band member gets exactly one hit...this article. A different band member gets two...one of which is still this article. All the albums are self-distributed. This fails WP:BAND. IrishGuy ^talk 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion per nom. Could the closing admin also delete the vast amount of media the members of the band have uploaded? They'll be useless once this is gone and they're tagged under the GNU, but the uploader says they're only for educational use. Thanks. yandman 10:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devin DeRay

NN person. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO (despite it being disputed). Appeared in Living Single but not as a regular cast member so I'm guessing it was an extra or a one-off character. James086Talk 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not asserted. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futurology School

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculative, advertisement, blatant. Deltopia 10:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; doesn't merit an article until the school actually exists. Walton monarchist89 11:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ballery. WMMartin 13:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but verify that the band actually released anything. If this cannot be done, no bias to another AFD in very short time.. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punkreas

The article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7 (non-notable band), but there is some assertion of notability. What I think is the main source of confusion is the mention in the first sentence of "born in 1989". This refers to the band, not to the band members. There are some pov/advertorial issues bordering on G11. No opinion for the moment. A ecis^Bravado 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - article claims they've released discs, but a link to the record label is ideally needed to verify this. No evidence of independent third-party coverage per WP:BAND. However I will change my opinion if more sources/external links are added. Walton monarchist89 11:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed "born" to "founded" since that appears to have been a mistranslation; my guess is that this was all translated from Italian since I know at least the Spanish word for "founded" also translates to "born". If anyone knows some Italian, it may be worthwhile seeing from where this was translated, if indeed it was. ShadowHalo 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they pass WP:MUSIC (number of releases). Note that ShadowHalo's guess is correct -- the article is clearly a translation of it:Punkreas. Jkelly 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Se7enever

No evidence of passing WP:BAND; no independent third-party coverage provided. Walton monarchist89 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. They have yet to release any music, so I've tagged them for speedy del. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Due to the comments below and because of complains via m:OTRS about this article [26]. -- Drini 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChatterBox challenge

No real assertion of notability, nor does it seem notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete no notability - only WP:OR Agathoclea 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ST47Talk 11:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per advertisment, not notable.--Tainter 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amateur Astronomers Association of Vadodara (AAAV)

No assertion of notability. Just H 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a local astronomy club, fails WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ST47Talk 11:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Dhartung, but also it reads like spam. I don't like also the title with unnecessary parentesis. Eventually merge in a article list of amateur astronomers assicuation, but two lines maximum. --Cate |_Talk 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Google search brings up nothing to establish notability. Kla'quot 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Daniel.Bryant 11:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Cox

NN person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 11:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet Wikipedia biography standards. Kyriakos 12:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent I created the page because I thought she was notable, notable for -- if her site's correct -- being the first adult entertaiment presence on the 'net, and CEO of one of the oldest Adult Internet companies. If these aren't enough to mark her as notable, though, I'll not be overly upset if the page were deleted. --Dr Archeville 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet standards or WP:BIO. There do not appear to be multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources in which this person or this person's performances were a primary subject. The person's website is the only reference, and is neither reliable nor independent. Edison 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nomination - interesting that she's apparently the first online adult entertainer, but hard to get past that. Tip of the hat to Dr. Archeville, thanks very much for your understanding. My suggestion would be to see if there are other pointers to that effect out there online - remember, you can change our minds. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep, article as it exists meets standards. Good pointers there, Dhartung. --Dennisthe2 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO with profiles in Globe and Mail and Montreal Mirror as well as appearances in netmag and at least one book that I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Tabercil 16:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The profiles from reliable sources indicate sufficiant notability. --Oakshade 20:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Carol Cox was a pioneer in online sexuality. I heard of her as early as 1997. People who are notable for advances in sexual freedom are often not covered by the mainstream press because of prudery and other forms of squeamishness. They are underground celebrities. Despite the blackout, sex workers have contributed greatly to the development of Internet technology. See the Globe and Mail article about her by Craig Silverman: Naked Ambition by

VHS wasn't the only technology to be quickly co-opted and championed by the porn industry. "As it stands now, new technology is probably sexualized in the first 10 minutes of its development," said Michael Storch, a professor in McGill's faculty of religious studies, in an October, 2005, interview. The first pay-TV channels relied heavily on porn for profits, as did (and do) hotel pay-TV offerings. The adult industry was also among the first to monetize the internet through mail order, and then via monthly memberships paid by credit card. The trend continues. Some $400 million was spent worldwide on mobile-phone porn in 2004, according to Strategy Analytics, a research firm in Boston, and it predicts the mobile porn market will be worth $5 billion by 2010

Many of today's most commonly used and valuable internet applications were either invented or perfected by the adult industry. It was instrumental in driving the introduction of on-line credit-card processing, improving video streaming and perfecting the compression of images for on-line viewing. Porn-site operators introduced webcams and private chats long before they made their way to the average desktop. When DVDs and digital video cameras hit the market, pornographers were the first to jump on board. "If it wasn't for the adult market," says McAlear [her husband and business partner], "live and streaming video wouldn't have developed as fast as it did."

Carol Cox is a figure of historical importance. The article could use some more detail about her significance, but should be kept because it is of interest to social commentators such as myself who follow underground trends and phenomena that are often much more important than their mainstream coverage would indicate. Jules Siegel 23:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crissy Cums

NN person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. This is the second nomination. The first can be found here. Dismas|^(talk) 12:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is nothing in the article or in the previous AfD which is convincing me to keep. Previous "keep" votes relied on her 18 DVDs (never mind that it's insufficient to pass WP:PORN BIO), her thousands of GHits (never mind counting Ghits os not research), and other specious arguments lifted straight out of WP:ILIKEIT, from which I can only conclude that the closing admin was counting votes rather than weighing up the aruments and evidence. Ohconfucius 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet standards or WP:BIO. There do not appear to be multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources in which this person in a primary subject. The references are her website and info repeated at internet film databases, which just claim that she was in a bunch of porn flicks in 2005 and 2006. That claim does not show she is notable, because we do not know if their sales were unusually high or if the movies or the performer were the primary subject of independent reliable and verifiable published sources. The online movie database apparently can be edited by anyone who registers and does not count as a reliable source any more than Wikipedia itself does. Edison 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I regret I can only vote once. A page protect might soon be in order. Shaundakulbara 08:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And I wish to mention to Ohconfucius that the first AFD occured in October 2005, which was prior to WP:PORNBIO being written (Joe Beaudoin didn't write the first draft of PORNBIO until April 2006)... thus the poor quality of arguments on the keep side back then. Tabercil 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the point of information. Ohconfucius 08:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola massacre

1) This article has no sources

2) The tone is not neutral, but highly partisan

3) There is a better article on the same issue elsewhere: Hola Pabailie 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the significant improvements made to the article by User:Julius Sahara (the previous version was, admittedly, POV and unsourced). Useful information on the massacre in the Hola, Kenya article should be transferred to Hola massacre. The former article (about the town) should, of course, make mention of the massacre (as part of the town's history), but should not focus mostly on the town itself. Black Falcon 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant historical event; well-sourced and verifiable. Walton monarchist89 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. WilyD 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the dates between this article and the Mau Mau uprising don't jive (this says "after", but dates it in 1959, but the Mau Mau uprising is dated ending in 1960). Now sourced and POV is generally gone. SkierRMH 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found (and added) many references from which this topic may be developed. The article has sufficient sources, the tone of the article can be fixed, and Hola does not provide a better article on the same issue as suggested in the AfD proposal. In view of the above, WP:SNOW may be applicable here. -- Jreferee 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first two points are not grounds for deletion, the third only for a merge which does not seem warrented. --TeaDrinker 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the first point would be a grounds for deletion, if it weren't patently false. WilyD 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been somewhat improved; the sources are still suspect, since - with the exception of two - they are not academic and almost exclusively from left wing sources. WilyD clearly hasn't kept up with the development of this article, since when it was first nominated for deletion it had no sources at all and was highly tendentious. I cannot accept Jreferee's point that the material in the Hola article is not superior to what is in this article, since it is both more extensive and makes suitable reference to different scholarly interpretations of the event. Pabailie 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. History is preserved if anyone wants to merge content. W.marsh 16:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kopimist

Neologism. There are only 60 unique hits in Google, and most don't seem to be in English. WP:NEO requires sources talking about the term, not just those using it. This would be a appropriate article, but only once the term gains mainstream acceptance. eaolson 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO; also has POV issues in naming various high-profile organisations as "opponents" of Kopimism. Walton monarchist89 18:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Neologism being promoted by an anti-copyright group. If you want Urban Dictionary, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Merge and Redirect to The Pirate Bay]. Honestly, the new references added don't help - a recording of a video on youtube, a blog, and a press release, along with another reference. We need something a bit more independent here. The explanation of the term Kopimist won't stand on its own, and is very much POV here - but a clean up and merge might give it something better. --Dennisthe2 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The youtube video was a copy of the broadcast on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's show, The Hour. The CBC is the oldest broadcasting service in Canada, its not some bloggers home video. ZyMOS 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand that, but we need more than one reliable source here. If there are others, put them in - but what we have is either insufficiently notable or simply insufficient. --Dennisthe2 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is not a neologisms, the term is well defined in article, and is not ambiguously used by others, ism, or ist is not added to word for undue weight on a root word, This is not original research, i don't belong to any of the orgs, and actually dont fully agree with them, so im not self promoting. I wrote more than a definition, it clearly does not reads a dictionary entry. I will add more sources, because you are correct. It needs to be cited as more than a word in an article.
Make that well over 10 separate articles including an interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation The Hour ZyMOS 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Popular usage: It is true this is not commonly used, however that is not good reason for deletion. It is not an ambitious term. It is not used by a single group, I found 4 seprete news sources using kopimist in their articles. All independent from each other, all unaffiliated with the organizations, and they are not blogs
Make that well over 10 separate articles including an interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation The Hour, try searching kopimist and kopimists ZyMOS 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- POV issue: Yes the list of opponents is long and well noted. I will actually delete them. Although it is obvious that they would oppose this philosophy, they have not specifically commented on komimists.
- self Promotion: As i said, i am not affiliated with any of them at all. The word is used by multiple anti-copyright groups and is used by other sources to describe them, including opponents. Also this term is used to refer to a people with an ideology, so inherently it is promoted/used by those people. Scientology promoted by Scientologists, anarchy promoted by anarchists, etc
- I think i have made a sufficient argument for keeping this article ZyMOS 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if it's notable, don't put it here, put it in the article! --Dennisthe2 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your advice, I have now done just that. ZyMOS 00:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopimi. (This isn't recreated content, though, so not eligible for speedy.) --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect LazyDaisy 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Dennisthe2 - Aagtbdfoua 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the relevant data to the pirate bay as suggested, however i still think there is significant information in this article. I have added a significant amount of sources. 6 sources, and 8 relevant links. This is much more than most wikipedia articles. I believe I have made a valid argument for each of the complaints on this page, or i have corrected them. So i don't think this should be deleted.
And on a more personal note. I dont understand the opposition to new information being added to wikipedia just because it is not commonly know. If a word is used by more than a small isolated group of people it should be acceptable. Local bands, high schools, small companies, towns, mayors, etc should all be acceptable. If it can make it into the news whether local or global, it should be acceptable. Wikipedia should not be so picky about what is acceptable information and what is not. I knew about mp3s before most of the world knew of them, no one i knew was aware of them. so should i have kept it secret until it made it on cnn. If Fraunhofer had written an article would it be self-promoting, and for quick deletion. If somebody wants to know what a kopimist is they should be able to find it on wikipedia.(i have found a couple of forums were people have asked that very question) I am an archivist and have archived about 100,000 datasheets at archive.org most of those chip are almost completely unknown and very few if any care about them. But lost information is a terable thing. At least in my opinion. ZyMOS 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So i think i have met all the criterion for an article on wikipedia that is required by their rules and guidelines.
ZyMOS 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term "kopimist" or "kopimi" doesn't seem to appear on the piratebay website you linked to, even on their "About" page. Therefore, it's not a source for the term. On the kopimi.com site you linked to, there's just a public domain logo. Nothing about the "information wants to be free" philosophy the article mentions. The Urban Dictionary definition for "kopimi" just says that it means something can be copied. Basically, it seems to be a logo signifying that something is in the public domain. Again, nothing about this philosophy. Furthermore, Urban Dictionary isn't generally considered a reliable source. The no-war-against-ladonia.blogspot.com talks about "Kopimists" but never really defines the term. Again, blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. From WP:NFT:

School crazes, fads, and fashions can end up covered in Wikipedia, but only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Such resources are reliable, and therefore the subject can become eligible for Wikipedia.

OK, it's talking about fads and fashions there, but the same can be extended to new words that no one outside of a very small group is using. WP:NEO specifically says that it's necessary to have a source talking about the term, not just using it, before an article is appropriate for inclusion in WP. eaolson 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://no-war-against-ladonia.blogspot.com cites a long definition and history, over 10 news independed sources cite the word, the work if coined by the creator of a website the gets of 4million hits a day, it is used by multiple groups. and is quoted by multiply people, there is a book about it. and since the spirit bay is swedish most of the pages about kopimists. http://www.piratbyran.org/copyme/ is the original and political page of the pirate bay, but its in Swedish so i cant cite it, because i cant read it, but it is clear they are talking about it. The page is about kopimists not kopime, that page is cited only in that portion. not the main artical. It is not in academic papers but i would imagine 90% of wikipedia articles do not have them as sources. Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source that is why i have multiple other sources to back the definition up. Kopimi is relevent because multiple sources describe that as the origin, so its would inproper to not mention that. http://no-war-against-ladonia.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-kopimists-conquered-internets-and.html , http://www.kopimi.com/kopimi/ , http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kopimi all talk about the term not just use it. It is true that not all the sources are reliable. But many are and all pages confirm that same thing. It is true that many of the sources are self serving, but is would be improper to not cite them and many of the the sources are not self serving. So i think i covered all the arguments listed about. But even if all my arguments are bunk, whats the harm in having more information. It the word gets more popular them more will be added. if it doesnt is remains a small unpopular article for anyone that wants to know about it. ZyMOS 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on blogspot does not constitute notability, and using kopimi.com for a source...well, it's not third party. My !vote stands. While you note your sources aren't reliable, please note that in order to be included here, your sources must, regardless, thusly be reliable. --Dennisthe2 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Pirate Bay Mufunyo 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you don't know anything, it doesn't mean that kopimi doesn't exist. And TPB is supporter of kopimi, not kopimi itself. 193.219.93.218 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , no reliable sources, nonnotable neologism. Sandstein 13:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O well, looks like I loose, its a pity. i am going to merge and redirect as subjected. I hate to see all the other pages deleted due to the excuses above, but democracy is as democracy does ZyMOS 03:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; really, nothing can be derived from this debate. - Daniel.Bryant 11:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News Series 2000

Keep, but clean up.

