Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G1/G12. Naconkantari 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Hammer Has A Mighty Huge Handle

[edit]
My Hammer Has A Mighty Huge Handle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, not noteworthy

Max Elstein 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Wafulz 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Mallett

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

Vanity, non notable, lack of independent sources

Nominating on multiple grounds:

  1. Vanity page: There is a single authour who has not contributed to any other Wikipedia articles, and there is a strong suggestion from the username that the author is the subject of the article
  2. Notability: With the exception of veteran, nationally known or controversial hosts, commercial radio presenters tend not to be notable enough. It is in effect, "Just another Job", and it would be ridiculous to sggest that we should have an article for every doctor in new Zealand.
  3. Verfifiability - Notability is usually conferred by numerous references. I only located a couple of sources: His Employers' website and local newspaper items which had the style of being press releases printed verbatim.

dramatic 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Note: A prod template was removed without any improvement to the article.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus reads that subject is notable but article may need cleanup. To what extent needs to be decided by editors, as significant extra information and refs have been added since nomination. Orderinchaos 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herring Surf

[edit]

Procedural nomination after removal of db-spam from article as part of my continued drive to clean up Category:Companies of Australia. A non-notable chain of surf stores in a single state. Article does not meet WP:CORP, lacks any references, and does not demonstrate notability, and would be unlikely to do. Another example of corpcruft. Thewinchester (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. While I know that this option has been considered and refused, this article reads like a press release and in over 2 1/2 years it has not found a single independent reliable source. The chain consists of only 6 stores in one state. Note that an earlier VfD discussion is available on the talk page. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment definitely not a speedy. Article now has 6 independant reliable sources. Neil ╦ 09:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the 2nd Oh, and it has been through AFD before and passed - nominator is aware of this and still did not bother to mention it. See the article's talk page. If it's been through AFD, it cannot be speedied. Nor should it even be deleted. Neil ╦ 10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I noted the VfD in my initial comment. I have seen the changes and still consider the subject to be non-notable. At least half of the references refer to sponsorship arrangements, in particular suicide prevention. Each of those references are mainly about the charity and not the subject and such do not assert notability. Another reference is about a concert at a Skate park and only mentions the subject in passing as a sponsor. That leaves one reference, about Victor Tilly, that is close to suitable. That is not enough for me. Also, coverage purchased as part of a sponsorship deal isn't quite independent. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While the article lacks third party sources, Google News Archive does show that there are some sources, they are not sufficient in my view to warrant a keep. [1] I would support keeping with stronger sources. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given Neil's improvements. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not *quite* a G11, but definitely fails WP:CORP beyond a doubt. Orderinchaos 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Supporter of community work, as evidenced by the Tasmanian government [2] [3], backers of community skate tour programs [4]. Interview with store founder about his company by The Mercury ([5]), and about their work to prevent youth suicide, same paper ([6]). Clearly meets WP:CORP. Neil ╦ 08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Still a delete - putting references on this discussion page does not improve the article nor does it allow editors to consider the references (which probably would work better as inline citations) with regards the content of the article. Put these in as citations and you might have a better chance. At this stage as per OIC it still fails WP:CORP --VS talk 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - that's what I've been doing for the last 20 minutes - article is now referenced sufficiently to pass WP:CORP. Please consider readdressing your arguments? Neil ╦ 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I am only just on the keep side - as I had a similar tendency to Mattinbgn to note that all but one of the references are more about charity work - however the changes to the article and the fact that there is one suitable reference gets me to weak keep. This article will be touch and go - one or more direct references that work towards meeting WP:CORP more closely will help your case indubitably.--VS talk 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator, reaffirming my nomination for the article's deletion. The article still clearly fails WP:CORP, and regardless of the number of links you could find for the article, a company with six stores operating in a single state does not notability make. Worse still, the work done on the article just reaffirms how it fails to meet WP:CORP, as it now reads like an advertisement and a promotional piece. Please, i'm begging you, just let it go off to the big great page dumpster in the sky, or at least the one in the middle of a massive server farm buried deep below some old nuclear bomb shelter. Thewinchester (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Careful Neil, because you're dangerously close to an WP:AGF warning. I'm just sick of inclusionists thinking everything should be on WP and continuing to load it up and up with truckloads of absolute junk - like this article. And I think the closing admin will be smart enough to read as nominator right at the front of the line. Thewinchester (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to warn me about assuming good faith. Perhaps you could bear that in mind when you try to delete the work of others who did not intend to "load Wikipedia up and up with truckloads of absolute junk". Are you assuming good faith on their part? Neil ╦ 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup. Article most definitely needs to be cleaned up, but I think there's enough potential for a decent article pursuant to WP:CORP. Seems to have a strong local following, though it may not be well-known to an Anglocentric audience. Firestorm 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ogalo

[edit]

This is a procedural nomination after being CSD'd with db-spam and recreated. Article fails WP:CORP. A very minor chicken shop chain operating in only one state, this article is written like an advertisement, has no information which demonstrates notability (and sponsoring the football club of a private school does not confer notability by association either), lacks any significant references, and is a privately held company of which little is known or can be found about. It's just another of the many examples of corpcruft infesting Wikipedia. Thewinchester (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You need to look at the hundreds of POV and biased articles that exist on WP for products, brands, companies...etc - this one is an Australian company and similar to other food outlets, restaurants (inc Oporto, Nandos..etc) which have articles - yes it does need expanding and ref's cited to make it more notable - I am in the process of cleaning this up to make it better. --Mikecraig 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is exactly why we're having a cleanup. If you see one worthy of nomination under the guidelines, feel free to nominate, or let others know. BTW Nandos is an international organisation with stockmarket listings and oodles of independent coverage, so is not in anywhere near the same situation. Orderinchaos 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect to the points you have raised, POV is not the issue with this article, something you are now being informed of for the second time which leads me to suspect that you may have a possible [[WP:|conflict of interest]] in this matter. The fact it does not and will likely never meet the standard required for compliance against WP:CORP is. Also, just because a competing or similar chain (currently) has an article doesn't mean that Chain X deserves one too - it's a faulty argument which does not fly in AfD. You could try and clean up this article as much as you want, but based on relevant searching and fact finding both when I nominated for CSD and before opening the AfD this morning, you'll be very hard pressed to find anything which helps it meet the criteria. Thewinchester (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "leads me to suspect that you may have a possible conflict of interest in this matter" - be careful with possible slanderous comments such as that one. Delete the Ogalo article as I cannot waste anymore time on such matters, trying to do the right thing and expand WP. --Mikecraig 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Understood, if that user in question wants to challenge my neutrality or conflicts of interest, then just look at my edits, contributions..etc and see where it lies. --Mikecraig 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Dhartung, Wikilawyering is specifically frowned upon. I note that I specifically said that I "suspect that you may have a possible [[WP:|conflict of interest]]". You may not have a conflict of interest, but it just appears that way to the casual observer given your protectionist line on an article which does not and likely never will comply with Wikipedia policy, which is the core issue in this matter. Thewinchester (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as hoax. —Ocatecir Talk 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican pool

[edit]
Mexican pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and totally unsourced. Clearly made-up silliness and original research. I have lived in New Mexico and California all my life, and played pool with many, many real Mexicans, and they don't play pool this way. Furthermore, any even intermediate player could run this game out 10 times in a row; the only people who could consider this game even a real game would be rank newbies. It's just goofiness, and certainly non-encyclopedic. PS: Note that author isn't even sure of the facts: "Perhaps this game is known by another name." Abandoned by author since Nov. 2006. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goleta English

[edit]
Goleta English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed, term being used can be reliably sourced, but no reliable sources actually talk about the term in ways that allow an encyclopedic entry.--Cerejota 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close. This is a reopened old AFD, I will revert to the previous dif which was a request to blank the AFD page per a ticket. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dekker Dreyer

[edit]
Dekker Dreyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All secondary sources in this article are trivial and all non-trivial sources are primary sources. Fails all notability standards. Speedy delete Devlindetails (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that this is the 3rd AfD nomination of this page, with the first 2 closed as Keep, it would be helpful for nominator to specify what has changed in the article since the previous decisions to suggest reconsideration. And while the content is what ultimately matters, it's worth noting additionally that all three nominations have been created by (different) accounts whose activities are focused on nominating this specific article for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Clique (TV Series)

[edit]
The Clique (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence this show is in pre-production. A fair chance there may be some confusion with Gossip Girl, but when the show doesn't even show up in Amber Heard's IMDb profile, there's probably a reason why. badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dae Gak