WAVY 10 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD template was added to the News Series 2000 page by User:Rtphokie, not WAVY 10 who's created this debate, on January 14th 2007. I'm not sure if this is a valid AFD then, but I'd go for a weak delete, I don't really think theme tunes are usually that notable, and most of the article is a list of what stations used the theme and when, which is probably indescriminate information. FredOrAlive 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm actually not too keen on having articles for every other news theme (other than perhaps Move Closer to Your World and CBS Enforcer), but I do happen to think this one has merit. It was quite widely used, and descended from the rather notable Cool Hand Luke Tar Sequence theme. I do question the need for the station table, and I do agree it needs to be cleaned up somewhat. - Hinto 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Pilotguy. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape private servers

Unsalvageable in current state. Delete and rewrite ~~needed~~ if subject is notable. Exarion 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to make head or foot out of what this article is trying to say. I am unable to see how this article (or subject for that matter) improves Wikipedia's coverage of RuneScape. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Were it not for the first sentence, I'd have speedied this as patent nonsense.-- IslaySolomon | talk 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I think this is a exact copy of an article deleted a long time ago, making it elegible for speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape private servers J.J.Sagnella 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What a friggin' mess. Caknuck 17:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no assertion of notability and with good reason. WP might not be censored, but there's no need to keep unreferenced mention of copyright-theft which (as the article states) is often used to scam RS players of their in-game items. If the term were covered by secondary sources it could possibly be mentioned on the RuneScape article, no need for a seperate article. QuagmireDog 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra delete - no such thing that isn't a copyright theft and/or a password scam. Considering this has been deleted twice before, it could also be speedied and salted under CSD G4. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as reposted material in violation of WP:NOT and lacking any sort of verifiability or coverage in reliable sources. Salt namespace as well. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SNOW.--Exarion 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete tagged for recreation of deleted material. James086Talk 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger in the woodpile

IP 172.141.83.47 placed entry on relevant talk page requesting keep - prod moved to AfD as per. My personal vote is a Delete. RedHillian 12:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what is the reason to delete it? The article has appropriate references, though these could be better. It needs some cleanup and improvement, but its not far enough from a decent article to warrant deletion. The opening paragraph looks like a dictionary definition but the inclusion of the film discounts that. It appears to meet notability requirements since it is the subject of multiple independent discussions in reliable sources and more exist (and should be added). The term is indeed offensive, but Wikipedia is not censored. Gwernol 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original prod was from Angusmclellan, and quoted A dictionary definition but wikt:nigger in the woodpile already exists and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I placed prod2 as per original nom. --RedHillian 14:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, although the original prod was placed before the movie and recent usages sections were added. Adding these sections makes this article more than a dictionary definition. Gwernol 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the article consists of a definition copied directly from somewhere, and two pieces of trivia. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary of idioms. Rosenkreuz 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears like a dicdef. Any etymological trivia can be added on wiktionary. I don't agree with Gwernol: there doesn't appear to be an encyclopedia article struggling to get out of this. I'm not of the view that it's offensive, although that was presumably the original intent. The relevance of censorship passes me by. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, just adding "They made a movie with this title" doesn't mean it's not a dictionary definition anymore. If you feel you can make an article out of the film title, go for it. As it stands, though, it's just a dicdef. (and I kind of wonder why the "Wikipedia is not censored" defense was brought up when nobody claimed it was offensive in the first place) --UsaSatsui 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I brought it up along with a number of other points, was that at the time no reason to delete had been given. I simply ran through all the possible objections I could imagine and pointed out where I believed they did not apply to this article. Gwernol 15:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic, at least partially not a copyvio (some parts may be). Which leaves no real reason for deletion. WilyD 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which you haven't addressed. Uncle G 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's hard to address, since no reasonable person could construe this as a dictionary entry. Perhaps it read as such before I first saw it. But it doesn't read like a dictionary entry now - I would have thought "encyclopaedic" covered Not merely a dictionary entry, I must have been mistaken. WilyD 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article gives the meaning of and etymology of an idiomatic phrase. That's a dictionary article. An encyclopaedia article would discuss the person/concept/place/thing/event that the phrase denoted. Uncle G 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- dictionary definition copied out of other people's dictionaries (okay, quasi-dictionaries). ReasonablePerson 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - An encyclopaedia article would discuss the person/concept/place/thing/event that the phrase denoted - which this articles does, which is why it's encyclopaedic and not merely dictionaric. WilyD 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The N term is offensive generally. Its use here is less so. The page could be reformatted as a movie article with a cultural note. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This one's hard, but I gotta say delete. Not because it's offensive, but because it comes off as a dicdef - and a poorly formed one at that. --Dennisthe2 00:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an article on the origins of an interesting phrase does not constitute merely a dicdef. -Doc^g 12:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary: An article on the etymology of an idiom is exactly dictionary article territory. You are most likely thinking that the article cannot be a dictionary article because it isn't a short, 1-sentence long, article. "Short" and "dictionary" are not synonyms. Don't let what one can find in "pocket dictionaries" fool you. An article is a dictionary article when it gives (one or more of) the meaning, etymology, usage, inflections, pronunciations, translations, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, alternative spellings, derived terms, and so forth of a word or an idiom. A non-stub dictionary article can be quite long. This article falls into that category. It doesn't discuss the person/concept/place/event/thing that the word/phrase denotes, which is encyclopaedia article territory. It gives the meaning of the idiom, discusses its etymology, and points to some modern usages, noting the connotations of the idiom. It nowhere discusses important facts that are not disclosed, the concept that the phrase denotes. Uncle G 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except this is a phrase, not simply a word. The history of its origins and usage is encyclopaedic. Do normal encyclopedia contain such things? No, but then they are pretty low on Pokemon characters and High Schools.--Doc^g 19:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dictionaries contain phrases. --Dennisthe2 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete directly copied from elsewhere and dicdef. Also, racist. SakotGrimshine 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored, and that the definition explains the term - so while the term is indeed racist, it gives an etymology behind said term. (Regardless, my "delete" above stands.) --Dennisthe2 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep It's really quite simple. WP is not censored. Now un-used slang that would now be considered racist is included. In fact , even contemporary racist slang is included, if material for an encyclopedic article can be found. There is much else to say, including comparisons with similar slang in various countries, and a look at likely pre-Google era material should find quite a bit. DGG 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making that argument. Nobody is saying it should be censored. In fact, it's the keep voters that keep bringing up the censorship issue (making it really hard for me to assume good faith). Simply because we don't censor things doesn't mean that everything potentially vulgar is instantly notable. The issue at hand is whether or not this article is a dictionary definition, or whether the article is notable. I believe that it is, and it's not. Adding a history of the word doesn't make it any less of a dicdef, and while a movie from 1904 is mentioned, there's absolutely nothing about it on the page. This "movie", by the way, is 10 minutes long and there is nearly no information about it over at IMDB (the only source provided for it). --UsaSatsui 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a certain frequency of dicdef as the objection when some topics come into play. agreed it can be more complicated, but I also said that for something used so widely, print sources are findable, and they will add depth to the discussion in the article. DGG 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced phrase that is more than a dicdef. VegaDark 07:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angus. 24.107.194.216 03:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, offensive but sourced and beyond a dicdef. Malla nox 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Vanderford

Only one independent source cited, and it is mainly about the hoax, not the person. Contains crystal ballisms and subjects personal theories. Drat (Talk) 13:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable web incident. not encyclopedia worthy.--Tainter 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might have got a bit of publicity at the time but in hindsight not important. Possibly worthy of a line in decapitation but not a separate article. Sam Blacketer 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[27] it was the number one news story in the world at that time— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.145.139 (talk • contribs)
- Comment. Ever heard of "15 minutes of fame"? Besides, that search will find all pages with "Benjamin" and "Vanderford", as opposed to only those with "Benjamin Vanderford". "benjamin vanderford" -wikipedia gets only 345 unique hits.--Drat (Talk) 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couples on The Simpsons

Really not necessary. It's trivial cruft and incomplete. -- Scorpion 13:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of characters from The Simpsons DXRAW 13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a minute here... You reverted my edits where I merged this page into another page just so you could restore this AFD and vote for a merge? -- Scorpion 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote "but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." DXRAW 13:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you did not merge the info into the page you just did a redirect. DXRAW 13:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary, trivial and incomplete. --Maitch 15:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless fanlistcruft. Bereft of WP:FICT's "real-world context and sourced analysis". -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being really quite indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is already included in the individual character's page, and the cross references to other articles would make more sense there. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 January 2007
Delete Unnecessary and redundant. 23skidoo 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft-tastic. Natalie 03:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont (band)

I tend to believe that being an opener for a few other bands and having 5 sec of a song on MTV does not constitute notability as per WP:music. The mentionin of an album to be released in March is speculative. And, the article content is not properly referenced. Kai A. Simon 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion. yandman 14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable and crystalball. --Tainter 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no source WP:V and crystalball... massively misses the lowbar for WP:MUSIC SkierRMH 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Programming Research

Seems spam, notability not established! Cate |_Talk 13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages (product of the above company):[reply]

Delete both, no notability shown per WP:CORP or WP:SOFTWARE. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. only two ghits of which both were company websites. all othes were unrelated. --Tainter 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment

Article about some strange meditation technique. It would appear to have been mentioned in two newspaper articles, but I don't think that constitutes notability. It is also written in some garbled language which bears only the most superficial resemblance to English: 'The principles of the Path that are pillaring, lead to and from the Spiritual Unfoldment meditation are the Unfoldment of the Heart, the finding of Greater happiness, a life of Philosophy that is a living philosophy under a non-denominational / non-sectarian spectrum'. Wikipedia would be a much better place without this article, as well as the article on the non-notable group who promote this activity and the chap who came up with the idea. In essence, this is spam and we don't need it. I think the term is 'walled garden'...isn't it? Rosenkreuz 14:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, i don't think it should be removed since it's been practiced by thousands of people who have seen these benefits. Also, as for the benefits of meditation concern shortly links will be added from medical articles proving these theories. How can Gururaj Ananda Yogi be removed from here when his profile is accepted by Wikipedia terms in the spanish version? http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gururaj_Ananda_Yogi . For the FISU (Foundation for International Spiritual Unfoldment) more links will be added to verify its notability.Damianosk 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)— Damianosk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would also like to add that FISU's method of teaching meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment are unique in the world. They have taught over 100,000 people in the UK and a similar amount in America plus many thousands more in European countries and Autralia. I totally disagree that Wikipedia would be a better place without this article. I think those comments are even predujuice or make by someone who has not discovered the spiritual path. Our methods of Spiritual Unfolmdent are unique and indivually prescribed for each person that comes to learn. There is no such organsiation in the world with our track record or achievements. W>e plan to post many more article and newspapers write us from over the years to prove our case.— Fisuuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. I wasn't impressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gururaj Ananda Yogi. Nothing has changed. Iff we should have an article, we need one and not three or five, otherwise it does seem to be a walled garden. "Foundation for International Spiritual Unfoldment" scores one gnews archive hit, a short advertorial piece in the Evening Standard. "Gururaj Ananda Yogi" scores none. Most mentions of "Spiritual Unfoldment" appear to deal with the unrelated Spiritual Unfoldment Society. No doubt this is a significant part of some people's lives, but it appears not to meet WP:N, and by extension, is not verifiable and could not be written from a neutral point of view. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have been on Wikipedia only for a while. If you guys give us the chance to have some time we can prove you that it will worth it. Are we in war here? Or are we trying the best for a good cause?Damianosk 15:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)— Damianosk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

On the other hand...

Greetings. This is regarding the initial comments of the debate, by user Rosenkreuz. I hope this helps to clear up some things.

If you find this meditation technique "strange", then probably you may find all meditations techniques "strange" if you have never practiced meditation.

This is already an existing opinion that consider "all these things from the east" as "strange", especially in the western world. You may share that opinion as well and this is respected. Nevertheless, it's a personal opinion.

If you consider as "garbled language" which bears "only the most superficial resemblance to English" as anything you do not comprehend and share, it is, again, your own right and opinion. Maybe you will consider "garbled language" what it says here? Please note that the translation of eastern texts and notions in English is indeed a "tricky" business. You would be amazed what obscure words and sentences are used by scholars in order to accurately transfer the meaning e.g. from ancient Sanskrit texts to English. As a prominent example of "garbled language", please see the translations of Thomas Cleary on ancient Zen documents - and Thomas Cleary is a recognized leading authority on ancient Zen transcripts.

Unfortunately I will have to disagree with the crude labeling. This "language" that is used in the specific article text was reviewed by native English speakers that share common interest into Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment and was approved.

About the lacking of media references, there are references regarding this article (and the other related articles), but those I personally have are not properly dated. There was a request for the community to help, as myself and other mates are sorting out the references.

Furthermore, Gururaj Ananda Yogi wasn't the "chap" that "came up with the idea". At least please check Unfoldment. People and movements like Immanuel Kant, Einstein, Buddhism are not just some "chaps that came up with this idea" of Unfoldment.

I am terribly sorry for the misconceptions and the prejudiced language that was used.

Please also note, that in the past there were some ongoing discussions regarding notability etc of these articles and the result yielded for these articles to remain as such. The truth is that the community did not contributed as much as it should, maybe because of the notion that "since the articles were "approved" once, updating is not so urgent". But is seems that we need to update them ASAP, in order to avoid future misunderstandings.

So, expect more updates.

Thank you. Apologizing for any discomfort caused.

MarekTT 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)— MarekTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The English in the article is indeed mangled, but that is no indicator of the conceptual depth of the topic; it is the product of someone who cannot speak the language properly. If the language was, as you say, 'reviewed' by native English speakers, then they are either lying about their home language or not very good at it, because the language truly is very bad indeed. But that's incidental, really, since if the subject matter merited an encyclopaedia article, the language could be fixed. Incidentally, Einstein most certainly did not come up with the idea of 'unfoldment', and nor did Kant. Please don't misrepresent the status of your beliefs. If they are valid, they ought to stand on their own, without spurious references to well-known thinkers. Rosenkreuz 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. no lying here. I really have no reason for that, I wouldn't waste my time in lying, I prefer doing things that I believe I enjoy much more than that. In the meantime, a team including myself are trying to be constructive and update the pages in question, in order to clear things up.

About the rest, please read Unfoldment more carefully, because that article as well displays some "spurious references to well-known thinkers". If you do not agree with Unfoldment's "spurious references to well-known thinkers" then you are most welcomed to express it and if you still wish to call me a liar, then please do because it's really not something I consider harmful for me.

I will come back to the discussion in the light of the new content that will be added in the next 24 hours, or if someone wishes to help us out.

So, whoever wants to delete any articles is most welcomed to do it. For two long years we have been fighting with the Charity Commission for England and Wales, having to deal with similar mentalities, but in the end it was a success. And whoever dealt with the Commission knows very well what it takes to be approved as a UK Registered Charity: after exhaustive check, you have to be be proven 100% clear and with rightful purposes in order to be registered. So if you really think that our "chaps" and "garbled language" have actually managed to deceive the Commission (that in effect represents the British Public), then please report us using the Commission's complaints form ("Dissatisfied with our decision?") and tell them that some "chaps" managed to deceive them with their "indeed garbled language".

We will just have to deal with this as well, no matter how long it will take; it's just a matter of time because the determination to set things straight will not deteriorate. In the meantime, why not be amused in here?

All love and Namaste MarekTT 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)— MarekTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't appreciate your passive-aggressive stance, MarekTT. The article on 'unfoldment' is an appalling mess, and full of original research. It does indeed mention Einstein, stating that he had an affinity for Buddhism, a dubious fact which needs a citation. The fact is, many people are not really very aware of the intricacies of the philosophical debate between Niels Bohr and Einstein regarding quantum mechanics, but more than a few second-rate popularisations of science, many of which focus on Bohmian mechanics, take comments of Einstein out of all context. I was not accusing you of lying. I merely believe that you are misinformed if you think that Einstein came up with the idea of unfoldment a la David Bohm (in fact, Einstein dismissed Bohm's work as being 'cheap', and for that I can provide a citation).

I have no intention of reporting anyone to any boards or anything. The Commission does not judge any institution on the objective validity of its spiritual practices; it merely makes sure that institutions are not set up to make people money. Being a non-profit entity does not make an organisation, or practice, de facto notable. And what is being discussed here is the notability, not the validity, of spiritual unfoldment. Rosenkreuz 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Rozenkreuz what you discussed is the validity of the spiritual unfoldment(read your very first comments at the top)where you say: "Wikipedia would be a much better place without this article..." and about a chap who came with this idea. I think your comments shows a prejudice on our organisation. If you don't understand what a meditation organization is all about and how it works how can you judge of what we are trying to do here. All your comments shows your confusion about the subject. Damianosk 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)— Damianosk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete pending citation of further sources, no claim of notability in the article, questionable whether existing sources are enough to provide verifiability. The first "reference" is from UKPRwire, and is just the group's promotional release, not a reliable source. The second "reference" is the group's own website, also not the kind of source that can establish notability. That leaves the article with just two mentions in a single Cyprus newspaper. Perhaps there are multiple featured coverage in reliable sources, but this article should be kept only if some are found and cited. Before I get accused of hating and being at war, I'm not making any value judgment about the group or its practices; I meditate, especially to avoid getting upset with people who think that their most important function is getting their special interest covered in Wikipedia. Such a priority leads people to suspect that the true goal is promotion, not spiritual improvement. Barno 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's true that we could spare both epithets and passive-aggressive stands. It seems that all speak but none actually listens to each other, so I only have a definite comment to make, at least for now. If we look at the history of the articles in question; when they were first created they were merely stubs, but nevertheless there was some discussion going on on whether they should exist or not. Some were deleted and then revived, tagged, marked for deletion, deleted again, and then revived and so on... At a final phase, the discussions yielded that these articles would remain (no consensus and stuff). Eventually all tags and markings for deletions and notability were all (maybe but one) removed, and the articles were "clean". It seemed then that they would be allowed to exist and gradually be developed in time. Then we come now, after less than a month, with no much initial debate, within less than 24 hours, two articles are marked and deleted (Jasmini Ananda, Rajesh Ananda), and suddenly, when all articles were "clean" and seemed that would just "let be", are marked for deletion, to be merged and so on. At this point, I really do not want to repeat the discussions that took place less than a month ago, because what is said was said, and the turnout was that these articles would remain. So, the twofold ladies and gentlemen, is whether these articles will remain, let some voices heard and be given a chance to grow?- Or delete the articles and silence those opinions expressed in them? I realize that the articles are not (were not) perfect, much more info was yet to be added and the community participation was not as massive as expected, but I think they have potential, they do constitute notability (that yes, has to be proven) and therefore my opinion is to stay, let them be and let them grow. In the case they are deleted, then as community of people interested into this domain we must prepare a proper more "reinforced" articles before we actually upload them and definitely draw the community's attention to it so there is a steady and healthy participation. I am calling off for tonight, have a good one. Cheers, MarekTT 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)— MarekTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Non-notable practice, no secondary sources referenced. Part of a walled garden of articles. Not to mention it reads rather like nonsense. -- Kesh 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion Check and check and more changes on the way, on this and the other articles. Damianosk 09:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)— Damianosk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - No third party reliable sources to lend justification to claims of notability. Sfacets 14:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion. About Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment, at least 10 meditation societies / organizations from various countries say that they use Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment based on the teachings of Gururaj Ananda Yogi; most state this in their website, few are needed to be contacted if verification is needed. Note that these organizations do not have any link with FISU. It was known that these organizations existed, but did not consider to mention. On the article Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment, more book sources were added; it is pending to be inserted as references in the text of the content. About Gururaj Ananda Yogi, he has authored four books and his lectures were extensively recorded. Media interviews can be verified by accessing the archives of the radio, TV stations etc; likewise about symposia and conferences. There is an effort to retrieve more detailed information (dates etc). Finally, regarding FISU, some more content was added, and links to third parties (bbc, med and gov sites were added). I believe all these do constitute notability, or at least if they don't universally convince for their notability, they show good potential for these articles to be further developed in the future (and up to the point where they will universally convince for their notability). It is agreed that they need to be worked out, but bear in mind their recency (< month). I believe they should let be. Cheers, MarekTT 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)— MarekTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No deletion.I think the articles constitute a satisfactory degree of notability, because they have sufficient references . I have personally read all the books published by Gururaj Ananda Yogi and I have found them really interesting.I also disagree that the articles should be deleted because Meditation for spiritual unfoldment is practiced by a large number or people. I personally know more than a 100 people practising the techniques of Gururaj Ananda Yogi and noticing tremendus changes in their way of thinking changing their lives for the better.I should say that before you condemn something you should first try it.Spiritualbutterfly 22:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)— Spiritualbutterfly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keepMany of the arguments above are irrelevant--the virtues of this method are not at issue. The material is documented and with enough documentation to show that it is notable. I do have some doubts about the individual national societies, which should probably be merged in here. DGG 00:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article now has many citations. When it was originally proposed for deletion, it did not. As it stands, most of the sources are still primary, written by those involved in the practice. What we need are secondary sources about the practice / belief here. -- Kesh 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No that's not the case Kesh. In the 'Books and References' section the books 'In Tune with the Infinity', 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' and 'The Undivided Universe' are secondary sources because their authors don't perform the practice. Especially the last two books approach this philosophy from the scientific point of view. Yet don't forget that the primary sources used here represent thousand of people around the globe. Only FISU (Foundation for International Spiritual Unfoldment) has 60 centres in 9 countries and it continues growing very fast. As for the merging of the individual societies DGG, Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment is a distinct method of meditation. FISU, as an organization, only utilizes this method. So these notions constitute two distinct issues, therefore it is suggested not to be merged but to be kept as two distinct articles. FISU's article will expand. Damianosk 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— Damianosk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

strong keep In this debat I wish to contribut with a citation from Gururaj Ananda Yogi:

" Is a meditator foolish or is he a fool? Why meditate? Most people are forever seeking a joy in life, and to seek joy of life one has to be an innocent fool. For in that foolishness brings the very joy that you want. So rather be a foolfilled meditator than a concentrated one. Concentration is a mental quality but a true meditator has heart quality. Would you like your mind to be filled with foolishness or would you like your Heart to be filed with innocence? If the mind is filled with various thoughts, that mind be sure to know, rambles on from thought to thought and ends up in contemplation and not meditation. Contemplation leads to analysis, where one thought battles with the other and this creates conflict. But in meditation one is freed from the conflicts created from the mind. So be a fool! In systematic meditation the very foolishness brings fullness, where you, being a fool, as I am, would learn to enjoy yourself. Get away from the mind. For in getting away you rid yourself of all attachments and cravings, and what you are left with then is the true fool, and only that fool can ever know the meaning of fullness. The fool in his foolishness becomes fulfilled in his innocence." ...Gururaj Ananda Yogi...March 1986. This man started the Foundation and FISU is going on with the work he started.This is NOT a "wallet garden", this is the "proof of the pudding, which lies in the eating"--- eat it and know.(User Jacha 28.01.2007)— Jacha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep k... so, please review the ongoing additions and modifications in the articles (here,here and here) and use this as a basis for commenting. I believe now they are much better and are good enough to be kept (still not perfect, but good enough for at least not to be deleted). Cheers. MarekTT 18:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— MarekTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Not really. All that's been added are more links to "related" societies and primary sources published by practitioners. We need independent sources talking about the practice and/or its organization. -- Kesh 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Now that is mentioned, it's useful to let know that whereas certain of these organizations are related / loosely related to each other, some others are not related to each other at all (not to say "alienated"). I also stress that these 3 articles (here,here and here) they may have a relation, but by no means they are corporate belongings or trademarks of a sole organization (in this case, FISU's). Each entity (person or organization) can use the teachings of Gururaj Ananda Yogi and Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment (that btw, it wasn't something created by him), as they please. And they do. In fact, some use it very differently from each other (but that's another story - if members of other organizations found out about this discussion it would go on forever). Anyway, a simple search at Amazon yields these books ([28]) and they are from different authors, different point of views (some their commonality may not go any further from the title) and so on. Also, a more thorough examination of the current references (books, external links, websites etc) can show that they are referred from different sources (organizations, societies, individual authors etc) and also some of them are not related / directly related (solely) to meditation, nor meditation to spiritual unfoldment. Anyway, those books that were found will be used (for content, as references and so on). Please keep comments coming. MarekTT 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— MarekTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi , i saw this and i thought i should drop my thoughts. FISU has helped many people fix their lives with spiritual unfoldment and it would be a shame not be included here for someone that heard about it and thought to search for it in here ! Mpouzouki21 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— Mpouzouki21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Kesh, David Bohm is a scientist (quantum physicist) who tried to approach the practice from the scientific point of view. How can you say he is a practitioner. Bohm and Trine are definitely an independent source. From where do you base your comment? Please support your comment because i don't see any relation to be a primary source.Damianosk 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— Damianosk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No Deletion The mind is a Universe. Meditation can be used as a vehicle to explore and understand it. To go through all the layers and reach the "Source", the "Oneness", the "Wholeness". The source will help to bring stability into the mind, to achieve all that seems impossible... Thousands of people practise this everyday, in a daily basis. Thousands of people want to practise this, but don't know how. From the beginning of the existence of the human race, people have been searching. People will always be searching. People have the right to search for their inner self. Their inner Truth. Give them a chance to find a way do so. Show them the way if they search for it. Adimi 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— Adimi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

??... anw, please review Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment. The comments posted in this space should be connected with what is written in the articles and giving specific reasons based on that content supporting or not supporting their deletion. Regarding Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment, I believe now it's OK to be kept. There are a lot of sources, references, books, wikipedia links added of variable relation, but many of them (especially other wikipedia articles) directly relate specifically with the term "Spiritual unfoldment". There was much time devoted for this, so please devote a reasonable amount of time to carefully review the additions before posting comments. MarekTT 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— MarekTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

strong keep Substance is of the essence. Beeing aquainted with the methods and teachings of Gururaj Ananda Yogi and the wast library of spiritual teachings as can be found at http://www.fisu.org/acatalog/Gururaj_Ananda_s_Tapes.html it would seem very clear that Gururaj has his given place in any encyclopedia. I can find no qualitative difference between Gururajs writings and talks and those of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Rumi and Milarepa whom all are represented and rightly so in the wikipedia. Possible flaws in the language are no argument for deletion (and doesn't bother me personnally being natively Finnish/Swedish). These and and other superficial issues can easily be corrected and should be. The beauty of the wikipedia is it's evolution. Hopfully towards something we would refer to as Truth. Deleting this article would be a big step in the other direction.SantoshMattsson 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)— SantoshMattsson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, as required by WP:N, is too thin. Sandstein 06:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability as per Rosenkreuz's comments. Slac speak up! 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article may need some more secondary sources to become a good article, but its a servicable article as it stands. And the sock puppetry is not helping your case guys -M^ask 09:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The references and books of the articles are no doubt of a diverse spectrum of knowledge and not from a single source. This subject and knowledge is going on for thousands of years. You now come to say that there is not enough information because you have No Idea about what it is all about? There are so many different organizations practicing meditation for spiritual unfoldment every day. You are trying to say that what they teach for hundreds and hundreds of years, that the people who have experienced and benefited from these techniques, is not important for people who want to know about it? I suggest you guys pay more attention on what you are trying to delete. Adimi 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)— Adimi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: this is a discussion, not an attack. The expressed point here is clear and everybody can realise it too, without needing the "no-ideas" and the "you-come-heres". If someone sees things differently, it's a matter of opinion. Apparently your's is "Keep", and so does mine. I do agree though that a careful examination proves the articles worthwhile to be kept and with sufficient references. If not everybody sees this in the same manner it is a matter of point of view and on that point of view we are discussing about. cheers... MarekTT 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of importance (to avoid the n-word). —xyzzy_n 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, importance is a relative term and differs between individuals. The article is sufficiently sourced and could be of interest to people from a broad audience, who might wish to seek information on spiritual unfoldment from a respected source. Thank you Cosh39 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC— Cosh39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. 12 Google resultes for some kind of ... new age neologism? Mail order course? I could see this being mentioned in it's parent article, but there is a disproportionate amount of linking and vanity-advert symptomatic crap at the bottom of the article, which is strongly discouraging. Salad Days 22:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I find the desultoriness of jumping into such conclusions rather disappointing. If the search is performed without the quotes then the results are tens of thousands. Just because there is not an exact matching, (as this diversity was already mentioned), it does not mean that the same / mostly the same thing is not expressed in many other close terms. And in this case, it does. I really find most unnecessary to repeat (but it seems it is needed) about the importance of a thorough examination of ALL books, links, references, websites and whatever else is mentioned in these articles, before jumping and expressing with such a crude way into these kind of incendiary conclusions. So I plea for one more time to those that want to post an opinion: before doing as such please carefully review all the books, references, websites (AND their content), other related wikipedia articles etc that are mentioned in the articles. It is most unfair to spend half a minute for a mere hasty and non deictic Google search where others have spent so much more time and effort into this. People can also understand an argument without the use of the word "crap"; not exactly the most helpful thing. Thank you. MarekTT 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Fallacies within the momentum of causation

De'prod'ed, due to debate on talk page Original reason was Original Research, by Matticus78 RedHillian 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote? Delete as per nom. --RedHillian 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. It reads like nonsense, even though it isn't. If not sd, then delete as WP:OR. If not OR, then delete in order to allow for a new, better, re-write - that article is a mess. Make it go away! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Not quite patent nonsense, but it does seem to be original work by an amateur philosopher. He seems to be asking us for help defining his terms; I'd point him first in the direction of the causality article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "what the hell?", nonsense. OR as well.--Tainter 15:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, unless reliable sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it is based upon a "Lectures in Logic series" by one Paul Priest. According to the talk page, this Priest is Onthesideoftheangels' erstwhile professor. I can find no evidence that anyone named Paul Priest has published any books or articles entitled "Lectures in Logic". Uncle G 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete nonsense. Maniac 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks complete nonsense, and certainly completely unsourced so OR NBeale 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete all. The first article was deleted by Bogdangiusca with deletion reason "reposted," the other two were deleted by Pilotguy as vandalism, and the redirect was deleted by Herostratus under CSD R1. BryanG^(talk) 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maharg: A Week in the Woods

This is one of a few articles created by User:Grahamgj and User:MahargJG (likely the same person), who are apparently trying to use Wikipedia as a free web server to create their own encyclopedia. I include the other pages in the project in this AfD.--FisherQueen (Talk) 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maharg - closing admin, please remove this redirect as well. SkierRMH 19:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability for any. strange unrelated topics as well. --Tainter 15:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all CSD G3. As far as I'm concerned, trying to set up your own namespace within WP counts as vandalism. Caknuck 17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chamberlain has a very good article already, this is sub-par; other is already included in the Artemis Fowl articles. Quite bizarre inclusions!?
Speedy Delete All G3 per Caknuck. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - leaving the redirect for Maharg for now, let it carry its own weight. --Dennisthe2 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - All are gone. - Aagtbdfoua 03:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mumunyu language

Disputed prod. Pure hoax. -- RHaworth 15:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unverified. Hoax, vandalism made up in school one day, etc... Only ghit is from a wikimedia newpage mirror [29]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one ghit which was inconsequential. nonsense.--Tainter 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, this includes newly invented languages nobody has ever heard of. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT as above. Walton monarchist89 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And for being drivel. WMMartin 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Reichle

Disputed speedy, some statements could potentially be considered assertions of notability so moving this to AfD. Pretty obvious CoI by a politically minded, if NN, american teenager. Unverified, OR and POV. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. No external sources to establish notability, or even verify content. Only link is to a self-generated freewebs page. Google search doesn't find anything relevant. Fan-1967 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete vanity page. no notability whatsoever.--Tainter 15:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kai A. Simon 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO & WP:AUTO. Caknuck 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Ram4eva 17:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - Banyan Tree 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder monk

Blatant self-promotion. Jvhertum 15:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity, per nom.--Tainter 15:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Nothing here but someone who's uploaded a few songs to myspace, and claims of a self-released album with no hint of its distribution. Fan-1967 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced (which seems unlikely). Nothing verifiable to include. Trebor 17:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myspacer failing WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man 18:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing there amounts to an assertion of notability. WJBscribe 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodalo Stormrage

Disputed ProD. Fancruft. Wikipedia is not: a game-guide, an indiscriminate collection of information. Unverified/OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fancruft, not notable character in video game. We don't need bio's for all characters in all video games here, it's WP:NOT. The Rambling Man 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:OR. Typically, it's not good to see articles with "Little is known about.." and "It is rumored that...". -- Satori Son 18:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark 14:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kemps Landing Magnet School

Non-notable Seinfreak37 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - School articles are pretty much allowed... --light darkness^(talk) 15:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was an year ago :p, They been mostly deleted in afd recently and WP:SCHOOLS has long been rejected Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why key policies like WP:V and WP:OR don't apply to articles on schools. It is entirely feasible that a school could be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This article produces no such sources. So Delete. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a school. Harmless. Possibly regionally notable. Who are we to judge? Caliwiki123 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources has been found though, it's more harmful than harmless. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched Google News, and 0 results. Fails WP:NOTE. -Seinfreak37 20:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Virginia Beach, Virginia, per the "unsourced stub" portions of the competing guideline proposals for notability of schools. "Who are we to judge?" We're the Wikipedia community which needs to hold articles to standards in order to make this a reasonable reliable encyclopedia. None of the cited sources is both independent and fact-checked. There's no claim of notability in the article. All the article content appears to be original research (see WP:NOR) or directory listing (which falls under WP:NOT). No prejudice to recreation if reliable third-party coverage is found. Barno 21:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is not correct tot say "school articles are pretty much allowed" . There is no such policy. WP:Schools says "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." Therefore we are left with N, aand schools must be judged individually according to the standards of WP:N. Even the WikiProject:Schools page says "Wikipedia:Schools - a failed, now historical discussion of school articles on Wikipedia".

"Harmless" is not the standard; N is the standard.

"Who are we to judge?" --that's what this process is for, to judge notability.

In this case there is nothing to show notability.DGG 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Whilst the principle of magnet schools is notable, and some magnet schools are notable for the particular teaching methods they use, there is no evidence that this is the case here. Sorry: I've no doubt that Kemps Landing a good school, but that's not what we're looking for. I went to a great school, and I learnt a lot there, but it isn't notable so it isn't here. And if it were, I'd vote to delete its article too. Schools become notable when they do something significantly different from other schools, not when they simply exist and teach. WMMartin 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS3. Keeping because it is 'harmless is not a valid reason to keep and is a POV argument. Basically a yellow pages listing. Vegaswikian 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per IslaySolomon, do not merge something that doesn't really have very strong reliable sources, the school page isn't one, also the city is too large for WP:LOCAL we are not a school directory. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to He Thinks He's Ray Stevens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Squirrel Revival

Comedy song from 1974 has no assertion of notability, no references, does not appear to require a separate article. Could not find published references which would ever allow more than a stub about it. Yeah, he recorded it and you can buy it on records. Edison 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to He Thinks He's Ray Stevens. That would cause less confusion anyway, since his label was silly enough to re-release He Thinks He's Ray Stevens with the same name as the song later. --Closeapple 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Closeapple. No independent sources, so no assertion of notability and it would hardly clog up the album page. Trebor 17:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to He Thinks He's Ray Stevens. Non-notable song. ShadowHalo 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All: No bias to recreation, but arguments for deletion are valid, and currently unfixed.. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 8-bit Atari game music et al.