[edit]
Dae Gak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable religious teacher. No third party sources available, the only source is subject's short autobiography on his own website. Subject has written a dissertation and one book, and has established a non-notable retreat center. The subject's notability does not meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no consensus - the article in question cannot be deleted: Anyone interested in the accepted policy of wikipedia with respect to the deletion of articles should refer to the "Proposed Deletion" section of Deletion policy page, which clearly states: "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. These pages can be deleted by any adminstrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion. Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again."
  • Silence equals consent: Anyone interested in the accepted meaning of "consensus" on wikipedia should consult the page on Consensus, which says, in part: "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process. When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages."
  • Therefore this article cannot be deleted since there are two objections after less than two full days of discussion.
  • Further discussion of this page should be moved to the appropriate talk page. Please note, however, that all content on that page must be consistent with wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons.
  • Nor can this article be listed for deletion in the future. I hope no one minds me placing this important information about official wikipedia policy with respect to deletion at the top of this discussion. But wikipedia policy is very clear - without consensus there can be no deletion, and articles cannot be proposed for deletion again after there has already been one proposal and discussion. Durruti36 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is some misunderstanding of rules. You should have referred to the deletion_discussion section instead of the proposed_deletion section.
  • Regarding the "silence", it probably just means that the other people have already expressed their views. From my side, I can just say that mention in one independent book is better than no mention. I still doubt it passes the criteria regarding mention in publications, as there seems to be just a passing mention of his starting a new school. Anyway, I just gave my views and will let others give their views. --Knverma 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Zen Master Dae Gak clearly meets the "notability criteria" for people. According to those criteria anyone who "has received significant recognized awards or honors" meets the notability requirements. Zen Master Dae Gak has received one of the highest honors possible in Zen Buddhism - that of "Dharma Transmission". This transmission is clearly referred to on the page in question. Here is Zen Master Dae Gak's Transmission Speech from the Summer of 1995 issue of Primary Point, the magazine published by the Kwan Um School of Zen. Durruti36 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that being a Zen Master is sufficient justification for having a Wikipedia article. Just look at the number of Zen Masters in the world who don't have Wikipedia articles on them. In particular this is an honor given by a school to its members and is not significant from an outside perspective. Something more is necessary to establish notability.-Knverma 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria for notability are clearly met by anyone who receives significant awards or honors. Do you claim that receipt of Dharma Transmission is not a significant honor? Durruti36 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as a google search on "Dae Gak" - I encourage anyone reading this discussion to try it for themselves. Among the "hits" are groups of his students in Washington, DC; Galveston, Texas; and Cincinatti, Ohio - as well as to the group in Brisbane Australia that is led by Master Dae Gak's most senior student, Zen Master Sen Shin, who leads the Queensland Zen Center. Durruti36 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number and/or nature of google hits is not one of the accepted criteria for notability according to wikipedia guidlines. I was merely pointing out the factual innacuracy of the statement "no hits on google except for his homepage". Durruti36 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From our article on Dharma_transmission it sounds equivalent to either the ordination of a priest or the award of a doctorate. Neither of those would automatically make an individual notable. Perhaps if the subject were the first American to receive the honor it would be different. As for other signs of notability, the Google hits I found were all along the lines of announcements of upcoming seminars, not substantive profiles of the man or his philosophy. Lastly, if anyone here is a student of the subject or has other significant involvement with him it'd be helpful to let others' know. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are making the mistake of relying on wikipedia as a reliable source. Zen Master Seung Sahn fully explained what he meant by "Transmission" in an interview he gave the year before Zen Master Dae Gak received transmission - here is a link to that speech. It is the Winter/Spring 1993 issue of Primary Point, which was completely devoted to the topic of "Dharma Transmission". To see the other articles in that issue go the Primary Point Archives and scroll down to that issue. Among other things, Zen Master Seugn Sahn says that "As more Zen Masters appear, their individual styles will emerge. Perhaps some of them will make their own schools. So maybe, slowly, this Korean style will disappear and be replaced by an American style or American styles." Master Dae Gak has, in fact, "made his own school" - whereas most of the people given Transmission by Seung Sahn have remained in the Kwan Um school. This is mentioned on page 106 of James Ishmael Ford's book "Zen Master Who?: A Guide to the People and Stories of Zen".Durruti36 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding my significant involvement, no, not directly with him, though with Zen practice in general, and with Seung Sahn's Kwan Um School of Zen for the last 4-5 years. Yes, I earlier read articles by Dae Gak and found them interesting. Definitely I consider Dharma transmission to be a significant achievement from a Zen practitioner's point of view, but not something that establishes notability as required on Wikipedia. --Knverma 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a valid distinction - between what is "notable" to a Zen student, and what is more generally notable. However, this very modest, bare bones article does not make any grandiose claims about Master Dae Gak's "notability". It is a small, informational article about someone who by some standards might be considered "relatively unknown". Here is a quote from the wikipedia official policy on biographies of known persons: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." In light of this any attempt to delete Master Dae Gak's entry clearly represents not only a highly selective application of the "notability" criterion, but one that is clearly at variance with stated wikipedia policies for biographies of living persons. Durruti36 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durruti36, "notability" is just a guideline, one that serves to implement core polices such as neutral point of view and WP:verifiability. If a person isn't notable enough to have independent profiles then we are basing the entire article on what the subject says about himself. It's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when our only source is the subject. How can we verify anything he says, beyond just saying it's "accoridng to the subject"? So "notability" isn't the sole concern, it's more of a shorthand for a set of concerns that come up with people about whom little or nothing has been written. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a tough one. I spent hours editing and wikifying Dae Gak's entry. I know him and sat several retreats with him. I find him a charming and wise Zen teacher. Yet, according to WP:BIO's new criteria, he is not notable. As I understand it, Zen Master Seung Sahn considered being a Zen Master a job description whose duties included "great love, great compassion and only help this world." There are many jobs that are difficult to get (such as being a professor at an elite school) but that does not make one notable. Is being a Zen Master an award that you earn? Bob's PhD does not make him notable either. Finally, I also Googled ZMDG to find something... anything... to define notability. Maybe a mention of him in a book other than his own or something. I think Will Beback was looking for those types of things as well... not bean counting the results or refences on sangha web pages. Anyway, I wish I could find something to call this entry notable but I can not. In all fairness, it should be deleted. Killerbeez 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual correction to the above: Please see the reference above to James Ishmael Ford's book "Zen Master Who?" which includes references to both Master Dae Gak and to Furnace Mountain. This is clearly a "mention of him in a book other than his own". Durruti36 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That does not change my mind. The reference is small and it does not offer any support to why this teacher is notable. Sincerely, he is virually unknown and has not yet made a significant contribution to Zen practice in America or the world. I suspect that he seems like big news to his sangha but we need to keep perspective regarding what is considered notable for Wikipedia. Killerbeez 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The transmission speech link is no longer functioning. Do you have another one? Thanks Killerbeez 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep For people in fields where the transmission of information is primarily oral, I would like to find a way to establish notability. I haven't found one. Just perhaps, the training of students who go on to be notable is a criterion which has been used elsewhere, but although students are mentioned, nothing is said about their importance either. DGG 01:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. None of his students have done anything notable to date. There might be a time when Zen Master Dae Gak and his students are notable according to Wikipedia but not yet. Killerbeez 04:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wow, are you really WORKING IT trying to save this entry. I gotta admire your energy even as I doubt your direction. Anyway, It is great that he is a fourth publisher in a 35 year-old book that is not his dissertation. Yet, this book does not make him a notable academic. It is just a blip on his curriculum vitae. It is ironic that you tout this publication which is under his Western name at the same time you deleted that name from his entry. Killerbeez 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For notability to be established, this Zen Master needs to be the subject of an independent, credible, in-depth biography; have name recognition; receive a significant honor (beyond his high level of ordination) or make history. He does not fit any of these criteria at this time in his career.Logrider 05:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual Correction: The receipt of "Dharma Transmission" is not connected with "levels of ordination", except perhaps in the Soto school, which Master Dae Gak is not associated with. Durruti36 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Zen Master Dae Gak was an invited speaker in the year 2000 at the 800 year celebration of Dogen, Traces of Dogen Conference, held at Emory college in 2000.He has been the invited speaker for numerous functions in a variety of contexts including the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston Texas.For ten years the led Christian Zen retreats at the Abby of Gethsemane in Bards town KY the Monastery where Thomas Merton stayed.He was invited guest at the Gathering with the Dali Lama at The Abby of Gethsemane which celebrated the Dali Lama’s friendship with Thomas Merton.His calligraphy and art have been featured in Arts Across Kentucky, a Kentucky based magazine.His Calligraphy has been sold publicly through Dharma Crafts and other retail outlets.He was cited in the book, “Zen Master Who,” by James Ishmael Ford, published by Wisdom Press, 2006.He was the Key Note speaker at the Buddhist Conference for the Reconciliation of North and South Korea held in Seoul, Korea in 1987.He is listed in numerous publications and web sites as a prominent Zen teacher. By Logrider's criteria, most of the Zen teacher entries in Wikipedia will need to be deleted. =Jazzito 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)— Jazzito (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You said he is listed in numerous publications. Could you point out these publications. That's one of the things we wanted to know. --Knverma 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was cited in "Only Doing It For 60 Years," a book about Zen Master Seung Sahn as well as having his own chapter in that book. He has been published multiple times in Primary Point. And if you read carefully there are several other citations listed in the discussion. Jazzito 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should point out, "Only doing it for 60 years" [7] is a collection of contributions from students of Seung Sahn. Primary Point is the school magazine of KUSZ. -Knverma 00:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Only doing it for 60 years" is a tribute book that was put together as a birthday gift from the students of Zen Master Seung Sahn. It is an homage to their teacher published by the Kwan Un School of Zen (Primary Point Press). Cute book with no Zen substance. Primary Point is the membership community newsletter of the Kwan Um School of Zen. It lists the activities/milestones of the school and a few talks. Jazzito and KwanSeumBosal have simply listed activities that a Zen Master is suppose to do: giving talks, running retreats, meeting with other Buddhist teachers, raising funds for their temples, being listed on the web in Zen Center directories, etc. This is just evidence that he is doing his job, it is not evidence of notability. Oh, it is appropriate to delete non-notable entries no matter what the person's profession. Killerbeez 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: His book 'Going Beyond Buddha' has been translated into Czech and German. The German publisher is 'Fischer Verlag' - one of the most important publishers in Germany. The book has been published in 1999 under the title 'Das Zen des Lauschens'. In 2001 Dae Gak has been invited by the University of Kassel, Compartment of Psychoanalysis to hold a speech about Zen and Psychoanalysis. He has students in Berlin, Witzenhausen, Kassel, Dresden, Nurimberg and also in Bristol, England and London. He is listed under www.zenguide.de among (contemporary) Zen Masters.KwanSeumBosal 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)— KwanSeumBosal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmondshire district youth council

[edit]
Richmondshire district youth council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No external secondary source coverage that I could find per WP:RS; the only link given is to the council itself. Crystallina 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Cavanaugh

[edit]
Sandra Cavanaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Stellatomailing 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a contested prod. Updated only by single-purpose accounts. Looks like she is the director of small productions in the Boise area. About 50 Ghits on her name "theater". Older news bring some coverage for her move from Boise to Meridian in Idaho and trivial mentions; nothing non-trivial about her work. Stellatomailing 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn. Mukadderat 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like You (Keyshia Cole album)

[edit]
Just Like You (Keyshia Cole album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources indicate that this is the title of her sophmore album. The article is complete speculation, rumors, and crystal ballery. Admc2006 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KHOU-TV News Team

[edit]
KHOU-TV News Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Again, these pages violate WP:CRUFT and runs afoul of WP:NN. User:B49, and an unregistered IP address (User:68.237.111.217) he/she may be using to make similar edits, created this page and three other similar pages that are also up for AfD. Rollosmokes 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have no opinion about a page, it would be better not to nominate it for deletion. — CharlotteWebb 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janna Allen

[edit]

The article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. The notability of the subject was asserted sufficiently to avoid speedy deletion: she apparently co-wrote several hit songs, and her death was covered in Billboard Magazine. I'm moving this to AFD instead. No opinion. AecisBrievenbus 21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. — Caknuck 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Man, Moment, Machine (2nd AfD)

[edit]
Man, Moment, Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Repost and copvio, see 1st AFD below. Samuel 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This version is not a copyvio and thus not a repost of deleted material. The article is in bad need of cleanup and wikifying, but I believe there is sufficient precedent for broadcast television shows to have their own articles. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Can verify that this isn't a copyvio, but this article is in real need of work.--Blueboy96 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article (with sources) about a television program. What is the problem here? ~ Infrangible 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List elsewhere. If it's a suspected copyright violation, it should be listed at WP:CV, not here. --Tim4christ17 talk 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only reason I can see for this to have even been nominated is deletionists thinking "well, it was deleted once, so obviously it should be deleted again", even though it's been rewritten entirely. Which illustrates the fundamental problem with deleting articles for things like copyvio, instead of taking a minute to remove the copyright violations. It seems to me that unless an article clearly can never become encyclopedic (ie vanity articles, attack articles, etc), AfD should be a last resort. Unfortunately, it's all too often used as the first resort. — Red XIV (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whatever it was before, it's a good article now. Lists of episodes are universal for all major television fiction series, and the same should apply to nonfiction programming. DGG 08:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A stub about a TV program on a non-obscure network. Any concerns about copyright or cleanup should be addressed in a different setting. SliceNYC (Talk) 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's my first article and it's not gonna be perfect. I'm trying to fix it now. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as copyvio, not to mention spam --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, Moment, Machine

[edit]
Man, Moment, Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fancurft, reads like an advertisment, hard to fix, only source is officail site. Samuel 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mallanox 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WNYW-TV News Team

[edit]
WNYW-TV News Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Once again, Wikipedia:Fancruft. This information was originally in, and should be kept within, the main WNYW article, and is not notable enough for a stand-alone page. Same criteria as WNBC news team, WCBS-TV News Team, and WABC-TV News Team. Rollosmokes 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pretty marginal, with one record and a (future) tour as part of a package, but worthwhile I guess. Herostratus 13:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Abstract

[edit]
The Human Abstract (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, no claims of notability, no independent sources. Was db-tagged way back in December, but the creator of the article removed the tag. Corvus cornix 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Non-notable?
    • Results 1 - 10 of about 144,000 for "the human abstract". (0.11 seconds)
    • Results 1 - 10 of about 22,200 for "the human abstract" metalcore. (0.12 seconds)
    • Results 1 - 10 of about 19,800 for "the human abstract" nocturne. (0.12 seconds)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me In My Room Records

[edit]
Me In My Room Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN record label, spam, advert, fails WP:CORP Lugnuts 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By the way we redirect songs by notable artists, not delete them, if the songs are deemed not notable enough for standalone articles. W.marsh 17:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelo Suelto

[edit]
Pelo Suelto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The information here is contained in the article Gloria Trevi, this page seems redundant. Paul Tracy|\talk 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mallanox 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ryan Richards

[edit]
Timothy Ryan Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO by a large margin. Justin Berry may be notable; this person is not. He was a minor operative in Berry's organization and a porno performer who fails WP:PORN by a country mile. This article appears to exist mainly to shill for Richard's unnotable web sites and to generally hijack the Wikipedia for use in the Berry - Richards fight, which appears to be a minor catfight of limited interest to the world at large. Herostratus 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created to spinoff content about Richards from the Justin Berry article, as the Berry article was becoming heavily-laden, as was discussed in Talk:Justin Berry. How does being a spinoff affect the question of its retention? --Ssbohio 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs vastly improved, but the subject is notable within his particular world, and in consideration of the article's being spun off from Justin Berry, its notability should be considered in parallel with its main article. --Ssbohio 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Will, can the article be placed in my userspace (as User:Ssbohio/Timothy Ryan Richards) if the consensus is for deletion? I'd like to do some research on Richards and see if I can establish notability outside of his working for Justin Berry. --Ssbohio 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. As Richards is a key piece of the Justin Berry article, and certain forces (namely Justin Berry) have opposing views, it is only appropriate that Richards have his own article. This keeps with Wikipedia's main policy of maintaining neutrality as much as possible. In addition, there has been little time to conduct research into Richards to include additional and verifiable information. If the Richards article is deleted, then Justin Berry will cast Richards in such a negative light in order to make himself look like a saint. For this reason, the article on Timothy Ryan Richards must remain available. dmking12370
    • dmking, I agree that the article on Richards should be kept, but having a separate article to give Richards' "side" of the conflict creates what is called a POV fork, where content is split off from an article so that it and the article can push different points of view. I don't believe the article on Richards has been used that way, with the exception of an edit that was reverted (by me) and deleted by an administrator. --Ssbohio 05:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Mukadderat 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a vote, so what are your thoughts on this article? Is there anything that could be done to make it keepable in your eyes? Richards has notability, within his field, but it's tough to document. I'm hoping that there won't be a consensus to delete, but that some good ideas can come from this process to get the article up to spec. --Ssbohio 17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gondola spider

[edit]
Gondola spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax, no verifiable information located TeaDrinker 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add I ran the latin name through BIOSIS (a database of biology publications) as well as the Ohmdahl with no luck (nothing in google scholar either). While perhaps the actual publication of the species identification would be difficult to find, it is surprising (although not unheard of) to find a scholar with absolutely no publication record. --TeaDrinker 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utter rampant cobblers. The tarantulas are not native to Italy (what they call a tarantula is a much smaller true spider); the genus given to it (Brachypelma) does not list this one; the two external links are spurious - one is a forum thread (which doesn't even mention it) and the other is about a spider in a sandpit, which turned out to be a rubber one. But hey, it was in Germany, so that nearly counts as Italy, right? Totnesmartin 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carried out by Reedy Boy (CSD A1). nadav (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back from the Klondike.ps

[edit]
Back from the Klondike.ps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a place to collect computer code. This is not an encyclopedia article. (WP:NOT) nadav (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7 and possibly G10. (Note that, despite assertions below, it does get quite a few g-hits, simply due to being a common name. The specific Chris Kane referred to on the deleted page seems to have been this one.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kane

[edit]
Chris Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is useless IMHO and has no verifiable sources. -- Madmikeuk needs more cowbell. 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Madmikeuk needs more cowbell. 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Better no article than a bad article, but obviously better a decent, sourced article than no article... Fram 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaco Finlay

[edit]
Jaco Finlay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded because "Fails WP:BIO. He built two soon abandoned trading posts, and has many descendants. WP:NOT a genealogical site." Prod removed with quite uncivil comment at the talk page, with as main reason "Jaco Finlay is THE most important Native American in at least an eight hundred mile radius.". As for why no indication of this fact is presented in the article, which is over a year old: "It's not done fast enough? I think that's racist!". As I'm not impressed by these arguments, I present the article here at AfD for wider discussion. Fram 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Jaco Finlay garners what appears to be a decent number of Google hits for a late 18th/early 19th century person, including 60 Google Books hits [8]. The article doesn't establish notability as it is now, but it may be possible to improve it to do so. --Metropolitan90 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the first documented persons of European descent to cross the Continental Divide (though his full-blood boss, who came a year later, gets the credit). --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Barr

[edit]
Sandy Barr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Weatherman90 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Being from Portland myself, I can tell you that he is a very recognizable name in the region. I'm sure lots more stuff will be added. He has tons of google hits. Williamb 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Tons of google hits?" Not even close. A search for "Sandy Barr" doesn't even yield 10,000 results. For comparison, a search of my username, Weatherman90, yields over 13,000 results. Do I get an article? Weatherman90 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There is no question as of this point that the article now contains an independent reliable source. Canoe Networks, through their SLAM Sports section, is a very notable and reliable source that qualifies as an independent secondary source for WP:RS. This article is on my "to do" list, as can be seen by viewing the talk page, and I'm sure other sources can and will be found. While I believe notability can be argued concerning this individual, I should point out that lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion in Wikipedia's deletion policy. Further, WP:N is, in itself, only a guideline, it is not a policy; the policy one should look at when determining "notability" is WP:V, which this article has no problem with. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT paper. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sourcing directly from the subject (primary source) is appropriate (unless the info is likely to be challenged) as long as there is a WP:V secondary source. There is a WP:V independent secondary source for the article now (there wasn't when you voted), so frankly, you are wrong Hack, there isn't a problem with WP:V. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I'm not wrong. What is the secondary source? A book that confirms he was a wrestler? That doesn't confirm anything else, you're sourcing direct from quotes from the subject of the article. I suggest you read the sources you've added before making any further flippant remarks. One Night In Hackney303 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I've been directed by you to read what a secondary source is numerous times, and apparently where you directed me to read was incorrect...so, since the pages you directed me to where not accurate about what a secondary source is, please tell, what is a secondary source?
The book referenced does not substantiate that he was a wrestler, it substantiates that he was a wrestling promoter (which makes me wonder how much attention you've given to the article in order to make an informed decision and comment). The Canoe Networks article substantiates most of the rest of the information in the article (which if you had read the Canoe article you would have known that). Canoe Networks is a credible publisher of articles with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy and are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand (they are a Canadian based company that publish on a WIDE variety of subjects). Any information not sourced from the article is acceptable even thought it comes from an interview with the subject at hand as it complies with WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. So, unless your educating me on what a secondary source is was wrong...you are still wrong. - T-75|talk|contribs 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've paid considerably more attention than you, as is already apparent by the source you added. I assume you missed where it said Barr told the DutchSavage.com website, which happens to be the source that was there beforehand? Please provide independent verification for everything that is sourced from a direct quote, as I consider it to be self serving. Without independent sources it's impossible for a neutral, balanced article to be written. One Night In Hackney303 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*SIGH* So let me point out again, information that comes from an interview with the subject at hand is acceptable when it complies with WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, which this article does. Add that to the fact that information in the article was also contributed through interviews with Bob Leanoard, Buddy Rose, Ed Wiskowski, Dutch Savage, Velvete McIntyre and Ring Around the Northwest, and you begin to see that the article does have more credibility than you would give it; which tends to support the fact that Canoe Networks is a credible publisher of articles with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy and are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. So, everything remains kosher. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT--This guy is famous in Portland AND is very well known through the entire pro wrestling community. He was influential in getting many famous wrestlers their start. If people think he isn't notable, they don't know what they are talking about.

  • Keep Barr is well-known in Portland, Oregon, and through much of the Pacific Northwest and in Western Canada. I live about a mile from the flea market and would be happy to post a photo of the sign outside with his name on it if that would help the case. dreadpiraterobins 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Sandy Barr's has been a landmark and a gathering place (Tuesday night wrestling matches) for many years in St. Johns, the northernmost neighborhood in Portland, OR. If St. Johns is worthy of a page (and it has one) then I think Sandy Barr is notable enough.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Naked Gun cast members

[edit]
List of The Naked Gun cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is nothing more than a list of a few names and there is not much more that can be added. Dream out loud 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Ferrari

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Criteria have changed since this articles last afd. Epbr123 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zion-coder

[edit]
Zion-coder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article uses excessive praise and is a vanity article for the person calling themselves zion-coder. He is also completely non-notable. Patar knight 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Miller middle period engravings

[edit]
William Miller middle period engravings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is completely unnecessary. All of the images are available on the commons and a simple link to a commons gallery will suffice. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. The similar page, William Miller late period engravings should be deleted, too. Rkitko (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, as per the consensus here. Drachentaube appears to be a neologism and the article is not supported by multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. HTH HAND. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drachentaube

[edit]
Drachentaube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable "mythological" beast; not enough reliable, independent sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a feeling of hoaxiness about this article. Rhinoracer 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot really say any more than I have on Talk:Drachentaube. It is very depressing. Ednan 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this constitute an independent source? The linked webpage is from the "Members' Interactive Galleries" section of the Heraldry Society of Scotland's website. In all probability Dr. Clackson added this page himself; I certainly hope so, because the "poem" that reports the "legend" of the Drachentaube first appeared in Dragonlore, and is copyright Stephen Gregory Clackson. If this post is by the creature's inventor, it in no way constitutes an independent, reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Allow me to draw your attention to my note above. The Heraldry Gazette reference Heraldry Gazette (ISSN 0437-2980), LXXI (new series) March 1999, 6 is an independent report on the new grant of arms (not the poem) and the term “drachentaube” is used there. Ednan 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WaltonAssistance! 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed

[edit]
Victor Newman and Nikki Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another nomination for soap opera couples. Both these articles are about fictional couples from the soap opera The Young and the Restless. The characters and actors have their own articles, and these articles are just a chunk of plot summary and as such fail WP:NOT. EliminatorJR Talk 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Note: withdrawing nom for above article per extensive rewrite. AfD remains open for article below. EliminatorJR Talk 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. If the individual characters have their own articles, convergence of the two characters can be documented therein. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Careful. If you delete a soap opera article, it's evil twin will come back, or it will turn out that it was never really deleted, it just got amnesia. It may come back and announce it is the long lost father at a very inopportune moment, usually while a will is being read, or in the middle of a wedding. --Infrangible 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very important couple on the show The Young and The Restless, and I'm not even a fan of this couple, but they are just as lengendary as the Luke and Laura supercouple of the daytime drama General Hospital, though not as noteworthy. No soap opera couple can be as noteworthy as Luke and Laura, but some are, in fact, noteworthy. I am certain that I can better format a lot of these soap couple articles. All of the ones on the Supercouple list here at Wikipedia are indeed supercouples. I need time in tackling this article...as well as the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article, but I strongly oppose the deletion of any of these articles. They serve as clear-cut examples of the very definition of a supercouple and should remain here at Wikipedia, as we are to have a Supercouple article at all.