None of these lists give any sources to back up the claim that the music in the games listed is notable. As far as I know makes them both original research and point of view material, and probably count as indiscriminate information as well.

The other pages are:

Second nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Amiga game music for previous nomination, which ended with no consensus.

A previous page with this name was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PC game music

FredOrAlive 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Unverified, unmaintainable, POV OR listcruft. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. the titles aren't even what the articles claim to be. just a list of games and sometimes people who composed mnusic for them. --Tainter 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I've contributed to a couple of the articles, I never quite understood why there were here. Article purposes are somewhat vague, and without references, there's no notibility ground. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - I actually made the PSX one, but I agree that they're all unverifiable fancruft. Delete and remove the links from Computer and video game music. Moogy^(talk) 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be possible in future to establish some criteria for "notable" music for different games consoles and maintain a small list; on the other hand, it may not. At present, they have numerous problems per above. Trebor 17:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You've obviously all already made up your minds so I'm not even going to try arguing, but dammit those were good and useful articles. Sometimes I hate Deletionists! --Hibernian 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Care to give a reason besides 'useful'? I don't find them all that useful. And good they certainly are not. I hate deletionists too, but with these articles, it's really pretty justified. Most of the /truly/ notible soundtracks are already listen somewhere in the game music article, and unlike say, List of important operas or similar lists, there's just not enough OUT THERE to prove anything is notable over another. Maybe if someone could find a few notible articles, and use them as reference for ONE list, that would work. But as they stand now, they either have to be all inclusive (that is, replicating the list of games per system and adding composer info), or deleted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to see WP:ILIKEIT. I'm all for listening to arguments, but as of yet you haven't constructed one. Trebor 18:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well I don't see how articles that violate two of Wikipedia's core content policies (WP:V, WP:OR) could be described as "good". The only people these articles are useful to are people who want to know which video games a small group of Wikipedians think sound good. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Although I wouldn't have nominated this type of article, I agree with above points that it is difficult to provide an arguement as to why they should stay. Maybe a single article with just tracks from all consoles over time which have been most notable, but as for the current articles, Wikipedia isn't the right place for them. Bungle44 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So these articles need a little bit of work, okay. When I was a baby I needed improvement, too. Should my parents have deleted me? Are these articles actually hurting anyone? Or can they just be tagged with whatever original research or sources tags in the meantime until more information can be dredged up? So, yeah.--Lairor 02:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of these articles were created in 2005, so are over a year old, and a couple have had "sources needed" tags for over 6 months, so I'm not sure if they're really "babies" in Wikipedia terms. I wouldn't object to an article on "notable game music" (stuff like won awards / multiple articles from major publications or websites that praise it / soundtrack release sold a zillion copies), but I personally think such an article would be basicly be a rewrite from scratch, rather than trying to retrofit some sort of notability criteria onto what's basically a "list of game music that random Wikipedia editors think is good". FredOrAlive 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SkierRMH 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC) -- SkierRMH 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being a game music fanatic, I'd been considering nominating all of these for a while now. The problem begins with the lists' statement that "the following games were noted for their music". Noted by who? Where are the sources saying that all of these have been "noted"? What are the criteria for a game/series having been "noted", besides someone deciding to insert it into the list?
These lists all currently fail WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOT, and I don't think they can be fixed. WarpstarRider 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a music database. We've deleted quite a few game music list recently; these are no different. --Scottie theNerd 06:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as being irredeemably POV-laden and unsourcable. --Dweller 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced and POV issues While I don't have a problem with articles about video game music in general, this particular lists are entirely unreferenced and suffer from the POV problem of deciding whether or not a game is "known" for its music. So the specific lists in this particular afd should be deleted. (Note: I don't have an issue with maintainence here, or with game music not being a notable topic. My problem is specifically with the references and POV.) Dugwiki 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why you've allowed to create and develop these articles then? Where were you been? What happened?--Simon the Dragon 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some of the talk pages have already had comments pertaining to POV issues. I did suggest that a citation be provided for every entry, but this was not followed, and this AfD is not surprising. Shawnc 08:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - hardly complete, not _really_ notable (I could understand discussing the engineering of certain effects that were new to the time, such as the ET voice clip on the Atari 800 cartridge or the voices on the 8-bit Kennedy Approach game WITHIN those articles, but not a list). Not verifiable at all either in most cases. --JohnDBuell 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, games have become famous on the basis of their music and the music indepently won awards for it. The quality of the music played is often mentioned in reviews of games, frequently new music is composed just for the game. An article shouldn't be deleted because you have something against music of games. Mathmo ^Talk 14:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't the issue here. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking VGM; it has to do with the fact that these articles are unverifiable original research listcruft. I'm sure most, if not all, of the people voting delete on this AfD enjoy VGM. Moogy^(talk) 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did I mention anywhere that I like music in video games? Or even that I like music full stop! Actually I'm generally not too found of it, so if anything my bias would actually be towards deletion if it was based on how I feel about the music. Don't try to guess and project onto me your views without basis. Mathmo ^Talk 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Point is, as it stands now, the articles are basically all POV pointlessness. An article that's well sourced with a list of notable game music would be a totally different story (again, check out List of important operas for how it can be done), but as it stands, it's probably hard to find enough sources for such an article, unfortunetly. Maybe in ten years there will be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I get a lot of your points, however you have put up a massive big pile of them to be deleted at once. If they had been done one at a time then I too would have been voting delete for a fair few of them, while the others (very few admittedly) that could be worthwhile I'd vote for keep. But as it stands now I can't vote for delete simply because most of them are crap, this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water! Mathmo ^Talk 10:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, every one of these lists is the same thing. A statement saying "these games have notable soundtracks" and then a list of games. Not one of them have any sources that establish what is meant by a notable soundtrack, or back up the claims that the games listed have notable soundtracks. They all have to go. WarpstarRider 10:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm not the one who put them up for deletion. I just support it (which if one checked my contribs, is usually the opposite of what I say when I add to a AFD.) And yeah, they all are pretty much the same. Look. It IS true that a lot of game have notable music. But as is often said, WP:V trumps over truth. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - actually I have soundtrack albums for several games over in my CD rack. I have nothing against game music articles being on Wikipeida (and it's not like I've nominated the main Computer and video game music article), it's just these lists just don't work. There may be a list of notable game music to be made, but these are just lists of games with music random wikipedia editors like. FredOrAlive 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current criteria- "quality" as determined by random passerby - is clearly unsustainable. However, it's vaguely possible that new criteria could be set that is not POV, for instance "Video game music composed by noted composers" or the like- Harry Gregson-Williams (Metal Gear Solid 2) is a well-established movie composer, Yuki Kajiura (Xenosaga II & III) has done lots of animes, Jeremy Soule while mostly doing video game music has received a ton of acclaim and orchestrations, etc. It'd need vigilant watching and cleanly set out guidelines so that the POV part doesn't transfer to "which composers are notable," but that's an easier question. For starters, something like "the composer should have a bluelink and at least two pages of content in their article that aren't simply lists of works" would seem passable, though people who know the music industry better are certainly free to suggest something better. SnowFire 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That still doesn't cut it. For starters, the size of the Wikipedia article has absolutely zero direct relation to notibility. Furthur more, there's plenty of games out there with well-noted music by otherwise non-notable composers (can you name who wrote Katamari Damacy off the top of your head? How about Super Metroid?). Whatever, I gave the better argument above, and there's basically NOTHING in any of these articles that's more than a list, so making a new general article instead of trying to keep an clean these up is a lot better choice, either way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Psst, Super Metroid might be a bad example because Kenji Yamamoto isn't actually that obscure. Voretus 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes. I'm proposing a refocusing of the list, since "quality of score" seems like a POV magnet. And I agree with what you say about Wikipedia articles not being the be-all and end-all of how notable a person is, but they are a start, and they're easy to check. I've seen a similar requirement used for listing artists from a topic with tons of (graphical) artists- only list artists with non-trivial WP pages at the least, since if they don't even have that, they probably don't matter. Anyway, it's not a huge deal, but there could be non-trivial history in these lists that could provide a start to someone trying to make a proper article, so if deletion is decided, at least redirects to "video game music" would ensure that the history could still be checked and used. SnowFire 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure if the lists can really be "refocussed" myself, as I've said before, you'd basically be trying to retrofit a set of criteria onto the existing lists. IMO it would be better to create a set of criteria then researching the soundtracks that fitted them. FredOrAlive 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly, for some of them I could go through and find reviews that state the music, but a) I'm too lazy and b) this is pointless; if it had good music, the article should say it in 'reception'. otherwise you end up with huge funnel lists. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - subjective inclusion criteria. Quarma 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as recreated material - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of the Goblinstone. That'll teach me not to do my homework before nominating. -- Merope 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Goblinstone

Non-notable work. No reliable sources. -- Merope 16:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:V/WP:NOR, which are above consensus, mandate deletion, as this article has been completely unsourced ever since its creation in 2005. Sandstein 13:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omi (Xiaolin Showdown)

Fictional character from TV cartoon show. Article is all original research, has been here for over a year and has no references, and I could not find independent reliable and verifiable sources where this cartoon character was a principal subject as required by WP:N and WP:RS. A mention in the article about the show should suffice. Appears to lack reliable independent sources adequate to support a stand-alone article. Liking the show or character does not confer notability, and does not justify creating a spew of articles sourced only to the show itself or to the producer's website or fansites and blogs. Edison 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Xiaolin Showdown. WP:FICT guidelines suggest that there shouldn't be an article purely on this character, particularly if it's entirely in-universe. Trebor 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in light of below a redirect to List of Xiaolin Showdown characters would be better, and if there's already information there, then you can't merge. Given my lack of familiarity with the character's importance in the show, I'm not going to express strong views, but in general I don't think we need long in-universe articles on single characters. Trebor 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge article. Frankly, I don't care if you keep this article or delete it, but as its creator I must insist that you do not merge this article with any others. All this information used to belong on the Xiaolin Showdown article, but because it got so big, I moved it to the List of Xiaolin Showdown characters article. In the end it became too big even for that and needed to be separated from the list. Either keep the article or delete it all. Do not merge. Wolf ODonnell 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge to List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. Sure, the article could stand to be rewritten and copy-edited, but this is one of the major heroes of the show, and as such, I'd say an article would be appropriate for him. If not, then given that there is an article on the characters in this show, he should at least be there. FrozenPurpleCube 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since there are at least 6 other articles on characters in this show, you really should mention what you want done about them. FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the other characters have good sources they should stay, and if thay are pure unsourced original research they should go. I have not looked at them. If each character had a paragraph or so with an illustration in the article for the show, that might be all the coverage justified until a character has reliable independent coverage. The same standards should apply as for anything else. Notability is not a matter of whether something is interesting to someone, it is a matter of whether it has been noted.Edison 16:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the article in this case is not related to the reason for keeping. As a major character in a notable television show (being broadcast on a major nationwide television network), I'd say Wikipedia should have some information on him. Is this article the best way to do that? No, I wouldn't say that, as it needs a bit of work. However, I don't know that I object to an individual article on him, or any of the other major characters of the show.

Comment I think I created some of the other character articles too. What applies for this one applies for those ones as well. Wolf ODonnell 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Wolf ODonnell. A merge of all that in-universe summary/guide is not consistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and would overwhelm the list unless severely condensed. I don't think a redirect is necessary as few articles link there and it is an unlikely search term. --maclean 06:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No! What the hell? This is a very popular show and Omi is the start of the show. SakotGrimshine 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. If you Delate Omi, You must Deleate the others's pages.

Keep if only because this is the main character of a very popular television show. If you are upset that the content is not up to stuff, then edit the article. Deletion is not a solution for articles that need improvement. CaveatLector^Talk 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment as nominator. If there are no independent reliable sources, there can never be a stand alone article, and improvement cannot be achieved. . "ILIKEIT" is not a basis for notability. Saying it is popular does not prove notability. If he is a character in a popular show, then have a paragraph about him in an article about the show. An article based only on one's viewing the show is original research and should be deleted. Edison 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you already nominated it, you don't need to weigh in again with the same argument. If you want to respond to people, respond to them, don't just repeat yourself. It might appear misleading to an administrator. As it stands, I would say that the problem with the article is more a clean-up issue, and less a notability one. There is no argument that Wikipedia should have an article on Xiaolin Showdown, and that this character will be covered in it. I'd be satisfied with a redirect myself, leaving the further expansion of the article to some future need should it arise. FrozenPurpleCube 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a certain part of the writing about fiction guidelines being completely ignored here. "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Both the main article and the list of characters are quite long. This seems to call only for clean up and rewriting, not deletion. Jay32183 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the length of the material cannot justify a stand alone article if it is all original research. No sources are provided. Edison 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag any particular statement you feel is original research with {{fact}} and I'll remove any statements of fan opinion and cite any direct fact to the appropriate episode, some things were explicitly stated but may seem to be an opinion. It'll take a lot more work to make a "Concept and creation" section, but deleting the article won't inspire people to do any research. Jay32183 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep character is notable enough for their own page. - Peregrine Fisher 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Jan Roberts

Notability appears to be a random extra in a few movies and television programs, the movies themselves seeming to fail nobility –– Lid^(Talk) 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblicious INK'D

No asscertion of notability, and no references makes it a WP:V failure. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom ::mikm t 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bubblicious. Part of a notable brand, but doesn't need its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to get consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Andrew Lenahan. The Rambling Man 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, and by the way, yuck. FreplySpang 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G7, creator/major contributor requested deletion. Seems to be in-line with the concensus forming here, so no point in letting this run further. Daniel.Bryant 11:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle O'Donovan

Article appears to be an autobiography with Otis2007 (talk · contribs) being the individual in question. The book `The Corporate Culture Handbook’ indeed exists but appears to not be significant in anyway beyond existing. Article appears, considering the other additions, to be for self advertising and progression of imageonly considering the prevelant weasel words talking up the individual. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: due to the comment at Talk:The Corporate Culture Handbook, as the article was taken verbatim from the website of O'Donovan, it has been confirmed that Otis2007 is O'Donovan. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above seems to short-change Gabrielle. `The Corporate Culture Handbook' is listed in the top 1% of best business books for 2006 as voted by USA industry leader Business Book Review. Her work is internationally recognised and has won a number of awards. She is a sought after speaker at conferences such as 'The 7th International Conference on Knowledge, Culture & Change' and is a visiting lecturer on 'Culture & Change' at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.— Jdrinan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as a resume, spamming a book. She's probably very good at what she does, but I cannot see any verifiable evidence that she's notable. Edit summary for the upload of the picture says "Uploaded by Gabrielle O'Donovan" So now its potentially WP:COI.Montco 02:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Blatant advertising requiring a total rewrite. Kla'quot 07:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete lack of sourcing to external sources other then self.. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorine Boards

Originally tagged for speedy deletion as non-notable message board software, but software is not covered by A7. This AFD was originally malformed - I've fixed it. Procedural - no opinion. Core desat 04:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are only its own citings, so there is no assertion of notibility outside of itself. Dosen't meet anything at Wikipedia:Notability (software). --155.144.251.120 05:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn minor CMS whose wikipage was created solely to advertise it's existence and attract developers. Static Universe 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion is not an appropriate solution for a possible POV issue. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no penalty for erring on the side of inclusion. By deleting everything that fails to meet arbitrary and frequently controversial guidelines we lose a great deal. -- Strangelv 15:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may not be about something very famous but it's a well written article, better than many about CMS systems imho, and wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swizec (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep an article. --Core desat 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Especially since Swivec wrote it, and appears to be the main developer of Chlorine Boards as well, whose home page is on swizec.com. Static Universe ^talk|edits 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, this is true, but it hardly matters in discussion about notability imho. Truth is there are several other articles about CMS's linked to in the comparison list that don't show any signs of notability and are not being discussed for deletion. Found at least three; the only thing they have going in their favour (compared to this one) is being older than it. Of course anything I say will come out as whining for my article to be kept, but there's nothing I can do against that. Swizec
Speedy Delete as spam. It reads like an advert for the company. Vegaswikian 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore... -- Strangelv 04:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trickyness