I'm a participant of WikiProject Soap operas, and our goal is to improve all these soap opera articles, couple or not. My own article was nominated for deletion here not too long ago as well, but it rather ended up with the result of "Keep" due to it now meeting Wikipedia standards, as well as WikiProject Soap Opera standards. The original nominator of that article for deletion, DES, a well-respected administrator here at Wikipedia even declared it as the best any of these type of articles can be.

EliminatorJR, I cite that you're acting in good faith, I understand your concerns on this matter clearly, but I ask that you re-consider tagging some of these supercouple soap opera articles for deletion, unless they just out-right need deletion, and instead rather tag them with "Plot" and or "In the need of expert attention", anything that is about clean-up as opposed to deletion, as we aim to improve these articles. Flyer22 09:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That'd be fine if these were new articles, or if there were only minor problems with them, but this one is over two years old and is still completely fails Wikipedia guidelines. "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." I'm certainly not saying every article in this category is unencyclopedic, but a huge amount of them are just plot summaries. If the unencyclopedic content can be cut right back, and the article sourced with real-world notability, then I'm quite happy to say keep - after all, AfD is for improvement, not just deletion.EliminatorJR Talk 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (switching from redirect) Redirect. I'm not a fan of the show, but I've helped develop the guidelines at WP:SOAPS as to when "couple" articles are appropriate. Right now this article is nowhere near the standard. If it can be brought up to speed, like if someone can add some real-world references to prove that this couple is notable outside of the world of soapdom, I might change my opinion though. To see an example of a couple article that was judged a "keep" on AfD, see J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey. --Elonka 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to "Keep". The article has been substantially rewritten and has multiple third-party sources which affirm the couple's notability.[9][10] Good job on the rewrite. --Elonka 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It provides information for Victor and Nikki as a supercouple--information that isn't found on their own separate pages. This page is able to go more in depth on their relationship. Miss Burkle 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your optimism on this matter, EliminatorJR. Or maybe that has more to do with if this article can produce more valid sources, as well as produce real-world context, then there's no problem. Whichever, I appreciate your mindset on this issue. I get that this article is an older article, but again, our project for bettering such articles is fairly new. It's going to be a challenge for me to fix up both of these articles before this debate is closed, and I'm not sure that I can do both at this time, but I'll try. Flyer22 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been updated

[edit]

This article now provides creation, real-world context and impact. Let me know if you're willing to reconsider it as a keep, EliminatorJR. Although, the Nick and Sharon article still needs fixing up. It might be best to have these two articles separate in their deletion debates, since I might not have the time to fix up the Nick and Sharon article.Flyer22 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much better! although I still think some of the plot summary could be removed without any real loss to the article. I'll keep the AfD open for the other article, but withdraw this one. EliminatorJR Talk 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nick and Sharon article has been updated

[edit]
  • Yeah, I know that the cultural impact section is all about the Sharon/Nick/Phyllis love triangle, but that was one of the most notable storylines within that romance, one of the most heated some fans of that show would say, gaining all kinds of different attention.

I didn't really change the summary of this article all that much. I just re-worded it in present tense, and I didn't feel that I needed to add that much to the summary as of now, since plot summaries are limited anyway. Flyer22 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 move to more standard name. W.marsh 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCBS-TV News Team

[edit]
WCBS-TV News Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For the same reasons I nominated both WABC-TV News Team and WNBC news team, which were WP:CRUFT and questionable notability to the Wikipedia community as a whole. This information was previously in the main WCBS-TV article and could be re-merged into it as well, but a stand-alone page should not exist. Many of the bios that are linked within this article should be looked at as well for WP:NN compliance. Rollosmokes 16:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The programs themselves are notable, and the size and scope of these articles does not lend them to merger with the parent articles. Furthermore, any AfD that uses the word "cruft", or any form thereof as an excuse for deletion ought to be retained for that reason alone. Alansohn 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An excellent finding source for linking to individual biographies, especially when all you know is he is that fat guy that does the weather. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Informative. "Cruft" is just an essay, not policy or guideline. --Nricardo 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on the station itself. I'm not sure why seperate articles on the news team are needed, and it seems to me that an article on the station would logically cover the staff, including the news team. Breaking out all of these articles into smaller articles isn't a great idea anyway: the WCBS-TV team may be notable, but then this is going to start happening to articles on, for example, the ION affiliate in Missoula, Montana. I'd prefer to keep these articles slimmer and more encyclopedic. It seems these articles are turning into little more than station web-site bios/publicity pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WCBS-TV per Firsfron.Blueboy96 20:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually a lot category by job entries are getting deleted. The problem is that in a business like this, people work for too many stations and in most cases, the station is not a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's the honest point of having this list around? Categories work better for this type of work Whsitchy 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would say Merge but wasn't the point of having separate articles for the news team to keep the main page from getting too big? WAVY 10 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of WCBS-TV personalities and keep. Being on a major network affiliate in the #1 TV market makes most of them notable, and the list is to large to be merged back into WCBS-TV. DHowell 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Moving to another article defeats the purpose of this AfD. The information is not too large to be merged back into the main article, and can be pared down considerably. Rollosmokes 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton, noteworthy and verifiable, meets content policies. RFerreira 06:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Flores

[edit]
Alexis Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't really see how being added to anybody's top ten is particularly notable. Navou 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who else got an article, and not sure how that argument is helpful here, I'm not really seeing this one satisfy WP:BIO. Navou 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see any reference to the editors like or dislike of the articles subject. How do you address the latter part of the argument referencing WP:N? Navou 19:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its well sourced and enough information. If there is not enough information for people that have been on in the past, they can have a line or two at the main article space. Top 10 is always notable, buy there isn't always enough meat for an entire article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives are notable. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that each fugitive on the Ten Most Wanted list is sufficiently notable to warrant their own page. The fact that not every one has had a page created is not justification for deleting those that do. 3 June 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RyanGentry (talk • contribs).
  • keep it is notable enough to be on top of the fbi list so it is notable for us too yuckfoo 01:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Executed by Kurykh (claim: CSD G7: Author Requests Deletion.) --Aarktica 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heeshem

[edit]
Heeshem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability per WP:CORP. Zero g-hits. Wall Street Journal article cited cannot be found and appears to be bogus. Previously speedied. Evb-wiki 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. This article should definitely be deleted. Anon345 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...care to tell us why you think it should be deleted? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Know what, just delete it because it's too small a corporation to be considered fit for an article in an encyclopedia, and also it's probably going to fail since it is going to be working for 10 months without money until it released its final project. So since I am the creator of this article, I give my concensus for it to be deleted. So if an admin sees this, delete Heeshem at once. --Mack540 15:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh can we just ask an admin to delete this?--Mack540 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Resurgent insurgent 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Tan

[edit]
Quincy Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:SPAM and WP:BIO (notability) Javit 15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Could you give the URL to your Google claims please. I don't seem to be able to find such a thing. Also, I suggest you check out the website links given at the article page. My opinion is that we can't have every single MySpace sort of may-break-anytime-but-not-yet musician in Wikipedia. Especially with this sort of blatant advertising. Therefore, I hope you'll reconsider your position. --Javit 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. For some reason, when I did the google search in my initial post, it had 262, 000 hits. Apparently I wasn't searching the competitions on the page. For this ignorant mistake, I change my vote to Delete or cleanup. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor just fixed the blatantly advertorial tone but the core issues remain --Javit 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per A7 (web). Peacent 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing Comedy Sagas

[edit]
Animal Crossing Comedy Sagas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article cites no sources. Non-notable web comic; only 10 Google hits -- MisterHand 14:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIFY: Codename Internets!

[edit]
OIFY: Codename Internets! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable game mod. Weregerbil 14:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it will help you to understand why this is happening by taking a look at some of our policies, specifically notability guidelines. The most important point there, is that notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Charlie 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Minerva, the multiplayer mod, is notable, but this is not? How so, what is the difference? Gutted 17:22, 3 June 2007 (GMT 1)

We aren't talking about Minerva. We are talking about this one. Besides, where's the article for the Minerva mod? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to that (i_speel_good), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINERVA_(mod) — Preceding unsigned comment added by i_speel_good (talk • contribs)
Looks like somebody has asked for some cleanup, so it may qualify for an AfD as well. Even so, this isn't the AfD for MINERVA (mod). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed; no reason for deletion offered, as this is essentially a request for clean-up. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends

[edit]
Fellowship of Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not so much for deletion, but for discussion. This article is rather bad, completly an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and has seems to be just self-promotion. I don't completely think is is deleteable, but needs a major reworking. Reywas92Talk 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created to ridicule the organization. Though many people put their efforts on improving the article, it still cannot be taken to a NPOV standard. I suggest deletion case should be re-opened. Baby Dove 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD G5. MaxSem 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Ghost

[edit]
Bloody Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. For a show that supposedly was made by Hanna Barbara for 27 years, no sign of it appears anywhere on their web page, or Cartoon Network that supposedly aired it, in fact no google search for "Bloody Ghost" turns up anything related to this supposed show, and with no sources cited (and the supposed logo looking like something made in MS Paint) this appears to be a blatant hoax. Also nominating Bloody Ghost (disambiguation) which only references above article. Nominating the MS Paint logo too. Wingsandsword 13:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Krimpet (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quezon Avenue MRT Station

[edit]
Quezon Avenue MRT Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Can't find a thing on the article's subject from any reliable source, let alone coverage by multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. The article's author is on record on the talk page stating that the article is written from personal experience, and that reliable sources do not exist. From anything I can find, I have to agree with him. The subject is thus unverifiable, non-notable, and impossible to write about without the use of original research. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, I really want to say transwiki here, but what you can transwiki this to is sitting on a rackmount server that is soon to be heading to Oakland, California via FedEx Ground. Is there some way to archive this stuff pending deletion, or will I just want to userfy it to my own user space? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well...there's always userfication to one's hard drive, too. Although generally if you want to transwiki something that's been deleted, you can ask to have it temporarily history-restored and userfied while you do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am but one user who wrote that article. I may have wrote my share of the article possibly using some OR, but it does not mean that everyone else did. Does notability solely have to hinge on it having references (by the way, I inserted a reference on an incident at the said station)? --Sky Harbor 07:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can give a source (magazine) for this and all of the MRT and LRT articles. --Howard the Duck 07:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand the notability of this station. Sure the system is notable, even the line probably can meet notability guidelines, but I am unconvinced that the station does. The ref just added to the article doesn't provide any information on the station itself at all, but just mentions it as placemark for the extent of an incident. "The incident stalled the southbound train between the Quezon Avenue and GMA-Kamuning stations . . ."
  • Weak keep. A system map will show the station. [12] shows some reliable sources for its existence. If there were public planning studies, those can be used to fill in information; I'm not sure how this works in the Philippines. If nothing more can be added than what is already here, it is probably better merged into Quezon City or a new Quezon Avenue article. I myself am on the fence regarding individual rapid transit stations. Normally an underground one on an older system will have enough information, as I discovered when I tested this on the Grand Army Plaza station in New York City. On a newer elevated system with every station almost identical, it may not be possible to do this. --NE2 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also agree the system is notable, but I fail to see how the station is notable. BeckyAnne(talk) 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. While this is a new station and not much about it is available as secondary sources, the train line is notable and the intersection it serves is also notable. Ultimately, this is better merged with a well-developed article on Quezon Avenue, an important trunk line in Metro Manila. Until then, I say keep. --Polaron | Talk 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a major metro station in a major city. This is where systemic bias really comes in; it's just not feasible to say "give me a source right this second" when the sources (of which, we know from dealing with similar cases, near-universally exist) are in the Phillippines, and to assert that because such a source isn't immediately forthcoming you can make any judgement about its notability is simply nonsense. Rebecca 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. Major station in major city. --Oakshade 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Sky Harbor 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the keeps are piling. I have nothing new to add. —Gaff ταλκ 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional - If Quezon Avenue MRT Station should be deleted then delete all other light rail stations like the Choa Chu Kang MRT/LRT Station of the Bukit Panjang Light Rapid Transit in Singapore otherwise keep. I think that is fair enough. - Jojit fb 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Metro stations in general are a notable landmark in every city. The inclusion of a news article about an incident further strengthens its notability.--Kylohk 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems this article has potential for improvement, especially once Phillipine sources are found and used. In any case, I believe any such station is sufficiently notable infrastructure for Wikipedia. - Axver 13:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Price

[edit]
Jared Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject. Player has never appeared in major leagues. He has also never done anything notable. Fbdave 13:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes geographical names

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of songs whose title includes geographical names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Strong delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs on this massive list have absolutely nothing in common with each other beyond the coincidence of having a "geographical name" of some sort in their titles. They do not share subject matter or theme in common. It indiscriminately captures songs titled with any geographical feature from a street to a continent, across multiple languages. Lists for songs titled after landmarks and fictional places have been deleted and this list is an order of magnitude worse. Otto4711 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Heroes

[edit]
Everyday Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources establishing the notability of this fictional television program. Otto4711 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as an attack page and BLP violation. If it turns out it was a hoax instead of an attack on a real person, no harm done. Newyorkbrad 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Achilleos

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

This looks like a hoax. Cannot find this person on Google and it has only been edited by a single use user. There are also certain passages in the article which are extremely hard to believe if they are true e.g. "he worked as a Dentist for 7 months before being struck off for being caught on CCTV, putting his schlong into a male patients mouth while he was unconcious" and "attempting to spunk in his own gullet" PTSE 12:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akrab

[edit]
Akrab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Based on my religious faith, I consider the Hebrew Bible the most reliable source that exists. However, by Wikipedian standards, it's rather flimsy for suggesting that the identity of Rehoboam's "Akrabim" were long rods with metal balls inside, or whatever. Either source it or delete it. YechielMan 12:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airus

[edit]
Airus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like another non-notable band. The statements of national tour are not attributed, and the interview in the Chicago Sun-Times that would have taken place in 2006 does not show up in a Google search. YechielMan 12:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Much as I love to save band articles, this one's difficult. No secondary sources bar musiqtone.com, which I'm a bit dubious about, unless someone can find that Chicago Sun-Times interview, and Google throws up nothing but a few blogs and primary sources. Their website [13] shows a Elgin local newspaper article about their CBGBs appearance, but nothing else. Their album was supposed to be released last year, but I can't fins anything about that either. It doesn't need much to squeak through, but at the moment it's not quite there. EliminatorJR Talk 12:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely non-notable. See how many ghits you get when searching "Airus Garbrecht" (the singer's last name). Totally fails WP:BAND WP:V, and it's WP:AB, too. Closenplay 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate sources to verify that they are sufficiently notable to meet WP:Band. A1octopus 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cionnaith Ó Súilleabháin

[edit]
Cionnaith Ó Súilleabháin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent election who fails to meet any other notability criteria Google [14] doesn't show up anything unrelated to the election Valenciano 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan O'Brien

[edit]
Jonathan O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent Irish election who doesn't satisfy any other notability criteria Valenciano 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Also very un-notable. It's a stub that lacks any information other than that he was in the elction. It should be deleted without discussion! Meldshal42 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.--Svetovid 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra McLellan

[edit]
Sandra McLellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent election who does not appear to satusfy any other notability criteria. The only thing that google turns up are pages on her written by her own party Valenciano 11:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Yes. Very true. This article lacks more notability than a tissue. It's also a stub; and Sandra McLellan has not done anything important. It should be deleted. Meldshal42 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Capone

[edit]
Dino Capone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to provide external sources, I have already speedied a good bunch of articles related to this one. Article claims that the subject was killed and returned to his brother in 10 bags, but a google search shows nothing[15], which is strange considering that such a case would be likely to at least be mentioned in the media. Delete for being non-notable! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. I'm closing the AfD since the nominator has changed his vote to keep, and keep is obviously the consensus anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetal

[edit]
Transmetal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Way too short, not much band information, less than 10 words, and the page seems not have no one contributing to it to make it grow into a real encyclopedic or informative article.Migospia †♥ 10:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Utilities

[edit]
Caribbean Utilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is blatant advertising; in addition, the article's creator removed the speedy deletion template. Anthony Rupert 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin clicking

[edit]
Goblin clicking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prod reason was: Completely unreferenced (WP:V). Google search reveals 10 hits, exactly 0 of which are reliable sources.. Prod was removed by an anonymous user without comment or addition of sources. Marasmusine 08:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China Green Party

[edit]
China Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable PalaceGuard008 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of claim to notability. Appears to be an organisation with only an online presence, no verifiable membership, and no third party links/sources/references. --PalaceGuard008 07:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No notablity asserted, and search engines returned no positive results. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that this is more than a website. Political parties by their nature receive press coverage. Even if this party's activities can only occur outside China, if they were notable they ought to be covered at least by Chinese expatriate publications, or even by the regular press of other countries. EdJohnston 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nothing to delete. If you want to merge this somewhere, discuss it or boldly merge it. W.marsh 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signals and slots

[edit]
Signals and slots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In a recent edit, user Wikidrone added the AfD template to the page Signals and slots with the comment "duplicate of the Observer Pattern". I am just completing his nomination pro forma. I personally think that a suggestion to merge signals and slots with observer pattern would have been more appropriate. As for the page signals and slots itself I say weak keep, don't merge. I agree that Qt's signals and slots mechanism is just an example of a concrete realization of the observer pattern, but I think the widespread use of the Qt application framework establishes enough relevance for this page. I however think that the page needs to be rewritten to make this relationship with the observer pattern clearer. Tobias Bergemann 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I think too that the page should not be deleted. However, Signals and slot is not a design pattern but a language construct (calling MOC a language is questionable but reasonable enough).
    The context is:
    Callback (computer science) does not mention explicitly multicast callbacks nor the Observer pattern. Being multicast is what differentiates simple callbacks from signals and slots or C# delegates or whatever. It is easy to think to the implementations without thinking to the Observer pattern, and many readers do. Additionally, if you start from examples in the Callback article (passing a callback to be invoked on each element of an array), you'll see that they cannot be "cast" in form of, nor thought of as, realizations of the Observer pattern.
    Finally, the most important language constructs (Qt signals and slots, C# delegates) devoted to this should be mentioned as separate articles, but regarding just the language constructs.--Blaisorblade 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see duplicate articles, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first port of call. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Don't bring articles to AFD if an administrator hitting a delete button is not what you want. Uncle G 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with a significant interest in renaming it to a better title. Please do so as you see fit. — CharlotteWebb 02:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Blackman

[edit]

This is not really a biography, but a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Blackman's murder. While there are ample news sources about this event and subsequent court cases, etc., this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a sensationalist tabloid. Articles that contain information such as "The man, whose name Lucie did not share with anyone, had offered her a prepaid mobile phone if she would accompany him to a restaurant near the beach" do not, in my opinion, serve an encyclopedic purpose. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Motozane

[edit]
Abe Motozane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has had no sources or references for over a year, and has been tagged as lacking sources for 5 months. It is unverifiable, and questionable as to if it even fits the qualification of a notable person for a biography due to a complete lack of additional information during the past year. Unsourced history articles are inherently worthless, and can (and do) propogate incorrect information. Furthermore, unsourced articles about people who lack much in the way of notability have no real purpose or place on Wikipedia. Kuuzo 06:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Unfortunately, "I like it" and "I found it useful" doesn't cut it. This isn't a Linux howto guide nor a free web host, it's an encyclopedia: that means we only cover important subjects, in a neutral (non promotional) way, using reliable sources. This appears to fail on all 3 counts. kingboyk 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uberyl

[edit]
Uberyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability must precede article creation. Chealer 05:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some quotes such as the one mentioned above by PrimeHunter, are ones got from the Spanish Wikipedia, basically I combined the article there with my own knowledge. > Rugby471 talk 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found this article on the regular Ubuntu page, which listed a slew of derivative distros. Clicking on this link was a valid resource for me and was quite informative. I think that the interlinking of articles is crucial to the Wikipedia ecosystem and I don't want to see this article axed.
  • Keep. I'm a newbie on linux and ubuntu, and this information proved useful for me. Of course, the "add" formulation might be changed for a balanced review by a few editors...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A7 doesn't apply, but there's a clear consensus here that this is WP:OR and non-notable. Krimpet (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOL chatroom game

[edit]
AOL chatroom game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable class of web games. Completely original research that lacks any sources. Fails WP:NOR, WP:N and WP:V. Does not assert reasons for notability, so possibly a candidate for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Chardish 05:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Colinux

[edit]
Open Colinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability to come. Chealer 05:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was move. W.marsh 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WNBC news team

[edit]
WNBC news team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For reasons similar to the AfD request for WABC-TV News Team. The information in this article should be moved onto the WNBC page, in case no movement is made on the Merge Into request, then this article should be deleted and its contents can be reconstructed. Rollosmokes 05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly makes this list "indiscriminate"? DHowell 02:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of a defining characteristic for inclusion on the list. 81.104.175.145 08:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Sarah 05:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndal Eckersley

[edit]
Lyndal Eckersley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent hoax, there appears to be a real 25-year old Lyndal Eckersley, but she is not a pioneer teacher.--Grahamec 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The keep !vote above is a refactoring by User:124.150.68.107 of a delete !vote by User:AAA!. I've restored AAA!'s opinion above, but left the evidence of manipulation as well. Deor 11:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move. W.marsh 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WABC-TV News Team

[edit]
WABC-TV News Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article falls under Wikipedia:Fancruft. The information can already be found within the main WABC-TV article, and creating a separate page for this non-notable information is not only a waste of space, but only serves a small group of people and not the entire Wikipedia community. There are also various links to articles about these personalities, and most of those should also be deleted for the same reasons, and probably more. Rollosmokes 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to List of WABC-TV personalities as a proper subpage of WABC-TV, of which a full third of visual space is bulleted lists of people associated with the station now or in the past. (Given it's in NYC and it's a corporate O&O station, these people are more frequently notable than a typical franchise station, and the station is the source of network programming such as Regis & ....) --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd rather see the "Current Personalities" remain in the main article, rather than a subpage, however the notability of many of those entries is suspect. "Past Personalities" is mostly trivia I think; the fact that they once worked at WABC-TV would be notable on their own article pages, but not here. Plenty of exceptions such as Howard Cosell for this major franchise however. Lipsticked Pig 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Behr (food writer)