Unsourced, unsupported definition. Based on Talk page, apparently based on what the authors heard some other kids say at church one day. Fan-1967 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non-notable, per nom - Jhinman 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just "what some kids heard at church one day" if you were to go to our youth group, you would hear this word CONSTANTLY. Its not just a word anymore, its a way of life. I think this article should be given a chance. Let us add more stuff to it, then if you still want to delete it, then put the tag up again. Joo lee AHH nuhh 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the tag stays up. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia. A word that's really popular among some kids in one small church group cannot be verified from any independent reliable source, and is not notable by Wikipedia standards. -- Fan-1967 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very important word in todays northeastern society many could vouge for this important and logical statement DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE, give us atleast 24 hours to get more people to agree with us. Wowmazing 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being popular in one church youth group does not make it "a very important word in todays northeastern society". This is not a vote. Decisions will be made based on Wikipedia rules, not how many kids from your church group come here.Fan-1967 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources outside of yourselves then I would suggest you take this to Wiktionary. At any rate, it does not belong here. Delete. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of material previously deleted by User:Postdlf, today at 17:18. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G4 only applies to articles that were previously AFD'ed, not speedied. Fan-1967 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't know that. Thanks! -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as non-notable and unverifiable, used only among a very small group of people. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we're gonna move it to the Wikitionary. But please just keep this up until we transfer it. Thank you =] Joo lee AHH nuhh 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The Rambling Man 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nairobi and Bukavu documents

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable assertion by conspiracy theorist Wayne Madsen, supported solely by 1 citation which does not meet our standards for reliability under WP:RS. Morton Devonshire^Yo 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom ... and all that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that there is a clear notability standard for news, but this seems fairly non-notable to me. On the other hand, this appears to have at least some basis in truth. Madsen's article claims that the Nairobi and Bukavu documents were leaked to Le Soir. From what I can tell, the cite for that article is probably: "Colette Braeckman, “Irak: Dans quel pays Bagdad a-t-il tenté de faire sonshopping?” Le Soir, September 30, 2002", but I can't find the article online. Unless someone is willing to put in the research to find some reliable sources on this issue, it probably should be deleted, or merged into a broader article on accusations that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo. TheronJ 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently the material at his site hasn't been published, so it is not reliably sourced. I cannot support Morton's statement that it has even 1 citation. Conspiracruft. Delete without prejudice. Come back when this assertion has been published by at least a couple of reliable, verifiable and independent sources. Edison 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete (without prejudice) as article currently stands. Clearly, there was somethingor other newsworthy about Congo uranium intelligence going on at the time. But, the article as it stands doesn't say much of anything and has no working sources. It looks like the Butler report mentions the issue, so that article might be a suitably prominent place for it to be covered if more is found. Derex 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. I have had to discount comments from a number of new accounts, including comments which include the same formatting anomalies, which heavily suggests sockpuppetry. Even if the comments from these users are taken into account, there is a strong lack of relevant arguments. Factoring all of this in, the remaining relevant arguments from existing users seems to clearly indicate a consensus to delete. TigerShark 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boguslawa Cimoszko

Prod removed twice without the objections being addressed. Objections: Founding a company and being a relative to a notable person is not enough to be notable himself. Wikipedia is not a 'who is who'. Likely autobiography of not well known person. Update: Google search for Boguslawa Cimoszko and Bogusława Cimoszko reveals barely a 100 hits total, top ones are Wikipedia and its mirrors, and some hits refer certainly to other people (ex. [30]). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep--John Krugger 10:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC) B.Cimoszko is a notable person for the following reasons: she was involved in the restructurings of post-communist Poland at the top level (working on behalf EBRD as their senior banker, and expanding the UBS operations in all of Eastern Europe), she is also one of (if not the only one) Polish woman to set up a consultancy of the calibre of CMS ProAlfa. On top of that, she is one of the most successful people that came out of Lodz, Poland.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Krugger (talk • contribs). Note: this is that user first and only contribution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--JavazXT 11:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Just coz she's no politician doesn't mean she isn't important. She played a major part in the Polish restructuring in the 90's as a senior banker from EBRD!! Read the report which is mentioned as reference. JavazXT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JavazXT (talk • contribs).Note: this is that user third contribution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my comment above, I would like to add my post from the"Talk" page for everyone to read my reasons why I believe this article should be kept:

I believe the notability criteria are met here still ( Wikipedia:Notability (people) ), referring to the 1st 2 points (as they are the only ones that apply here I believe).

"Keeping in mind that all articles on Wikipedia must meet our policy on verifiability using reliable sources, notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criteria. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.:" - Obviously her not being a "mainstream" celebrity, such as a pop star, footballer, noble prize winning scientist etc, makes it more difficult for her to fit the criteria... "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1" - EBRD publication referring to her as a Senior Banker at EBRD[31]- German language version & [32] - English language version. Article in the Swiss Chamber Poland referring to her company [33] "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2 except for the following: Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.3 Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.4 " "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field (note that her specific field should be seen as a banker/consultant - JavazXT).5" - historical contribution #1 (economic restructuring of post-communist Poland): taking part in the restructuring of Poland in the 90s (as per the article: "...Bogusława Cimoszko decided to join the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in London as a Senior Banker with responsibility over restructurings in Poland.") - historical contribution #2 (setting up of UBS's Easter European operations - UBS being one of the biggest international banks/investment banks)- as per the article:"...In 1995 she joined UBS in Switzerland with a view to help launch their Central and Eastern European business.". Both contributions verifiable on the following link provided as article reference: [34].--JavazXT 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the article really makes clear is that she is a senior manager for large companies. That doesn't make her notable. What's the evidence that she played a major part in the Polish restructuring in the 90's as a senior banker? What's that even mean? Are there real verifiable accomplishments? What does a consultancy the calibre of CMS ProAlfa mean? What have they done that's notable?Montco 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~DON'T Delete~~ This article shows that not only the politicians are responsible for changes in Poland since it broke away from the communist block. This is one of very few articles which mentions a Pole working on behalf of a multinational organisation (EBRD) who had a direct impact on bettering the situation in Eastern Europe, and directly facilitating a coutry's entry into the EU without being a politician. If the current form of the article is found unacceptable, I suggest rewriting it rather than deliting it. Euzebia Zuk—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Euzebia Zuk (talk • contribs).

—Euzebia Zuk (talk • contribs) has made few other edits outside this topic. - I am quite new to Wikipedia, but this is in fact just 1 out of 11 topics I have contributed to --Euzebia Zuk 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Don't delete~~ name well known in Lodz (recent interview in a daily for example) and a prominent Polish-American and Polish-Swiss. --Jack Jones 11 11:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Jack Jones 11 (talk • contribs) has made few other edits outside this topic. — fair enough I made only few other contributions - I'm a new kid on the block, but I definitely don't see myself as a "Single purpose account"!--Jack Jones 11 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~do not delete~~ CMS ProAlfa set up by Cimoszko is a prominent consultancy --> see the American Chamber of Commerce in Poland website: [35] and the Swiss Chamber website: [36]. --Abu-Bakr69 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)User second contribution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keepdelete The only 3rd party sources provided--or proposed--are directories.DGG —disagree: the 3rd reference for example is an EBRD review/article - not a directory *European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [37] --Abu-Bakr69 01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Abu-Bakr69 (talk • contribs) has made few ther edits outside this topic.- give me a chance! I only started on wiki a week or so ago. however I already contribute to 9 things--Abu-Bakr69 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question so for those of us who don;t speak german, what's it say and what does it say that she did? keep in mind this is an EBRD publication so its not entirely neutral in terms of its opinion of their activities.Montco 02:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you what is out there which is [38] about 15 unique google hits, six of which are WP articles or mirror sites. So again, is there anything verifiable that can demonstrate notability? Montco 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--> answer :) here is an article in Polish and English about CMS (Cimoszko's firm) in the Swiss Chamber of Commerce in Poland bulletin: [39]. Also here is the English language version of the EBRD publication used as a reference in the disputed article: [40]. I suppose these can prove notability, and are in English rather than German, so possibly understandable to a wider audience. I also found a mention of Cimoszko's previous firm on a Polish-language magazine website biznesspolska.pl: [pageno=69#baza_firm]--Abu-Bakr69 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Appleseed (Talk) 04:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in light of above evidence. --Urbanshakedown 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)User first and only contribution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC) contributed to 3 other topics since then, by the way --Urbanshakedown 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The Swiss chamber article is a description of the firm and the polish article is nothing more than a directory listing. So we have established at a business exists. Too bad that was never in question. The EBRD annual report says nothing about anything the subject has done. It says that she is a senior banker. That was never in question. The question is whether unbiased sources exist that say that the subject has done X or accomplished Y. Nothing has been presented. Montco 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--> I believe so, also if you look at the firms listed in the Swiss Chamber, you soon realise that they are quite prominent indeed: [41]. e.g CMS Proalfa is preceeded on the list by Cigno Consulting, and itself preceeds Credit Suisse. The article about CMS listed in the Swiss Chamber has to be objective, as it isn't in the Swiss Chamber's interest to boast about some firm which is not even worth boasting about. Furthermore, I believe also Zoominfo (which states her involvement in e.g. Eastern European reconstruction, or talks about her setting up the East European operations of UBS) is objective/ unbiased as it is neither Cimoszko's (ex-)employer, or her own website, but an independent database of information about bankers and financiers. --Abu-Bakr69 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Piotrus and Montco. Visor 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Balcer 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the clause in WP:BIO which states that "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." --Boookabooo 10:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Zsinj^Talk 06:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literary influences on mental change in the 1960s

Original research, essay, may be a POV fork. Walton monarchist89 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it a copy paste from the site mentioned? ShakespeareFan00 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pure WP:OR. The Rambling Man 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Penninsula (U.P.) Arctic Blast

No demonstration of notability; no sources; described as a "semi-professional" team. Walton monarchist89 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it shows no assertion of WP:N and can't be verified because there are zero sources. The Rambling Man 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been added for verification Sboyce75 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Sboyce75[reply]

Weak delete. Semi-pro teams aren't automatically notable, and the article (including the sources added since AfD nomination) provides no claim to notability under WP:NOTE. Needs multiple non-trivial coverage by independent sources in order to meet the core policy WP:V. Barno 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability--Boookabooo 10:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Zsinj^Talk 06:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtar Command (2nd nomination)

This article was nominated on September 16, 2006, and the discussion result at that time was "keep," in light of the possibility that additional notability information would be added. Since then, however, absolutely nothing verifiable about this group's notability has been added, and I still see no evidence that the group is sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending further sources - no evidence of passing WP:BAND except for their claim that Sinead O'Connor, who is a genuinely notable artist, is a member of the group. However, this statement needs to be verified with reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not claim O'Connor as a member; it claims O'Connor as a guest vocalist. --Nlu (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, sorry, my mistake. But I'd still say that makes it notable. Walton monarchist89 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable even if sourced, IMO. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Eluchil404 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of meeting WP:BAND. Sandstein 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LEAGUE OF HEROES

Looks like a hoax. No sources given. Claims to be a short-lived series of comic books from the 1970s, but at least one of the key characters (Booster Gold) did not exist until 1986. Google turns up no relevant support. FreplySpang 18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - please see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Heroes, which was closed early when the author blanked the article. FreplySpang 19:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know if you know this already, but this was already afd'd once before, so {{db-repost}} would apply. John Reaves (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the info, I hadn't noticed! The previous AFD was closed speedily because the article was blanked by the author, who has now reposted it. Since it didn't have a full discussion period, I'm inclined to let this AFD run its course. (IMO, {{db-repost}} doesn't clearly apply to articles that are speedied out of AFD.) Best, FreplySpang 19:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - DC comics has absolutely nothing about this. Zippo also for anything regarding a future movie of that name. Hoaxaliscoius! SkierRMH 19:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability not asserted, no references whatsoever, no relevant results from preliminary searches on Google. -- intgr 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it reads like a hoax (comics can be farfetched but this?) and there aren't any references. No notability, it even said it had 5 issues which is an assertion of NN. James086Talk 00:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plausible G4 justification notwithstanding, this is a hoax. A post-apocalyptic nuclear series by DC in the 70s would have been big news even if it was terrible. But DC Comics doesn't mention this, Diamond doesn't mention it, and Overstreet's catalogue doesn't mention it. As further proof, this would predate Miller's 1986 Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, making the idea of a dying, dark-future Batman wholly implausible for something supposedly written before 1980. Serpent's Choice 08:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all aboveOo7565 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agitha's castle

This information is already contained in Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which makes this superfluous. Minor detail of game, not important enough to warrant it's own article. Magichands 18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to have an article hich is more or less a guide as well as containing information that can be gathered in the formentioned article.--Tainter 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd normally !vote for a merge-into, but not really enough material here for that, even. -- MarcoTolo 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge, but I'd just prefer a delete after merging so that someone doesn't try to create it again. Part Deux 07:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCKEAI

When this article was tagged for notability, the author said that he should have time to improve the article. There hasn't been much activity on the article since then. Fails WP:N and there are also issues with WP:COI (the author is involved with the organization). janejellyroll 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googled (Results 11 - 17 of about 33 for "BCKEAI"). Also has NPOV issues that are not likely to be overcome with the two strikes pointed out by user above. Signed Jeepday 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Nothing of note on Google. Kla'quot 07:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Arnold

Not Notable. Had a few funny phone calls on Stern but that's it --Center4499 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It Googled just under 3,000 hits, so I put a couple references on the page. I think it probably passes Wikipedia:Notability just for the amount of press. but it seems to have problems with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that requires Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which I think it fails and I am not going to rewrite it, so delete. Jeepday 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He made a couple of appearances on Stern, so have a lot of not notable people. A few phonecalls to a radio show doesn't make someone notable.--Hndsmepete 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Knockturn Alley. - Daniel.Bryant 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh-Eating Slug Repellent

This is a non-notable item from the Harry Potter series. There is not enough information about it to create an article worth reading. If this isn't deleted, it could be merged onto a different page. Cream147 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Knockturn Alley and/or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Not notable enough to deserve an article of its own - it's only mentioned once in the entire series as far as I can recall. Walton monarchist89 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can also only recall it being used once. Cream147 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Walton monarchist89 or to some other suitable Harry Potter article. WJBscribe 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Knockturn Alley per WP:FICT, an item that was mentioned a sigle time does not warrant a separate article.-- danntm ^T _C 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)

Page is superfluous as University of Wisconsin is now a redirect to UW-Madison. Per consensus on the talk page, the article can be deleted and the relevant information placed in the specific articles as history of the various universities. PaddyM 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as nominator. PaddyM 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the condition that a "University of Wisconsin" redirects here. Please see "University of Wisconsin System" (or similar) message remains at the top of the University of Wisconsin-Madison article. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and consensus reached on the talk page. Madmaxmarchhare 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no consensus on the talk page. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and what Lordmontu said about the hatnote on University of Wisconsin-Madison. —Mi ra 01:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as my bias towards certain other Wisconsin universites likes the disambiguation, the straight redirect to UW-Madison with Lordmontu's message is both the best solution and apparent consensus. Also, move the talk page back to Talk:University of Wisconsin to preserve the discussion, since I have a feeling this'll come up again in the future. BryanG^(talk) 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What possible harm can the disambiguation page do, especially considering that University of Wisconsin was the official name of an institution that no longer exists but whose name will appear on documents of the period, see this former version. Andrewa 10:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom, except that I don't think consensus has been reached on the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see why a disambiguation page should be deleted unless there's no possible ambiguity. However, in this case, it does seem that there is some possibility of multiple meanings. FrozenPurpleCube 21:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The disambiguation page should be built in the "University of Wisconsin" page. "University of Wisconsin (disambiguation)" is useless. Miaers 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - DABs are cheap! The entire point of a disambiguation page is to send people to the right place; and as the history of this and related articles shows, there are people who mean different things by the phrase, and documents from some periods will mean different things by it than documents from other periods. The old DAB article was finally pretty darned good, and now people are seemingly determined to mess it up, for reasons I don't understand (other than Madison supremacism, a theory I am rejecting on the "assume good will" principle). --Orange Mike 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as non-notable. Creator's defense showed that it was, indeed, vanity. --Nlu (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor wynne

This person is not notable and his vanity article should be promptly deleted. Mnemopis 20:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia. The point is to allow access to information people would like access to If you are going to delete the entry you are losing sight of the point of the site.

Not notable per WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all where just anybody can post their bios. Mnemopis 20:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just anybody sir. He is highly respected in the indie music scene, and is all over the podcast scene for holding guest spots. He has worked with Leo Laporte on many occasions. If you are going to delete this page, then I demand that you delete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_Mann because its the same story there as here, both men have practically the same job, and are both of equal importance in their field.