[edit]
Edward Behr (food writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have an axe to grind. I tagged this page for speedy A7 deletion, it was declined, and someone used it as a reason to oppose my RFA. After examining the issue more carefully, I am now convinced that he is, indeed, not notable. The source given in the article says that he was confused by the Associated Press as being the recently deceased Edward Behr (journalist). As far as I can tell, Edward Behr has written just two books - the Artful Eater and the Art of Eating - neither of which is particularly notable. The parameters of CSD A7 aside, WP:BIO should destroy this article, and the associated disambig page should become a redirect. YechielMan 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with having written "only" two books. Google tells me that this chap is quite well-known within his subculture; in addition to his books, he also publishes a notable quarterly magazine, The Art of Eating. I'm also very wary about someone who AfDs an article not because it genuinely ought to be deleted, but because he's sooking about his RfA result. That is not appropriate behaviour for any Wikipedia user, and is certainly out of line for an admin candidate. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the RFA wasn't a factor in the reasoning for deletion, I would still have voted to delete the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. You're Zach, not Yechiel. Also, vote? Words like that make Baby Jimbo cry. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, remembering the old days. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think we have enough on this fellow to keep a biography about him. From most of the things I saw on Google, they were either websites that sell his books or the obit he was mentioned in. It would not be a good idea to have an article where the crux of it says "This man is known for being confused with a dead journalist." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One(?) book only, that quickly went out-of-print (now re-published). Publishes a food magazine, quarterly. But seems (at least by the blurbs he puts on his website) to be highly-esteemed by "foodies". Might qualify under WP:BIO as a creative professional who "(b) has won significant critical attention", but outside those circles he really isn't known/notable. The article as it exists right now isn't worth dinner at McDonalds however. Lipsticked Pig 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Malc82's argument this AfD is clearly a WP:POINT. There is at least a source and a half present in the article and can be a viable article with expansion... Ranma9617 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Google News Archive hits (most behind paywalls) include encomiums like Behr's standing as one of this country's finest food writers [21], I share Saveur's admiration for Behr's in-depth examination of everything from cognac to vanilla [22], and no fewer than 13 NYT citations. I'll incorporate what I can, here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stubtastic and non-notable. Notability seems to chiefly consist of who he is not. His book appears to be self-published. If there's at least an ISBN for his magazine, that'd go a long way towards quelling my distaste for an article that appears to be a {{for}} tag on steroids. Jouster  (whisper) 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Level of sourcing provided does not establish notability per WP:BIO. It seems his main source of notability is having been confused with another (notable) journalist of the same name, for which claim only one source is provided. Waltonalternate account 13:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. keeping the redirect will be useful for people who search for this term. W.marsh 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Linux

[edit]
Flash Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub on non-notable dead Linux distribution. Google hits for "Flash Linux" are not too low, but mostly come from Adobe Flash and this article. Chealer 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge/redirect per above. No claims of notability. Someguy1221 04:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This and pendrivelinux were notable enough that I head about the idea before I saw it here. Is there criteria for software? Anyway, I'm not sure if it is the same thing, but IGEL flash linux has lots of hits in google news [23]. My !vote is very weak, though, as I'm not well informed about it. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro and Dykstra

[edit]
Nitro and Dykstra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

My reason for nomination is that the team isn't notable enough as of yet. Teams like that come and go, so an article for the team shouldn't be created yet.  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable yet, they've only teamed a couple of times. The page name isn't even right, they are not "Nitro and Dykstra" (they are go by their full names). TJ Spyke 03:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per TJ Spyke - Shudda talk 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per above. Knowing pro wrestling though, they'll be around more. Whsitchy 06:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and dump the corpse over Kenny's shoulder. Totally makeshift tag team at the moment; see Cena and Michaels. MarcK 06:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not think this page should be deleted. I see why you think they may be a make shift tag team but WWE has made them an entrance video and tunnel video graphics, so surely they do not think they are only make shift. Why would they waste time doing this if they was only going to be around for the short term? Secondly, where is your source that they go by the full names? Jim Ross this week, labelled them as Nitro and Dykstra.
  • Keep Signs indicate they are going to be a regular fixure on the Raw roster, and if it's name problem you have I will fix the redirects — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMorpheus (talk • contribs)
    • They may be notable in the future, but they aren't yet. Also, I was just pointing out the name problem. It had nothing to do with my opinion on deleting it. There is nothing stopping this article from being recreated if the team does become notable. TJ Spyke 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Currently lacks notability, but maybe recreate in the future. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no reason for an article on this short-lived team. Any valid information can go in the subject's respective articles (emphasis on the word valid). Suggestions that this team are likely to be a long-term regular unit are not legitimate reasons for inclusion (see WP:CRYSTAL). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Not notable. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Nikki311 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This team is not yet notable as per WP:N. There may be "signs" that they may be notable in the future, but there have been lots of teams that had signs of being notable who never became such. If the team becomes notable at a later date then the article can be recreated. My advice for the person(s) interested in having it is to work on it on your personal pages (sourcing it properly), and then if they become notable, transfer it to the proper page. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Someone has been regularly removing delete votes. Closing admin please check through page history. I've restored some, but not all as don't have time to troll through all the votes. - Shudda talk 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This team has done nothing notable yet, perhaps in the future if they become an established team, but they're nothing of the sort yet. Bmg916SpeakSign 19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No more of this "Two random people teamed up with no backstory, so we should make an article of them". Cena and Michaels was deleted, so this should go too. BBoy
Excellent point, considering Cena and Michaels are far more notable individually than the article subjects and their team were tag champs. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the point which has been made above. The WWE Champion and one of the biggest Superstars of the WWE ever team up, they win the Tag Titles, and they don't get a page - what makes people think that this lot will be any different.... --SteelersFan UK06 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy White

[edit]
Timmy White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Due to his lack of interviews and appearances, over the years, I gather this person wants his privacy. He is not a public figure anymore thus the article should go. Fighting for Justice 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability does not expire. We don't delete articles on people because there has been no news in a while. Phony Saint 03:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps, it needs to be reexamined. I believe he is a part of the Steven Stayner kidnapping. I think it is better to mention him in the Steven Stayner article. However, outside the kidnapping we know nothing about Timmy White himself that would warrant it's own article. He did not become an advocate of any sort. I don't believe he meets all the notability, and he never asked to be a public figure or a footnote in someone else's abduction. His notability wasn't even assessed. Fighting for Justice 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD is an attempt at making a point stemming from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Smart (abductee), then this should be speedily kept. If not, I would think that the movie would give him enough recognition to be notable. A merge wouldn't be out of the question, however. Phony Saint 04:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the case of Ben Ownby does parallel Timmy White. They were both kidnapped by an abductor who had an older boy as a captive. And I don't see why we can't question White's notability when White appears to be living his life in privacy. With that, I think it is wrong to have an article about him. He clearly doesn't want to be in the limelight, and a wikipedia article in his name is giving him a limelight. Fighting for Justice 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more limelight than being a character in a movie/miniseries which was broadcast on NBC and Lifetime. Unlike Ownby, he's not a minor anymore. Phony Saint 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good comparison. Those people made the choice to be in them, and we don't have biographies for every Joe Average that appear on TV. White is not a public figure, and wikipedia isn't going to be any less of an encyclopedia if we remove an article named after him. He can be mentioned in the Parnell and Stayner articles. Fighting for Justice
Comment - Did you even read any of my other comments, before you added your blithe commentary? I'm saying the person is a non-public figure and lives in privacy. His only reason for an article is because his abductor had an older kid captive, outside of that we know nothing about him. Fighting for Justice 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there have been AfD's in the past started because of an e-mail of a living person who was on wikipedia. Even those were keep (not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Plus, can you prove he wants a private life? That would make me switch to delete. Whsitchy 06:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I can not, however, if he did he would have little or no problem gaining it - as result of being kidnapped by a infamous pedophile. His first public appearance was at the age of 5, which happened the day after he and Steven got rescued. At 14, he attended Stayner's funeral. He stayed out of legal problems,married and is a father of 2 kids. His next public appearance was in 2004, at the sentencing hearing for the man who kidnapped him when he was 5. Besides, I should not have to prove a negative. I should not have to prove that a person who really has been obscured most of his life is obscured. Almost as nonsensical as your Queen Elizabeth comparison. Fighting for Justice 06:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If only because there was a movie/book made about the event. Questions of whether this should be incorporated into an article on the main person involved are another matter, and given the recent contentious discussion on this kind of subject, I don't know if it'll be settled here. FrozenPurpleCube 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as far as it goes, we can't assume anything about this person's desires, and the idea that a person can have the article on them deleted simply because they wish it is troublesome as it smacks of censorship. FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there never was an assessment that he was notable. Some person created the article, because he was kidnapped but other then that there is no other notability about him. According to WP:NPF Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person. I think a redirect to Kenneth Parnell or Steven Stayner is the proper thing to do. Fighting for Justice 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not arbitrary in statement, only endowment. I agree the article could be merged, but I don't see the necessity of doing so. DDB 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (approved in IRC by Raul654). Non admin closure. Whsitchy 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caging list

[edit]
Caging list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason GTTofAK 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into the long story of events surounding this lets keep it short and simple.

In October of 2004 "journalist" Greg Palast of the BBC accused members of the Bush 2004 Flordia election campaign of engaging in voter fraud based on e-mails he acquired from GeorgeWBush.org. These e-mails reportedly contained a list of names and the word caging. Palast claimed that caging was a form of voter fraud. His story was rejected by almost all major news serviced because none of them could verify his claim that caging meant what he said, see this October 27 2004 Salon.com article. Hours after Palast was rejected by most all major news services due to their inability to verify this definition of caging someone came to wiki and created a this page to back up Palast claim.

It is clear that this article does not meet Wiki standards. All the links are from within the Palast circle mainly his original BBC claim and GeorgeWBush.org. It is clear that this article is a blatant attempt misuse wikipedia and create evidence to support a false claim. Unless some real evidence outside of Palast's circle and be supplied to bolster this definition of Caging it should be deleted. Wikipedia should not be abused in this way.

Might I remind the admins that this article is being used all over the internet to accuse real people of real crimes.

  • Delete These allegations were made by one partisan journalist and though endlessly repeated on conspiracy websites they were not covered by reputable sources, nor were they supported by the BBC, which is never shy of knocking republicans. As no credible evidence for this scam was ever produced and it wasn't sourced in multiple sources it shouldn't be here. Nick mallory 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD isn't cleanup. However, the article probably needs to be split into Caging (direct mail) and Caging (politics). The first article is a Keep as the term is certainly widely in use in the direct mail industries and is sourced in the article. If the term is being falsely used in its spread into the political arena then the second article doesn't need to exist, but the Palast episode appears to have fixed the term into a shorthand for a type of electoral fraud. Even if the allegations against the Bush administration are false, they have been written about by a lot of WP:RS, notably the BBC (even if the BBC didn't support them, as Nick mallory says) - the article only needs to point out that they are allegations, not fact. As long as the article is NPOV then Wikipedia isn't being abused. EliminatorJR Talk 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. --Nricardo 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith nom. Monica Goodling admitted to this tactic under oath in congressional testimony. Google news search: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] --Infrangible 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodling didn't admit that the practice existed only that the accusation had been made. She defined her understanding of the term in the true sense of the word. "it's a direct-mail term, that people who do direct mail, when, when they separate addresses that may be good versus addresses that may be bad"

That is not the same thing as this.

"Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat) by getting them knocked off the voter rolls if they fail to answer registered mail sent to homes they aren't living at (because they are, say, at college or at war)."

Every campaign partakes in the practice of caging in its true mail order sense of the word. That does not make it a form of voter fraud or a term used to describe a form of voter fraud. This article needs to be taken down before this fraud spreads any further. Congragulations you have 5 links where people are basically parroting Palasts allegation or in the case of one reference the wikipedia article. Do you have any evidence that this term has ever been used in that sense outside of this circle? If not this needs to be taken down for the same reason the story was rejected 3 years ago. Wikepedia is not a crock pot where crack pots like Palast can dump in some false information then let simmer for 3 years then recycle the story using it as a source.GTTofAK 04:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Whether or not Palast was correct and how his argument is presented is something for dispute resolution within the article. Regardless, the term has become notable if only because Goodling was quizzed about it before a Congressional body. Please follow neutrality guidelines in writing the article, and please don't engage in pointy AFD nominations that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no independent sources on this outside of Palast. Word for word parrotings are not independent. Unless one can be found it shouldn't be up. If this is such a common term in political campaigns someone should be able to find a reference to it outside of Palast's allegation. Without proper sourcing this article is in violation of wikipedia's standards. Agian I remind everyone that this article was made the same day the mainstream media and even the non-mainstream media rejected Palast's allegation because they could not verify his definition of caging. Its quite obvious to anyone who reads Salon.com's rejection of his claim and then looks at the date and time that this article was created that it was created to invent the supporting evidence that Palast lacked.GTTofAK 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and don't bring your conspiracy theories to AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll say it again. It doesn't matter whether the story is true or false, what matters is whether the term is notable. Given the huge amount of reliable secondary sources writing about it at the moment, the answer is probably yes. As long the article itself doesn't make baseless accusations but merely reports the controversy, then no rules or guidelines are being broken. EliminatorJR Talk 08:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per EliminatorJR. The term is in widespread use. It may be that Palast's use is controversial or unconventional - I'm no expert - but the very fact that Goodling used the term before Congress without being asked to define it demonstrates its notability. If the article is biased, that may be fixed without deleting it. This AfD appears to come from a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, and should be concluded so that the energy being expended here can be redirected toward improving the article. -Pete 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Evidently, the term has been taken note of by House Judiciary Chair Conyers and is the object of further investigation and discovery. Since it's a term now current in the news, especially under its alternate entry as "vote caging," it has an obvious place in Wikipedia. In fact, much of this controversy seems to be based on the fact that the two terms, "Caging list," and "Vote caging," are conflated by Wikipedia. I recommend separating them with a link showing that the two terms are related and that the second is based upon the first, since their meanings appear to be diverging. As for complaints that reporting has been targeted at Republicans, that has more to do with the asymmetric nature of political vote caging than with the Republican party per se. It just happens that those voters who are most susceptible to the technique tend primarily to be poor, Black or Hispanic, and/or homeless. whether temporarily or otherwise. Since such people don't typically vote for Republicans, the practice is very valuable for one party, and almost worthless for the other. As for the sneering use of ironic quotes around the word "journalist" when referring to Mr. Greg Palast at the beginning of this discussion, this is perhaps an indicator that the author does not, himself, represent a truly neutral point of view, however much he likes to think of his personal opinions as "simple facts." Lee-Anne 12:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD isn't a cleanup procedure. --81.82.14.85 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be a lot of obfuscation here. This article is not about the alligation or the story it is about the term caging. Palast's definition of caging as a form of voter fraud has never been verified by independent third parties. In fact it was rejected by most all independent third party sources 2 1/2 years ago because it was not verifiable. This article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability standards and as such it is perfectly acceptable to put it up for deletion. So don't try to accuse me of being ignorant of board rules.. Rather than complaining perhaps the people here should go and find some source that independently verifies Palast's claim rather than parroting him word for word. If its such a common term and practice that should be easy right?GTTofAK 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can I point you, again, to the comments above?. It doesn't matter whether Palast is right or wrong. Whether or not the term was in use before, it is now, and that's reported by multiple reliable sources. And, to be honest, your POV pushing as pointed out by User:Lee-Anne is rather noticeable. EliminatorJR Talk 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So your argument is that it doesn't matter if the verification requirements have not been met. All that matters is that the lie has spread far enough. Thank you for confirming ones of the many faults with wikipedia. And no I don't think Palast is a credible journalist he is a muck raker that even the far left takes with a big grain if salt thats why I put it in quotes. Sue me.GTTofAK 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • GTTofAK said: Thank you for confirming ones of the many faults with wikipedia. 'Comment: The fault we should be concerned about is whether the mechanisms of Wikipedia are used properly to better the encyclopedia. If you have the goal of demonstrating a problem with Wikipedia, that would constitute a serious conflict of interest in this decision. Your positions are not unreasonable, but the idea that they constitute a reason to delete the article is simply illogical. Once that issue is settled, your arguments will be welcome in the process of ensuring that the article is as accurate as possible. But as long as you argue for the article's deletion, the only thing you accomplish is to undermine your own credibility. -Pete 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • GTTofAK said: This article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability standards... Comment If the BBC and the Guardian are not verifiable, what organization is? The Wikipedia verifiability standard doesn't address truth or falsity at all, but whether the item in question has some sort of reality beyond rumor and urban legend. While it may have been true at one time in the past that the Greg Palast story was relatively unsubstantiated, many similar stories have surfaced, in several different contexts, and the GeorgeWBush.org site has published the wrongly-delivered e-mails which form part of the basis for the original story, which also contain the term vote caging. Complaining about verifiability at this point is beating a dead horse; the issue is in the public eye and many have commented on it, some with independent information. As a meaningful phrase, the term deserves some treatment if the Wikipedia is to remain current with modern language. It might help to make more effort to ensure a neutral tone, either by mentioning verifiable examples of vote caging by other political parties or by recasting the discussion as more theoretical, either without specific reference to particular incidents or parties or by relegating all such references to external links. Lee-Anne 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Everything posted is editorial by Palast. And Palast opinion is not a credible source. If this is such a common use of the term why is is so hard to find evidence outside of Palast.GTTofAK 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Not true: Monica Goodling's testimony before Congress using the term, the BBC and/or The Guardian's publication of Palast's material, and the common use of the term on blogs, talk radio, etc. are more than sufficient to credibly establish that the term "caging" has a meaning in politics, whether or not the technique has ever been used. That is all that has to be established to justify keeping the article. Specific arguments about when, where, and by whom caging has or has not been used are utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, and thus the allegedly controversial nature of Palast's claims simply have no bearing on an "article for deletion" nomination. They may have bearing on the contents of the article once it is kept. (2) GTTofAK, do you have a professional, financial, or other significant interest in suppressing discussion of vote caging? Are your edits to Wikipedia part of your duties in a paid position? -Pete 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can be fixed by proper sourcing. An example: Reed, William (May 30, 2007). "Caging: how 'they' diminished the power of our vote". San Francisco Bay View. San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper. Retrieved 2007-06-06.
    -- Yellowdesk 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, sources provided demonstrate the encyclopedic value of this article. RFerreira 05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight eve

[edit]
Twilight eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable manga by non-notable creators. Google searches: "Twilight eve" manga, "Anthony Zapata" manga, "Shatee Harris". The article admits "a decision has not yet been made" about whether this will be published. (WP:BK#Not yet published books) nadav (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous musical acts that have played at CBGB

[edit]
List of famous musical acts that have played at CBGB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR; List of loosely associated topics. Just because some unrelated musical acts happened to have played at a small venue at some point in their careers is not a strong enough connection or identifying characteristic to create a list of those artists. Many of the most significant artists are already mentioned in the main article; any other major performances can also be added there. Masaruemoto 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Placed EL with list of notable acts on CBGB main article page. Lipsticked Pig 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lipsticked Pig, and follow L.P.'s advice with regard to the external link. The article about CBGB already mentions the major acts who were closely associated with the venue (such as Blondie and Talking Heads). There were many other acts who were less closely associated with CBGB, but nonetheless played there at some point in their career; we don't need a separate article to list them. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lipsticked Pig. JJL 04:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CBGB was a temple of its types of music, regardless of size. --Nricardo 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a section in the article on CBGB. It's probably fair to note the bands that were actually influential to the scene on the venue's article, but this does not warrant it's own article. A1octopus 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into CBGB. For its genre, it was as important as other halls were for their genres, like Carnegie Hall, Club 47, Grand Ole Opry. And every performance hall, even a famous one, is local. -- Yellowdesk 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I would not recommend merging this page back into CBGB - it was originally moved here because it was making the main article unwieldy and was often vandalized. I can see how this list is still the magnet for vandals that it was when it was part of the CBGB page. However, CBGB was more significant than just an average rock venue, and I believe this is not just a vanity list. - AKeen 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Sayre

[edit]
Jill Sayre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A short biography which devotes most of its space to the subject's self-published novel. Fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because as it fails to meet WP:BIO. Both are the creation of Dchi7, a single purpose account.:

The Waiting Womb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jill Sayre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- {View Afd}

This article needs some touching up. However, I think that information needs to be added to it; but that it be deleted? True; what's there now is a pathetic excuse for such a strong, wonderful writer, but if some people improve the article, it won't have to be deleted. Understand? Meldshal42 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As stated above, both nominations are based on the arguement that the subjects fail WP:N - in particular, Jill Sayre fails WP:BIO, while The Waiting Womb fails WP:BK. Poor quality has nothing to do with either nomination. Victoriagirl 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasSpeedy Delete per CSD A7 Naconkantari 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fury and Snow

[edit]
Fury and Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A one sentence article on a self published book. Fails WP:BK Victoriagirl 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Middle School

[edit]

Reads like a brochure. If this were about a company I'd tag it for speedy-delete with db-sapm. No indication thsat this Middle school is in any way significantly different from the tens of thousands of other such schools. Non-notable DES (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to Catch a Wild Asparagus-Snatching Snagglysnort

[edit]
How to Catch a Wild Asparagus-Snatching Snagglysnort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Very few people know about this computer game software." That says it all. Non-notable. A google search for "SnagglySnort -wikipedia -ebay" gets a whole 21 hits, and the only 2 that look promising are restricted to paid magazine subscribers. DES (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 will reconsider if someone can show me published sources with non-trivial information. W.marsh 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malou Bonicos

[edit]
Malou Bonicos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable illustrator who created an obscure children's series. Article reads like a resume, and it has such detailed personal information I suspect it was created by a friend or family member. No reliable sources found to confirm notability, just trivial references. Masaruemoto 00:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search for "Malou Bonicos" "Hunter Davies" gives ZERO results, excluding Wikipedia mirrors. The TV series "The Beeps" "Malou Bonicos" gives less than 20 results, none of them substantial. If you can provide significant reliable sources confirming her notability, please do so. Masaruemoto 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- She has worked with Hunter Davies on the Ossie book series, a quick search of Amazon.co.uk shows her name, but just as Malou (without Bonicos), and incorrectly as Editor, not illustrator. She also appears as the creator of The Beeps the BFI, which I would've thought a reliable source. The Beeps has appeared on UK TV, why is that so obscure? If she is deemed not noteable enough, perhaps some could be combined into The Beeps. Stuartea 11:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IrishGuy talk 01:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scantily clad