Not only this, but he is also a musician with several released albums. This is even of more importance, and should also be noted. With sources to hold up to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorwynnjohnson (talk • contribs)

Delete non-notable musician.--Tainter 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Roven

Reads like vanity. No verifiable claims of notability other than one award, which has itself questionable notability. Delete unless notability is shown. --Nlu (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced verifiably i.a. with WP:BIO Alf photoman 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those awards are insufficient to meet WP:BIO. WJBscribe 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per arguments given in debate, no bias to recreation if it can be proven to pass WP:BIO,and WP:VERIFY. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kid lethal

Looks like a non-notable wrestler. The sources cited are of excessively questionable nature at best. Googling brings up limited results, none of which seem to be reliable either. Was speedied before, but I thought I should probably get more editors' opinions. Imo, delete as lacking reliable sources. Wickethewok 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable wrestler. One Night In Hackney 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BIO, WP:VERIFY, and WP:ADVERT. -- Satori Son 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotronica

Genre that seems to be mainly original research/neologism. Googling brings up limited results, none of which seem to be reliable sources. Delete. Wickethewok 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be part of a publicity campaign for Julez Edward, a non-notable musical act. Look at Special:Contributions/Creepingturtle. Mrees1997 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, If it seems like that. Julez Edward is an artist I recently saw performing at a concert last month. I like his music very much, and he is quite notable. I had a brief chat, and started the Emotronica and the Julez Edward page. Sorry if that is not by your rules. His music is really something new and refreshing, and I believe that spreading the word is something fans do for ages. I think letting the page stand for a few months will dramaticly increase the content quality. I found all my information on the net or got it by emailing with his management. Thank you for having this democratic form of discussion. Creepingturtle 02:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content such as personal interviews can't be used as sources per the original research rules. Original research can't be readily verified, which is why it can't be used in an encyclopedia such as this. If you have some published sources, like local paper reviews or professional album reviews, those would be acceptable. Wickethewok 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anadish Pal

Non-notable inventor. Fails to meet the notability criteria guideline (WP:BIO). Only one external, reliable source is cited. [42] This person has not been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Obtaining two or three US patents is not a sufficient sign of notability. Tens of thousands of patents are granted each year by the USPTO (see statistics [43]). Note that I have edited the article for removing POV. You may wish to have a look at the article's history as well (possible vanity or conflict of interest). [44] Edcolins 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Hindi newspaper and [45] source from another website, seems a front page story. This newspaper is India's largest circulated newspaper: Cottonmother, 27 January 2007, 1:05 (IST)

Sonia has kindly let me have a scan of her story in the Times of India 11 Sept. 2006, Page 5 of the New Delhi edition: Cottonmother

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly reasonable application of the clause in WP:BIO which states that "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." Holding a number of patents and the rather sizable source seems to be enough to start out with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keepPatents can be significant, or otherwise. The vast majority are never further developed or put to practical use. But they are documentation that he is at least inventing things of various sorts. What would really help is a review of his poetry--in any language. Can his supporters find one?--it may not be on the web. DGG 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As user DGG conjectured, there is one review in a journal of his poetry. Here is a google search link to the journal entry [46] "The Journal of Commonwealth Literature". But it is not a free subscription journal, so it cannot be accessed freely by everybody.Mandot 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep now Just checked his third patent status -- it is granted today. I'll strongly vote for 'keep', because it could be a rapidly growing article, indeed: Cottonmother 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per clause "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" --Boookabooo 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Come on. Not many indians can do it. --SkyWalker 10:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete vote – Pea ceNT 06:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ehrlich (businessman)

Declined speedy. This article was created by the self-styled "dark lord of inclusionism", so I decided to forego an inevitably contested prod. The single external link and this are the only press coverage, but neither contain the ~~subject~~ person as the primary ~~source~~ subject, as WP:BIO requires. There's almost no important information not already in the article about the business, so there's no point in merging. Kchase T 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my deletion nomination, though there seems to be a merge proposal below.--Kchase T 10:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article creator. One, Ehrlich is a primary subject of many of the sources between the business and Pirate's Booty, thus actually meeting WP:BIO. Part of the reason for the disambig was to reduce confusion between this subject and the governor, Robert Ehrlich, who this was improperly linked to at did you know and caused a major factual error on the main page for a short time. Certainly, the creator and CEO of one of the better known snack food vendors is worthy of an article, and plenty can be said - it's only a stub and I haven't had the wiki-time to sit down and do research on anything past that since I put this article up. Plenty of references available, plenty to base an article off of, I'm not sure I see the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it's a stub, but ironically the references that demonstrate subject notability takes up more space than the actual article content. The article certainly can expand. The additional article that the nom provided just adds to evidence of notability. And I'm very troubled by the nom's opening ad hominem comments. This might be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No no no. Check my userpage, it's a perfectly okay term, I kinda like it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do know that the title is a good-natured jest that nobody objects to. But using the article's creator's reputation as a reason to not include the article is nonsensical to those of us outside the "WP clique." I'll try to be less serious about it next time I see it. --Oakshade 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, Jeff got it. The reference was included only to explain why I didn't bother with prod (and, honestly, to poke a bit of fun at Jeff, which he thankfully took well). It's not intended as a reason to delete the article. Perhaps it was in bad taste; I'll try to avoid it in future.--Kchase T 11:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tons of sources are available, from just about all major business magazines. Based on my perusal of them, though, it may be somewhat difficult to create an adequate article for this businessman separate from that for his company. However, that issue should be worked out in the articles' talk pages once a little more development occurs, rather than at AFD. Serpent's Choice 08:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but after reading all the keep !votes, I still don't see it. The two articles I linked to give the most coverage to Ehrlich, but they both talk about him for a few paragraphs then veer into other, related subjects, so I don't think Ehrlich is the primary subject. I don't see these business magazine articles in the google results or listed at Pirate's Booty, unless those are the ones you are referencing. (My Lexis access is down, unfortunately, otherwise I'd be checking that, too.) Finally, I don't think his company ranks up there with Frito-Lay, Planters, Keebler, etc. Anyway, consensus is obviously trending to keep, and I'll accept that even if I disagree with it.--Kchase T 11:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. BBC News ([47]), Entrepreneur (archived [48]), Fortune Small Business (via CNN Money [49]), Orlando Weekly ([50]) and a couple of widely-reprinted wire service articles, among others. There is also some discussion of the FDA's reaction to his labelling and ingredients (they sent him a letter, nothing changed). I'm uncertain whether he could be considered the primary subject of this material, but he is certainly well-discussed media-wide in general. As I noted, I'm not at all certain where the balance should be between the articles on the businessman, the company, and the products. I imagine there will be at least one merge, but it seems that would be an editorial (i.e. content) determination that is difficult to make while founder and company are both stubs. Serpent's Choice 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the links. There were several there I hadn't seen. I'll give this some thought and probably withdraw the nom if there's no more participation after a day or two. Cheers.--Kchase T 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Qualifies for inclusion based on those references. Having said that, the creator of the article is irrelevant. AfD is a mechanism for discussing the merits of a given article for inclusion here. It is not a forum or outlet for bile directed at other wikipedia contributors, even if they "self-styled" lords of the flies, rings or inclusionism. --JJay 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please spare me the moralizing lecture. That was a joke and Jeff got it, even if no one thought it was funny.--Kchase T 10:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't "get it" and had to check Jeff's page to understand what your intent was. Jeff should not have that sort of comment on his page - it is divisive and serves no encyclopedic purpose - and AfD noms should not be used for jokes. Call me a moralist. --JJay 11:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - JJay, Jeff mentioned it here at the AFD.--Kchase T 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing he seems notable for is his lines of snacks, and he therefore should be merged into the article for the company. The 3rd party references are only about the products.DGG 01:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Spam. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find-a-part

Delete fails WP:COI, WP:CORP TonyTheTiger 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per unanimous consensus; refs found. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Immaterial

Delete no references cited to help this survive WP:BAND. TonyTheTiger 21:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glad to see the improvement. TonyTheTiger 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete.~~Weak keephttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/It's_Immaterial&action=edit&section=1

edit Googling, I found lots of references to It's Immaterial as a good but obscure eighties band, like this and this and the reviews at amazon.com. But nothing that would even remotely quality as multiple nontrivial published works per WP:BAND. I'd love to see the creator come up with some sources for this. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked for some better sources (I have a weakness for good but obscure bands) and here's what I came up with: Mention of their best-known song "Driving Away from Home in The Guardian in articles about great driving here and here, mention in the lead of a New Statesman article about the M62 here, and confirmation here that the song was #21 on the UK top forty in late April 1986. On the basis of this last, I'm changing my opinion to weak keep.-FisherQueen (Talk) 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep.~~Keep They did manage to have a UK top 40 hit (which had considerable airplay and a TOTP appearance [51]) which makes them fairly notable. The article will need to be expanded and wikified however.--Starrycupz 13:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added some more info to the article. Found out that they also have recorded four Peel Sessions. Surely they meet at least two of the criteria on WP:BAND musicians and ensembles (2 & 10 and possibly 12)?--Starrycupz 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements by FisherQueen and Starrycupz. ShadowHalo 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparky (Music Artist)

Iffy already due to WP:Autobiography, also fails the WP:Notability (music) criteria. I put this up for speedy deletion yesterday and it was deleted, Sparky's since added it again. No news sources about it, none of the 'albums' return any google hits... Eeblefish 07:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as entirely non notable, salt if it comes back again after this debate. Obviously, if notability can be established, then keep. J Milburn 12:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google does not find results due to recently updated meta tags on all pages. Artist is relatively popular around the Vienna, Austria area.

Click. -Sparky 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my comments here, Sparky -- I added them back in. Also, it is totally inappropriate to remove the AfD tag on the article before discussion is done. Eeblefish 00:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to delete this article; can you present any information which disproves the information stated? -Sparky 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a few misconceptions about how Wikipedia works -- that's not an insult, just what I think. Please read Wikipedia:Notability -- when people say an article isn't notable, they're referring to those critera. Specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (music) is something to check out. If you want the article to remain it's your job to establish its notability per the guidelines in the links. Also, do not remove other user's comments on this page. I'm trying to assume good faith and treat it as an accident, but you've done it several times now, and it is simply not acceptable. Eeblefish 02:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND in every aspect.--Dycedarg ж 06:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling is difficult because 'sparky' is such a common word, but I tried googling strings like "Sparky techno Austria" and couldn't find any evidence of notability that would qualify under WP:MUSIC. The clear conflict of interest is a problem as well.-FisherQueen (Talk) 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why we need more consensus when only the author is arguing for keep but... non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC. One Night In Hackney 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equation art

No independent sources, and its notability is questionable. Patty 21:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up in school one day. All the "sources" are friends of the creator. Interesting but not for wiki. meshach 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this one, as the concept itself has clearly been around for a long while - see Cundy and Rollett's seminal book on mathematical models for more details - but the name used here seems to be a neologism. The concept is often used as a pedagogical tool, and I suspect it's sufficiently widespread and recognised that it should have an article in Wikipedia. This particular article, though, is too much like "something made up in school one day" to really fill the bill, and has the scent of OR. On balance, Delete without prejudice to re-creation as a better and more widely referenced article. WMMartin 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely lacks notability as a term, no verifiable sources. Doctormatt 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Fractal art. The term is not notable, there is plenty of mathematically inspired art about only some of which coverered by this article. --Salix alba (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per unanimous consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dawn

Non-notable person. Fails any notability criterion you care to mention, including WP:BIO. Valrith 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep She certainly isn't a slam dunk. She appears to have a pretty senior position at Moveon Both Salon and LA Weekly credit her with creating a reasonbly well-known and controversial ad among other things. I think the article needs a little work. "Laura was the executive producer for all of the celebrity directed commercials for the 10 Weeks Campaign, conceiving and creating the campaign and working on every aspect from the initial outreach to directors, writers, and actors, to the conception, execution, and airing of each commercial." is probably a bit much for my tastes. Montco 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has been profiled by the NY Sun[52] and Vogue[53] (paywall there) as well as[54] and music reviews [55][56] and she was interviewed about her book on NPR[57] (although it may be a work-for-hire). Looks sufficient to me. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she created the groundbreaking "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad contest, which basically changed political advertising, not to mention influenced a host of copy cats in conventional advertising. (www.bushin30seconds.org). She's been profiled in Vogue, Time, LA Weekly, her work has been featured in the NY Times. She created the first campaign of celebrity directed political ads (10 Weeks). Notable person in American politics, activism, & music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daronmurphy (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, notable activist per above. Kgwo1972 11:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I care to mention WP:BIO and this subject passes it. Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published, as supplied by Dhartung. --Oakshade 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Daniel.Bryant 11:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling Analogs

Non-notable webcomic. Only source for notability provided is a nomination for a questionable award. WP:WEB states it must win in order to be notable. Not notable now, page could be recreated if it attains notability in the future, but WP is not a crystal ball. - Ocatecir 09:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable sources:

2006 Web Cartoonist Choice Awards: Nomination Outstanding Gaming Comic [58], Nomination Outstanding Web Design [59]
Article on the BBC discussing Dueling Analogs [60]
Interview with the creator of Dueling Analogs in Zoinks! Magazine (this is a newspaper, but I included a link to verify this) [61] - Pierski 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about Dueling Analogs on [Destructoid.com] [62] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pierski (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Like the nomination said, it needs to WIN to be considered notable. The newspaper doesn't seem to be notable and the BBC is only a blurb from a tech blog, not an independent news piece (and even he says he doesn't know if it will catch on.) None of these satisfy WP:V. - Ocatecir 03:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the BBC mention is trivial, but regarding the Zoinks! Magazine article, you argue that the newspaper doesnt seem notable? Setting aside the fact that you do not back this statement up, the newspaper itself does not need to satisfy the notability requirements, the article simply needs to be non-trivial and from an independent source. The fact that a non trivial article about the comic was written in an independent print newspaper is a point in favor of notability. And the Destructoid reference above is an article completely devoted to Dueling Analogs, talking about it's subject matter, tone and style. This is a non-trivial, independent reference to Dueling Analogs. According to Wikipedia:Notability_(web) web content is deemed notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." These two articles satisfy this requirement and establish the Dueling Analogs comic as notable acording to Wikipedia:Notability_(web). Fforde 08:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC) — Fforde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but the notability of the source IS a factor. See WP:V. - Ocatecir 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article yourself. That article has nothing to do with notability. It has to do with verifiability which is completely different. But since verifiability is a requirement for a source, lets take a look. There are two criteria listed that could make a source dubious. Either the publication has a poor reputation for fact checking, or it is self published by the subject of the original wikipedia article. Neither of these cases are true so the publication passes the test for verifiability. Perhaps you meant to question the fact that the magazine referenced is a reliable source, rather than that it is verifiable or notable. It has been published (in print) since 2001 [63], and as the magazine focuses on webcomics it could be considered an expert on the subject at hand. The magazine practices editorial oversight and all content is attributable to an original author[64]. All of these things contribute to the magazine's reliability. Yes it is a nitch magazine that you personally may never have heard of but that does not mean it is not reliable. I don't understand why you are so adament about deleting this article. You asked for proof of notability, you have received it. Fforde 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC) — Fforde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Verifiability and notability go hand in hand. Verifiability does have a section on sources, read it again. Also read WP:RS. Furthermore, Wikipedia serves as a resource for the general public, not a niche segment of the population. Therefore, notability has to establish why the general public would care about the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Ocatecir 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the Verifability page that says a source to an article must pass the same notability requirements an article on wikipedia requires. As I demonstrated the sources cited in this article satisfy the conditions set forth in WP:V. I have also already demonstrated that the sources satisfy the requirements set forth in WP:RS. If you disagree, please explain your arguements rather than linking to arbitrary pages on Wikipedia that I have already linked you to. In regards to Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information, this applies to lists, travel guides, school projects, etc. Deuling Analogs is not any of these things. If you disagree with any of my arguements, please explain why instead of linking to arbitrary documents on Wikipedia. Fforde 20:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) — Fforde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I already have disputed all the sources. The award was only a nomination, not notable. The BBC article admits itself that the webcomic is not notable. The magazine is a publication dedicated to webcomics and covers hundreds of other webcomics deemed not notable for wikipedia. Once again, and I hate to sound like a broken record, but independent verifiable OUTSIDE sources are needed to show why the general public would care about this in 10 or 100 years. It looks like no information exists that would establish why anyone outside the webcomic fanbase would care about this article. WP:NOT applies to all articles, not just the ones you listed. Since you are a newly created account, why not spend more time exploring wikipedia and its guidelines in order to learn what its all about before jumping into an AFD which relies on Wikipedia guidelines instead of personal preference? - Ocatecir 20:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoinks Magazine is a magazine devoted to the best of the best of web comics. It does not contain hundreds of comics as you suggest, in fact they have been criticized for including too many articles and too few comics. This is an independent outside source. The Destructoid reference is also a non trivial, independent reference to Deuling Analogs. Yes web comics certainly are a niche interested but I was not aware that a topic had to appeal to everyone to be included in wikipedia. My arguements are not personal preference, in fact I am not even personally a fan of this comic, but as you said this does not matter. I feel it is notable, based on Wikipedia's guidlines for notability, and I think it would be a mistake to remove it from Wikipedia. I am not going to go back and forth on the reputability of the sources provided any more though. I feel the sources are reputable and establish notability. Fforde 21:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reputable sources suggeting any notability, impact or achievement. Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Dragonfiend 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources were listed above with details on their reputability. If you feel these sources are in fact not reputable, please explain why. Fforde 20:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) — Fforde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi, Fforde, If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that CyberneticTigerZ's three paragraph blog post[65] about this comic on destructoid.com is a nontrivial article from a source with a reputaton for fact-checking and accuracy and that this article describes this webcomic's achievements, impact or historical significance. This is incorrect, as a three paragraph blog post is trivial, neither CyberneticTigerZ nor destructoid.com have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, and the blog post just describes the webcomic rather than suggesting it is of any importance. -- Dragonfiend 21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can agree with that, thank you for explaining your point. Seeing as that only leaves a reference from Zoink! Magazine, I think I agree, this is not enough to satisfy notability. Fforde 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ST47Talk 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Pierski JackSparrow Ninja 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,, two blog entries and an appearance in an intermittently published webcomic magazine do not add up to notability.

Changed vote to neutral based on the Game Revolution mention.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmm, I just noticed the reference about this comic being listed as a featured comic at GameRevolution.com. Based on that and the Zoinks Article, I feel this comic satisfies the requirements for notability. -- Fforde 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interview with Steve Napierski [[66]] on Joystiq. -- Pierski 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I feel that the article may be a weak keep, I just wanted to point out to Pierski that he has already made a "keep" statement" above: it is custom that you only say "keep" or "delete" once (you are allowed to change your mind of course), and add further comments with a "comment" or similar note. Furthermore, while your input here is valuable, I would urge you, before editing the article any further, to consider WP:COI. While I don't think you have done anything wrong, it may be better if you leave alone articles where you have such a strong conflict of interest in the future (you are Napierski, I presume?). Fram 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize for adding multiple "keep" statements. As far as updating the article with further information and notablity, I thought that was the point. Also, the Joystiq interview [[67]] was just released this morning. I wanted to make sure it was added to the page to help its "keep" defense. And yes I am Napierski. -- Pierski 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article largely replaced by Template:Dino Crisis series W.marsh 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Crisis (series)

This is actually two (or three) requests in one. I'm requesting to delete this article, change the Dino Crisis disambiguation into a redirect and then move Dino Crisis (video game) to Dino Crisis. Personally I find this article unneccesary since Dino Crisis isn't really that large of a game franchise to cover it as a whole. The two sequels and spinoff could easily be mentioned in the article about the original game itself. Jonny2x4 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SkierRMH 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC) -- SkierRMH 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed with nominator: the series isn't notable enough to have its own article. Delete Dino Crisis (series), move Dino Crisis (video game) to Dino Crisis. --Scottie theNerd 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Resident Evil - same thing. This page does no harm and makes navigation easier, and I see no reason to delete. -137.222.10.67 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a big difference between the two. Resident Evil has grown into a multimedia franchise spanning at least 14 games (including spinoffs), as well as a series of novelizations and films, since the release of the original game. Dino Crisis only had two sequels and a spinoff, all which could be easily mentioned and linked in the original game's article. Jonny2x4 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But, instead of doing that, you could leave things as they are and not having other unrelated articles linked within a page where they don't belong cluttering it up. I see no harm how it is now -137.222.10.67 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unrelated how? The sequels and spinoff are obviously linked closely to the first game and they could all be easily mentioned within the original game's article with no trouble at all. They wouldn't clutter the article in any way that it's already is and the Dino Crisis (video game) article is in need of a cleanup anyway. Viewtiful Joe and Devil May Cry are more popular franchises than Dino Crisis, but they're not large enough to warrant having an overall series article (although DMC might get one soon, considering it's already up to its fourth game and a new anime series).Jonny2x4 21:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, because adding information about sequels and spinoffs onto the page isn't shoving useless information in. Oh wait, yes it is. It's a page about the game, not the series, not the sequels or spinoffs. Also, bear in mind the linked Viewtiful Joe page is a mess and very difficult to navigate and cements this pages existence. -137.222.10.67 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Dino Crisis (series) article differs greatly as stated above. Unlike Resident Evil, Dino Crisis isn't a popular franchise and is not going to expand anytime in the near future. A series page that lists four games and is unlikely to grow is a rather useless page, and everything on the series page can be included in the original Dino Crisis (video game) article. --Scottie theNerd 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Isn't popular? How neutral. Like I say, dumping all this content on the Dino Crisis (video game) is just cluttering it up, as that page is about that game NOT the series. -137.222.10.67 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody's saying Dino Crisis is unpopular, but when compared to other PlayStation-era franchises, it isn't exactly as praised or remembered either. In fact, the last game got really mediocre scores from GameSpot and IGN. But that's besides the point. The Viewtiful Joe article isn't cluttered, it has a very brief section covering all of them. Doing the same for Dino Crisis won't clutter it. Likewise popular film franchise that aren't really long like Lethal Weapon and Scream don't have series article dedicated to them. I don't see what's so special about Dino Crisis to warrant one.Jonny2x4 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody's saying that it isn't popular? Well, aside from Scottie theNerd, I think you mean. And I disagree with you - I think those pages would greatly gain from disambiguation pages with an overview of the series, it's developers, its history and short summaries similar to the World War I page. Unfortunately, anonymous page creation was removed some months back :( -137.222.10.67 12:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You do realise, anonymous user, that there's nothing on the Dino Crisis (series) to clutter anything up? We're not doing a merge. We're deleting an empty series page, putting a short summary in the main Dino Crisis page and removing the disambiguation page. Rather than have a rather pointless disambiguation page and an empty series page, keep the series information centralised into the article readers are most likely to visit. --Scottie theNerd 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm saying adding several Wikilinks that are barely related to the main game is cluttering it up. Rather than having a simple, short, disambiguation page, you're shoving a bunch of Wikilinks onto a page where they aren't really needed. There's nothing to gain from its deletion. -137.222.10.67 12:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're putting one or two sentences in the introduction. What's so bad about that? There's nothing to gain? We're saving readers the trouble of going through a disambiguation page and/or a mildly useful series page. If you're going to argue against it, at least explain your points instead of just saying "there's nothing to gain". --Scottie theNerd 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reason for the page to exist. Unlike other game franchises, Dino Crisis does not exist outside of the games produced for the series. It appears to have been abandoned by Capcom (as it has seen no updates since 2003), which makes further games unlikely. More to the point, no information exists on the page which isn't duplicated in the articles themselves. I would suggest a navigation box at the bottom (ala Template:Devil May Cry series) and leave it at that. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with the template. Shouldn't be hard to come up with. --Scottie theNerd 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a fine summary article of the series. There's enough material to cover significantly longer passsages in each of the individual games' articles. These articles need to be expanded, not deleted. Geuiwogbil 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how the articles require a seperate article about the series when the individiual game articles are mostly stub-class (or not much better). It's not that we're going to delete the Dino Crisis individual game pages, just the Dino Crisis (series) page. While I could see supporting the creation of a Series page for certain game series, the Dino Crisis series doesn't really fit the bill. There are four games in the series, and the only two with similar gameplay are Dino Crisis and Dino Crisis 2. The third is practically unrelated and the fourth game is a Gun Survivor spinoff. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, so if there is enough material to expand the other articles, instead of having this one here (which is kinda just useless no offense), why not just use a template like Lankybugger above suggested instead? Much less mess, and it goes along with other articles (there is no "Splatterhouse (series)" page or "Final Fight (series)" page), and that'll still let you expand these articles as is. What do you guy's think? Then this article isn't necessary.--Kung Fu Man 07:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good Job on Template:Dino Crisis series, Kung Fu Man. This pretty much clears any lingering doubts I had about the Afd. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template was the way to go Thebiggameover

Weak delete and move to using the template for navigation, even though I don't really see what's wrong with having franchise article, even if it is short. Those maintaining the actual pages should have the say here, though. — brighterorange (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge. Mathmo ^Talk 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julez Edward

Non-notable musician bio. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND or be the subject of any published sources. Delete. Wickethewok 22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. Mrees1997 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Real96 10:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Chu

No sign of passing WP:PROF. (Has been de-prodded, so can't go that route.) Pan Dan 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~; would be willing to change to keep if evidence of notability were presented. --ElKevbo 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability has been established via newly added material in article. --ElKevbo 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; He is a Stanford professor. "Publish or Perish" is the rule in those schools. So I bet other people in his field of expertise should know him. Who draws the line to decide he is notable or not? Kowloonese 22:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People need to come up with references demonstrating how this subject passes WP:PROF, rather than make assumptions. Just being a professor at a prestigious school is not automatically an indicator of sufficient encyclopedic notability. "Publish or Perish" - in addition to being a vague simplified generalization as an observation - could be said to be apply in general to all research-driven universities or university departments, and it says nothing about the quality of the work being published. Bwithh 05:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established. Comment it doesn't matter if people within the field know him. and if you want to see who draws the line please see Wikipedia:Notability, that's who.--Tainter 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I can only see one book (1998 without an ISBN) in OCLC, none in Amazon, and while google scholar results indicate his work is recognised in the field, I cant see that has translated into notability in the real world. Profile at med.stanford.edu shows two awards, Clinical Scientist Award for Translational Research from Burroughs-Wellcome Fund [68] (Wellcome Trust) and Rita Allen Award. John Vandenberg 07:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep The above comment admits his work is recognized in his field, per GS, but oddly says "not in the wider world." That is not the standard. Notability in the field is the standard. Read WP:N, there is no reference to the wider world, or to people in general, and for good reason: Almost every single game article in WP is not notable to he wider world. almost every single school article is not notable to the wider world. almost every single highway article, almost every railroad station, etc etc . Almost every article about specific plant or animal or chemical or mathematical theory or historical figure is not notable to the world in general. Most music articles are notable only to those who listen to that particular kind of music. Almost all towns and villages in the US and elsewhere are notable only regionally, and the wider world knows of their existence only thru WP and directories. Very few counties in the US are notable to the wider world, and very few radio stations, and rivers, and mountains, and even automobiles. N is judged by notability amongthose of its kind. (Incidentally PROF is a proposal, not a policy or even a guideline, but anyway he does indeed meet it. All tenured faculty at major universities meet it, having passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession. We dont establish notability, we see if the profession has established notability. That's what Koowloonese meant. It doesn't apply to every college, but it does to major research universities. DGG 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I merely thought he was recognised, but in the absence of notable awards, I dont understand the field well enough to wade through the G Chu google scholar hits (and with a short name like that many results may be for a different person) and work out what would make the man notable, and the article doesnt make this clear. His research in cancer treatment is mentioned, but there is no claim that the research is primarily his (most of what I have read list many names, and his name isnt first), or that it is ground breaking (I see little press besides standford web pages). My guess is that the patents for instrumentation are to do with the "microarrays"; if those two facts can be linked by evidence (a patent number), then it shows that he is leading the way. At the moment, the article fails WP:V. John Vandenberg 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

take another look now, Notice the number of citations.DGG 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research DGG, but still no sign that he passes WP:PROF (or WP:N). Looking at the Google scholar hits, I see that he is rarely listed as the first author; on 8 of the first 10 hits, for example, he's listed last among groups of 2, 3, 4, or even 5 collaborators. The Scientist article you linked to is not about him and the research described there is never described as "his work" as you wrote in the Wikipedia article. The Scientist article suggests that he is knowledgeable about the research being described there (as he was used as a source for the article), but that he was not one of the main develepers and was never a primary investigator of this research. (A complete Wikipedia article about that research would probably not even mention him.) Finally, the other references in the References section of the Wikipedia article are not independent of him. Pan Dan 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first authorship Pan, in biomedicine the first or the last position is the principal authorship. PubMed keeps track of both of those, because it varies. (This is not the case in most other subjects). My advisor always listed himself last. .James Watson went one step further and never listed himself at all--but it was understood who was the main intellectual contributor to work coming form that particular lab. But you do not have to take my word for it:
to be absolutely objective his most cited paper-- for which he was first author--has been cited 697 times. His next cited paper, for which he was also the first author, was cited 393 times. These are remarkably high values--not all Nobel laureats have papers cited that many times. That is notability. when we look to see the reputation of a novel, we look for the sales of the work. This is the same principle.
And the evidence is independent of him. It's provided by the journals, the RS in the field They are --all of them, for all his publications, in the highest quality journals .and recorded in the internationally accepted index, which is WoS. Knowing that not everyone has access to it, I copied the results onto the article. These citations are independent documentation of N at a level of independence that many WP subjects outside the academic world can intrinsically not demonstrate. These are the judgements of those qualified. You are substituting your own. I am not using mine, except perhaps rhetorically. He (not I) stands documented by the numbers. DGG 08:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what you say about "last being first" (so to speak) makes sense to me, because it seems unlikely that somebody would be the least valuable contributor to so many papers as in my above interpretation of the Google scholar hits. Also, I looked up his Nobel prize winning brother on Google scholar and I see that he also is listed last many times. So pending further evidence/discussion, I'm happy to concede that point to you (can't speak for others of course). I'm uncomfortable though about relying on number of citations to show notability. Just because work A is cited in work B doesn't mean B relies in a major way on A. The question I'd want answered is, per WP:N, is there enough independent material out there to fill up this Wikipedia article about Chu's work (and is the work identifiable as actually being his)? Pan Dan 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with DGG. Many college professors don't do first hand research on their own. All their ideas are worked on by the graduate students under their supervision. The quality of many research projects depend on the mastermind of the supervisor more than those who get their hands dirty. So it is important to find out what comes out under the professor's supervision, not necessarily restrict to those papers written solely by himself. If you really want to trim down the biographies on wikipedia based on notability, you probably end up with a tabloid like publication. Honestly, how can Gilbert Chu ever be more recognized than Michael Jackson? If you ask me, I would rather delete 10 Michael Jackson like articles for each article on college professors that really contributed to science. Traditionally, paper based encyclopedia had to trim down the breadth due to the cost associated with the maintenance and printing of articles. I disagee that wikipedia should follow the same approach. I personally don't agree with the heavy hand trimming policy going on here. One quality of wikipedia I enjoy is the breadth of coverage. The depth is important, but the breadth also guarantee that wikipedia can be used as a starting point for any research in all topics. Even a stub that points to a significant external article is better than a missing entry in my opinion. Some argue that Google gives you a lot of leads to any reseach also, but the relevancy decided by Google is algorithmic vs. any links provided in wikipedia added some human evaluation and filtering that improve the quality of information. That alone is what makes wikepedia stand above Google search. The heavy hand trimmings can only reduce the breadth of the coverage which is hurting one special strength of wikipedia in my opinion. Kowloonese 00:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds to me like you would enjoy surfing some university websites more than Wikipedia. The same kinds of links from the Wikipedia article that you find useful are available here, for example. (Please don't take that the wrong way, I'm being serious, not sarcastic or anything.) But Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a directory, which is why stubs do tend to get deleted if they show no promise of growing with multiple reliable sources. I'm not sure what a Wikipedia stub on Gilbert Chu can offer you that you can't find on his Stanford website that I linked to. Pan Dan 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular criterion would apply to quite a lot of articles; as it happens, not all of it was from his website because he is apparently a rather modest guy and didnt even list the papers. DGG 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are quite right that a being quoted in b is not necessarily enough,depending on the notability nd authority of b. But a being quoted in b1, and b2, and b3, and b4, and b5, and b6,...and b697, is another matter entirely. This is what is characteristic of true recognition by ones peers, the ones who write articles., That's what the academic world is about.

It is very rare for an experimental biologist (this also applies in some but not all sciences) for a person to be the sole author of an experiment primary research paper. Labs don't work that way. Easy example: Watson&Crick. They both won the Nobel prize, and this is true for most Nobel prizes in Biology or Medicine--they go to more than one individual for their separate or joint work. Where you see sole authorship is (sometimes) when a person writes a review article, analyzing other peoples earlier works, or writes a summary of his career in his 60s. There is nothing wrong with not knowing the way science works. It is perfectly honorable to not be a scientist. In evaluating scientists, though, it is useful to know something about this, and you might want to browse a few of the more detailed WP articles and get a better idea of how scientistd publish. I dont contribute to AfDs on video games or many other topics, because I haven't the least idea of how they are to be judged. DGG 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability has been established and the whole article is well referenced. NCurs e _work 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A highly-cited, well-established, award-winning scientist who is widely recognized in his field and also the brother of a Nobel winner is certainly well within WP:PROF. Vassyana 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known scientist --Abu-Bakr69 11:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, but may be re-created in the future, provided that issues here are addressed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Fisticuffs (Gilmore Girls)

A long, rambling play-by-play of the minutae of an episode of a television show, riddled with grammatical errors and misspellings, which would require a complete re-write to be useful. I cannot imagine a reasonable person expecting this kind of poorly written quasi-stream-of-consciousness drivel to have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia, and strongly believe that this kind of "article" reflects poorly upon Wikipedia. Salad Days 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I understand that there is a movement to establish guidelines for summarizing individual episodes of programs or entire seasons. Until such a guidelines is established, these articles should not be written and are merely nn fancruft. Soltak | Talk 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. While current convention allows for reasonable summaries of episodes, long detailed play-by-play of questionable quality are beyond the pale.-- danntm ^T _C 02:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice towards recreation, as with the other AfD. I'm generally in favor of episode articles, but this needs enough cleanup that deleting it and starting over is probably best. BryanG^(talk) 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment there is a general AfD for Gilmore Girls episodes going on at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls)]. This page should probably be merged with that. - Peregrine Fisher 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, just stub it for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gilmore Girls episodes per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." (Emphasis mine.) Fully agree with the "poorly written quasi-stream-of-consciousness drivel" assessment. Extraordinary Machine 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Daniel.Bryant 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lavoisier Group

No assertion of notability, but the speedy deletion is being hotly contested. I've no interest in responding to an angry rant from the author on my talk page, so I'm brining this here straight away (since it would end up here after a few days of argument anyway). Steel 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the author of the article. I feel miffed by your accusation of "angry rant" here, which I think is undeserved.

As for the article itself, I'd like to point out that I had to start the discussion myself about its proposed deletion since the user who proposed it did not even have the decency to explain or discuss before adding the tag. --Childhood's End 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an Australian, this group seems pretty well known to me and is notable. It needs work to get the sources right, not deleting. --Bduke 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for The Age do publish a lengthy article on them in 2004. I disagree with their politics, but they're certainly notable enough for inclusion. Where is this "angry rant" on your talk page? --Canley 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and representative of one POV on climate change. Paul foord 06:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and well referenced. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible reduce and merge into something like List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. I'm concerned about the quality of the sources. This group has provoked criticism from its global warming opponents, but has not attracted enough attention from mainstream sources to write a thorough WP:NPOV article. The only sources I've been able to find that are non-trivial (i.e. more than a passing mention, e.g. a quote from one of the group's members) are opinion pieces written by partisans in the global warming debate. The one exception seems to be the article on theage.com.au. If more sources are found that are non-trivial and written by a disinterested party, I'll probably change my suggestion. Pan Dan 15:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough to get a article in a major newspaper, and reasonably well-referenced to boot. Open and shut case, I think. Lankiveil 00:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable in Australia. It's not surprising that most discussions are partisan, this is a controversial issue and the group is partisan. Its members have published quite a few opinion pieces and these have attracted responses. JQ 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group seems to me notable enough when compared to many other individuals/organizations already deserving an article on Wiki. Also, as for the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, it has been limited so far to "individual scientists (so that organizations are excluded from it) with a record of scholarship in the natural sciences who have stated their opposition in specific, attributable statements". Even more, my understanding is that the "opposition" must have been stated against one of three specific statements taken from the IPCC, otherwise the opposition does not "make the cut". Even Hendrik Tennekes was deleted from it... --Childhood's End 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tony romo game

Article revolves on a rather mundane wildcard football game/occurrence. A consensus on the National Football League lore is not notable to deserve an entry on the page, or let alone have its own article. The page has no sources to verify the game’s “nickname”. Additionally, the page’s content has already been mentioned on at least three articles. ShadowJester07 ►Talk 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A unique and devastating playoff loss, one that partially prompted Bill Parcells to retire from coaching. Article needs to be improved - mention Romo's utterly crushed reaction, mention that he did get back in the game for a Hail Mary at the end, mention his self-loathing press appearance after the game, mention a few other things. Wasted Time R 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prompted Bill Parcells to retire? There are no sources that explicitly state that. As stated in the NFL Lore Talk page, the event has faded from the NFL mainstream, and shows no signs of resurfacing. -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Today's Dave Anderson column in the New York Times quotes Parcells as saying that it took a 12-month effort to get to the 1 yard line in Seattle, and he can't go through that again. Wasted Time R 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pitching Parcells retirement entirely on Romo doesn't acknowledge the whole spectrum of what happened to the CowBoys that season; Bledsoe, Vanderjagt, their break down towards the latter portion of the season, and most infamously, Owens [69][70][71] -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to suggest that this is nicknamed the "Tony Romo Game". Not very notable either. aviper2k7 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be shown that the nickname is real, in which case redirect to National Football League playoffs, 2006-07, which already has a good description of this game. Dave6 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without reliable sourcing. Montco 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as I may like to a loss by the Dallas Cowboys, it has only been three weeks and there is scant sourcing that indicates this deserves to join the ranks of NFL lore. If this is still talked about years from now, then create the article.-- danntm ^T _C 03:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Nardman1 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Part Deux 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuffed article

An anonymous user slapped an afd tag on this article. I personally don't believe it needs to be deleted but I went ahead and created the afd page to get the process started since the rules don't allow me to just remove the afd tag. Nardman1 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Flyingtoaster1337 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the word is shown to be used in Canadian government literature. Flyingtoaster1337 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did the research and posted the references. The article is now a sourced stub. Jeepday 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Twist (Gilmore Girls)

These articles fail the Wikipedia policy located at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE which states: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." This article consists of nothing but a plot summary. Wikification, and the addition of one line of context would not address this issue. Salad Days 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from this same violation of wikipedia official policy:

Delete All per nom. I understand that there is a movement to establish guidelines for summarizing individual episodes of programs or entire seasons. Until such a guidelines is established, these articles should not be written and are merely nn fancruft. Soltak | Talk 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These articles need expansion and clean-up, but I fail to see why these articles should have less right to exist on Wikipedia than the hundreds of individual episode articles already in place for other series. The nom's rationale would pretty well disqualify 99% of episode articles, in which case I recommend the nominator make a policy change suggestion rather than singling out one show. The consenus at WP:EPISODE doesn't appear to have been violated, though the articles can be improved, of course. 23skidoo 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I am not interested in changing existing policy, merely the enforcement of the ones we currently have. I would also like to point out that WP:EPISODE which you referenced, states that "Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles." These articles contain no references or independently verifiable information. Salad Days 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episode is the primary source (self-ref) and is verifiable, if you want more references then tag it for them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the episodes of all television shows are themselves the reference, and thus all are worthy of inclusion? Why doesn't the essay simply say that then? Salad Days 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously because it's a felgercarb essay that needs re-writing :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, then nominate all those for deletion, too. What's the problem? Netuser500 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Cheatin' Heart (Phil of the Future episode) - Kept!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (The Nanny) - Kept!

Would be blatant point making if he did try. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all - I see no indiscriminate information, the pages need expansion and cleaning (not reason for deletion) - Episodes are from a (very?) notable American television series. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Normal television episode pages. They're inheritantly notable, they just need some work. - Peregrine Fisher 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them inherently notable? Soltak | Talk 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the word was pretty obvious my self.. but: they "inherit" the shows notability, the show is watched by 4mil (that episode alone) - clearly *notable*! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As "inheritantly" isn't a word, I had absolutely no idea what the author was talking about. I was under the impression that they had simply misspelled "inherently". Furthermore, the notion that things inherit notability is not an accurate one. If my father won an Academy Aware it doesn't make me notable. Similarly, if I'm a US Senator, it doesn't make my daughter notable. Soltak | Talk 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I write that keep? no. - also I hate lame straw man arguments.. there so.. redundant.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you wrote it or not is not relevant (though I don't claim that you did) as you responded to defend it. Further, I'd recommend that you take a look at WP:CIVIL as well as a grammar aid so that next time you attack someone you can do it with the appropriate form of there/they're. Soltak | Talk 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did - You just changed it while I was replying. Also I won't do you the honour od replying to your grammar request. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Soltak. Netuser500 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - Xornok 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that an article still requires more work is no reason to delete it. There is no timetable on when an article should be in a certain wikipedia acceptable style either. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that they need some tuning and fixing but deleting would be going in the wrong direction since many television shows have individual episode articles. If the episode article is grammatically correct and well written, free of errors and fancruft and there are no copyright violations or plagiarism then a definite keep. Why should the Gilmore Girls be treated any differently? Sfufan2005 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are not grammatically correct and well written. Did you bother to read them? I am personally not treating these articles any differently than I would those of any other program, these simply happen to be the ones I have nominated. No one has yet addressed the fact that current policy states that "Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries." Salad Days 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP *sigh* ... here we go again. For the sake of preserving all TV articles, it's pop culture and I vote the articles deserve to stay but yes, they should be written more appropriately within Wikipedia guidelines. Fix what is needed and give it a chance. Believe it or not, a lot of users use this place to stay on top of their favorite shows and if it wasn't for Wikipedia being a mecca for even the most trivial information from Atari games to Xenu no one would come to this place. Cyberia23 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously need to read WP:NOT. Netuser500 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Yeah I've read it, many times in fact I have a link to it on my talkpage, and I still don't see where it says TV show articles aren't allowed. Cyberia23 08:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem with WP:NOT is it is often countermanded by Wikipedia is not paper. In any event, in terms of quality content and presentation all I see are cases for WP:BOLD. 23skidoo 03:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article requiring work is not a reason for deletion. Tag for clean up and expansion instead. Jay32183 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not nominated for deletion because it requires work. Could you please re-read the nomination. Salad Days 06:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the article only contains plot. This is a request for expansion. Wanting the development and reception discussed would be a request for work to be done. The information does exist, it just hasn't been supplied. Deleting the article is not an acceptable solution. Jay32183 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Some cleanup is required, but these articles aren't nearly as bad as the other Gilmore Girls episodes nominated today. Wiki is not paper. BryanG^(talk) 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All television shows deserve a summary and commentary. And thanks for the new eggcorn. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excuse me, Salad Days. But I never said that the episode articles were well written and contain no errors. There was an "IF" before that. And please do not lecture me on not reading them since I read everything on the pages and all of the comments. The articles need to be expanded with some more material. Instead of nominating these articles for deletion why not you help by adding things you're talking about to better the articles. Unless you have a stance against TV show episodes having their own articles than that's a different story. Sfufan2005 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT is policy. The current versions of the articles violate that policy, and there is no sign of non-trivial independent reliable sources that we could use to rewrite or expand the articles. Pan Dan 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tried pointing that out in other AfDs, but all you seem to need are three dedicated fans to prevent nn cruft from being deleted. It makes me wonder whether trying to improve Wikipedia is worth the effort. Netuser500 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Episodes of nationally broadcast television shows are generally in the keep book, if the quality of these articles is poor, rewrite them. I can't, however, support a deletion on principle, because I feel Wikipedia should have information on each episode of this show. FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD is trying to make a point, at best. Cburnett 21:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Cburnett, this nom is trying to make a point. Much work can (and needs to be) done in order to improve the articles, but it's not a reason they should be deleted. Also, can't see any vioation of WP:EPISODE, hence my vote. Gimlei 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Episode articles should not be a default, and I seriously doubt any episode from this show has individual notable impact on the real world (maybe the series as a whole, but not on an episode-by-episode basis). I don't know what the nom's motivation is, but this is clearly a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO, that much is true. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what I don't understand. Won't it be harder to add real-world context, sourced analysis, work's achievement, impact, and/or historical significance when, you know, the article is deleted? Consider this: someone who is willing to do the work on the articles might not if they have to recreate the article, write some plot, add the cats, add the infobox, etc. Cburnett 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, Ned, that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, 4.4 million viewers seems to be very notable to me and that is just the USA, and they definitely have a cultural impact. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dudes, it's Gilmore Girls.... I mean... come on.. -- Ned Scott 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per longstanding consensus that seems unlikely to shift anytime soon regarding television episodes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, there is no consensus regarding TV episodes. Anyway, WP:NOT is both consensus and policy. Pan Dan 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT does not appear to reflect AfD operation. That's a discussion for there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure what you mean. WP:NOT is widely cited in AfD discussions as a reason to delete. Pan Dan 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NOT is not a collection of things to delete, it is a reminder of the goals of Wikipedia. The consensus mentioned earlier is at WP:EPISODE. Although third party sources are preferrable for notability and opinion, first party sources are perfectly acceptable for basic information. I have no way of checking myself in this case, but many television episodes when released on DVD have writers' and directors' commentaries that can be used to write about the development of the indivdual episode. A lack of web sites is not in itself a reason to delete an article. Jay32183 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Even WP:EPISODE, which is neither a guideline nor a policy, requires "independently verifiable" sources. An article based on writers' and directors' commentaries (whose present or future existence is entirely speculative on your part) would fail to satisfy WP:EPISODE as well as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Pan Dan 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you read the line "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)." If the article is only plot summary with no interpretation then the article contains no original research and is verifiable by anyone willing to watch the episode. By the way, the fact that a consensus is not marked as a guideline or policy is no reason to ignore it. Jay32183 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Deletion policy says "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia...is usually deleted." Sorry to resort to quoting policy, but it seems to me it should be obvious that WP:NOT is a perfectly valid reason for deletion that can't be trumped by any guideline, and certainly not any centralized discussion page. Pan Dan 10:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOT is also a reason to keep this article, if you want it deleted then provide some valid reasoning. HTH DNHAND. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for those unconstructive comments. Now go sit in the corner for 5 minutes. After you do that, read the nom again. After you do that, look for appropriate sources to back up your keep vote (yes you can look for sources even though you don't watch the show as you said below). Pan Dan 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But the article does not fail inclusion criteria, significant editting would make the article meet all of the criteria. Based on what you just said this article should not be deleted but should be editted as we've been suggesting. Your own argument is actually a reason to keep this article, not delete it. Jay32183 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (Starting to repeat myself again, as I did in the thread below, so this'll be my last comment for this thread.) "Significant editing" that will make these articles pass WP:NOT is not possible without sources. Pan Dan 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There was at least one valid third party source on Matthew's list, TV Guide can be used to ref the original airdate. Until you find that there is no dvd commentary to write a development section, do not call it impossible. Besides, there are two acceptable options here, delete is not one of them. They are "clean up and expand" and "merge and redirect", both of which point to avoiding afd. A decision of delete here would set a very bad precendent. Jay32183 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Say what? A director's commentary is about as primary as I think you get. As for WP:NPOV: do you understand what that really means? NPOV does not mean exclusion of a particular point of view. NPOV is that no particular point of view dominates others. Just because the director is, well, the director does not make him so biased that his knowledge can be excluded. NPOV means the director's commentary is in as well as anyone else of reliability (if that's a word). WP:V is the key. Cburnett 01:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to everyone in this discussion who believes it is possible for these articles to improve: please look for independent, reliable sources that we could use to add real-world context and sourced analysis to the article without violating WP:OR. (E.g. I did a full-text Lexis-Nexis search for "gilmore girls" "french twist", and "gilmore girls" "go, bulldogs". No results.) Pan Dan 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- o rly? I only get 160 thousand results, operative word: only[72] thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good first step. Now, which of those hits, that are reliable and independent of the show's producers&distributors, can we use to give real-world context and sourced analysis to these articles? (Note: My zero results were in Lexis-Nexis, not Google) Pan Dan 19:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Use a real search engine then, and I wouldn't have the foggiest, never seen the show, probably never will (-: -- you're welcome to improve the article if you wish though, So say we all! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Starting to repeat repeat myself, so this'll probably be my last comment, but the point is that it's likely not possible to improve the articles without conducting OR. The kind of sources we'd need for a Wikipedia article are, for example, reviews of the specific episodes by independent critics. Just because something has lots of Google hits, doesn't mean that any of those hits are suitable as sources for these articles. That's why I used Lexis-Nexis -- wading through Google hits is a drag. But anyway, looking through the first few pages of these 17,600 Google hits, I see unreliable sources that discuss only plot summaries. Nothing that we could use here. (By the way, not that it matters, but there aren't 160,000 hits; you didn't use quotes in your search. Pan Dan 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You may be interested to see Jimbo Wales' reply on this subject.[73] Salad Days 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote keep Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, bad faith nomination by banned user: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DogJesterExtra. Part Deux 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana Ringer

lacks importance needed to warrant Wikipedia bio...just because she was in TNA for a show doesn't establish that importance Hipchop 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to fulfill WP:BIO. Soltak | Talk 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable wrestler, no major accomplishments to warrant Wikipedia entryDogJesterExtra 16:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides appearing with TNA and AAA, she has worked for SHIMMER, a promotion that has its DVDs for sale from both ROH and in retail stores nationally. That's more exposure than a lot of the male indy wrestlers that have articles.Demolicious 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Pilotguy as a repost. BryanG^(talk) 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Starting Quarterbacks

Article article’s deletion has already been contested in another nomination; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NFL starting quarterbacks. The result was delete ShadowJester07 ►Talk 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. CSD 4 - recreation of deleted material. The article didn't pass through valid deletion review nor corrects the original grounds for its deletion (indiscriminate collection of information, trivia, etc.) Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A4. So tagged. Soltak | Talk 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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