[edit]
Scantily clad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article is not even a dictionary definition - something Wikipedia is not - but rather just a combination of English words and their meanings. It has zero encyclopedic merit, even for the Wiki Dictionary. Haemo 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 might have been hepful had the delete argument actually given some coherent reasons -Docg 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nottingham Halls of Residence

[edit]
University of Nottingham Halls of Residence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability anywhere. I've been maintaining this article for months trying to get it into shape, and it's remained dorm-cruft. Stlemur 00:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, that's a good enough reason for me -- the fact that you've been trying to fix it and yet it's still crufty. It's just a big ol' honkin' list too, shouldn't be kept. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, and give Stlemur the time back that they wasted. Lipsticked Pig 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice pics though. JJL 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. <joke>also per this, #13</joke> Whsitchy 05:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary of the information here should be on University of Nottingham. This page has too much detail, but the topic should be discussed. Maybe a description of the largest few halls, plus summary of the rest (e.g. how many places of what type on each campus). Also gives an excuse to preserve a couple of the photos. :) JulesH 12:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as JulesH suggests.
  • Keep - it's not like we're going to run out of paper. There is some notability about the halls. For example the fact that one of them (Cripps) is listed in spite of its relatively young age. Also, if I recall correctly, Cavendish won some sort of architectural award (I think there's a plaque in the entrance with details). The article also details that one of the halls housed the penultimate student-run bar in the country. I suggest creating a small box template that we could drop in for each hall stating the current Warden and JCR President which would make the remaining information more accessible. Jamse 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first let me highlight a conflict of interest I have here - I have studied at UoN for over 7 years now (sigh), and have been a resident tutor at a UoN hall for 2 years previously. Yes the article is in quite poor shape, and yes the cruft needs to be removed. I agree with JulesH - the topic needs to be discussed, a number of these halls are notable (and have notable alumni/history) in there own right, but I do not think they should be merged to any other UoN pages, as there are too many halls / information to have a suitable sized single section. I won't get into trying to sort this page out myself, but if people wish to keep the page, I am happy to do a lot of leg work to get the page up to scratch (including contacting all the halls to garner useful information). I have some good connections with UoN and Students' Union that would be useful for this respect. It would be a good excuse to get involved again. Cheers Lethaniol 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 12:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue dwarf

[edit]
Blue dwarf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is titled blue dwarf, but it's about blue giants. Do blue dwarfs actually exist? Voortle 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes BlueEarth 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that blue dwarf is more likely to refer to a galaxy. Fortunately we are free to rename the article, unless it's deleted. Spacepotato 22:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by somebody. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temenia language

[edit]
Temenia language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

International auxilary language less than 1 month old. No assertion of notability. Only reference is 'official website'. 0 ghits for "Temenia language", or "Temenia site:.edu". Contested prod. If this were a club or corporation, this would be a speedy A7. Delete Aagtbdfoua 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 76

[edit]
UFC 76 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not only is this event so far an unconfirmed event with only generic information known, which is not allowed per WP:NOT#CBALL, but it looks like people have been adding patently false info to the page, including a fake event poster. Prod was removed without reason. hateless 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete / redirect to Nashi (Ours). Did you know that Red Grant's pseudonym of "Nash" in From Russia with Love was a clue he was a Russian agent? Neil ╦ 12:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nashism

[edit]
Nashism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable Russian language neologism. There are quite a few Russian language texts from various journalists who use this term "нашизм" (nashism/nashists) for various purposes. All of them are hardly notable and there is no single understanding. And most surely the quoted author is hardly notable for her version to be wikipedized. `'юзырь:mikka 03:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect might be helpful to the user, so supported.--Alexia Death 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting to Nashi (Ours) is not a long-term stable solution. A primary reason why Nashism refers to a number of converging ideological stances of varying sources is that the term наши didn't start its political life with the movement. The term has been used as an indicator of (real or imagined) confrontation between "наши" and "нет наши" for many decades; perhaps centuries. The organisation was named after this old idea, not the other way around, and consequently, sociopsychological studies are bound to assign higher significance to the ideology per se rather than merely viewing it as 'whatever the organisation preaches'. Digwuren 08:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't get it, is it a pejorative to the Nashis? Is it refering to the current group called Nashi, or the older one from the 1990s mentioned in the Nashi article? If an article goes through a week of AfD and can't be clarified, it isn't adding to the encyclopedia. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to Nashi (Ours). Some may consider it is a neologism, but would be a useful search term, since by definition a neologism is a term that is wide use, so support it as a redirect after a merge. Martintg 07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word has just been used by Andrei Illarionov: All of this allows me to talk about the appearance of a new political regime, non-free regime, with "corporatist state", monopolized economy, coercive markets, with ideology of "nashism" (from the Russian word "nash"—"our own") as its distinctive features. [48] Colchicum 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • exactly to my point. Many like this pun, but most use it ad hoc, putting their own understanding. English knows its own share of -isms. I can name at least 5 different meanings. Some authors even go to amazing length of essay about the word. Some play pun with "nashism/fascism", others attach it to one of the Nashi movement, still others use it synonymously to chauvinism/jingoism/nationalism (like Illarioniov wrote, "from the Russian word "nash"—"our own", but who really explained nothing more). `'юзырь:mikka 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No merging with "Nashi". Indeed, according to Illarionov, "In Russia a new model has been formed for the government, economic and socio-political order – the Power Model (silovaya model’)." "In this model, the entire body of state power has been taken over by a group called the “siloviki”, which includes not only the “siloviki” themselves [TN: generally understood to be current and former intelligence officers], but also intelligence service collaborators, members of the Corporation of Intelligence Service Collaborators (Korporatsiya Sotrudniki Spets-Sluzhb) – the KSSS." "The ideology of KSSS is “Nashism” (“ours-ism”), the selective application of rights." [49]. Then, the difference between "nashism" and organization "Nashi" is the same as between Communist ideology and Komsomol organization.Biophys 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is but one usage of the term. And has little if any in common with what is currently in the article. And little in common with Nashi movement. Their manifesto specifically says something like "russia is centre of union of everything: east and west, christianity, Judaism, Islam, buddhism" (Россия — центр объединения мировых цивилизаций. Восточное и Западное Христианство, Иудаизм, Ислам и Буддизм — все сошлось в России.) In other words, nothing about "selective application of rights", just the opposite: Russia is everything and for all. Please don't attepmt to dive into original research here, digging from blogs and newspapers. Like I wrote there is no common, single usage pattern of the term. `'юзырь:mikka 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW please stop flooding the article with internet references where the word is used. People may use google themselves. wikipedia is not web directory. We need reliable reference which explain and scholarly discuss the term by people who are recognized as experts, not just usage cases. `'юзырь:mikka 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please aslo do not confuse the words "encyclopedic topic" and "current article". The current article is trash to be deleted. But I will say nothing against, if a new one will be created, following wikipedia's rules about "no original research" .`'юзырь:mikka 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mikka, I agree with you about two things. First, this article is terrible. But it should be improved rather than deleted because the topic is very notable (see below). Second, the exact meaning of the term may differ. But what's the problem? Let's explain this. Actually, the word means a political movement and a political ideology, just as communism, fascism, etc. It already has a Manifesto. There is nothing special here. I understand that author of this ideology and movement is Vladislav Surkov; he published these ideas. The movement/ideology was also cited by many notable people, including Andrei Illarionov, Eduard Limonov, and Gennady Zyuganov. This ideology represents a combination of "sovereign democracy" (this includes "self-reliance" like Juche), Russian nationalism and "chekism". But I would need a few days to consult with sources, avoid OR, and improve the article. Should we delete this article now to recreate it later? I do not think so.Biophys 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC) But this is not "current article". This article is about ideology that will define Russian politics for many years.Biophys 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me disagree with you on two items. The current article must be deleted, because it is a confusing mess, sourced from a nonnotable journalist with IMO naive views. Second, you are repeating her error. Once again and again: there is no monolythic ideology under this name. In particular, regarding your "combination": the Nashi movement very carefuly and explicitely excludes any nationalism, fascism and other negative -isms from its programme. Yes, you may define it is a right movement, but not extreme right. Putin is not an idiot. Anyway, let us stop this. Votes for deletion is not the place to discuss new articles. I will be happy to help you in your work on a new article, say, in User:Biophys/Nashism. I will strongly advise you not to collect usage cases, but to look for solid works that spend some real amount of text on the description of the topic (not just casually mention), written by recognized experts in politics (the ones that have or you would want to have a wikipedia bio). And since there is no one who directly says "Nashism is our ideology", the article must mainly consist of attributed opinions (e.g., "Nikita Lyapis-Trubetskoi says that Nashism has been evolving from.... in... bla bla") but with no names red-linked :-) `'юзырь:mikka 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's suppose so. Can you answer these simple questions once and for all?
  1. How many fingers to straighten when making the sign of the cross?
  2. Are cars with internal combustion engine a tool of Devil, to be abhorred and rejected?
  3. Are indulgences valid according to Christianity?
  4. Does Christianity support or oppose conservation ethic?
  5. Should Christians picket funerals of gays?
  6. Does Christian ideology require its followers to be white?
  7. Most importantly of all, does Salvation come from grace, works or Sola Fide? Digwuren 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The concept's notability can not be reasonably denied, but the article is currently in a poor shape. Digwuren 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the artilce is not the term itself, and not its "poor shape". The article 100% fails wikipedia criteria. "Expand" means to delete everything what is written and start from scratch. I am not a supporter of Nashi, but an attempt to attribute them "racist 'nashism' that accentuates the anthropological differences" is plain bullshit. `'юзырь:mikka 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as an evidence that the term didn't really catch up with solid political analysts, I failed to google any text that contains both words "nashism" and "Jingoism", while it is 100% self-evident from the programme of Nashi that nashism is jingoism made in Russia: "Russia must be strong, Russia is nexus of civilizations, Russia can make it all alone, etc." `'юзырь:mikka 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are misinterpreting the search results. Jingoism is etymologically a relatively new concept, used mostly in Anglophone contexts. A number of Russian sources, such as [50], even go so far as to suggest Jingoism is an uniquely British concept, or British chauvinism in particular. Nashism, in contrast, is so far mainly of interest in Russia, thus it is to be expected that its researchers would be unlikely to associate these two concepts -- as might look reasonable to one who views sociological research from far away, like from a background of mathematics, or from America.
  • Did I mention it's currently mainly a sociological topic and only secondarily -- well, now probably increasingly due to the movement -- a subject for political science? Digwuren 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ...that Nashism and Nashists existed and were heatedly discussed as early as in 1962? (and wikipedia already knows that :-) `'юзырь:mikka 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the similarity of names for these phenomena in English is quite coincidental. However, I have taken your point into account and added the {{for}} reference to Nashism. Digwuren 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub deletion: dont trow logical fallacies on me here. My call for deletion is very detailed. I din't say I want it deleted because it is short, did I? `'юзырь:mikka 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that, based on the -- sometimes, deliberate -- rhyme with 'fascism' and a frequent use in pejorative contexts, Mikkalai perceives the article is an attack page, and thus sees it important to delete it as threatening the integrity of Wikipedia. I further believe that such a perception is incorrect, and the resulting conclusion is on par with deleting the article on Christianity because "You Christian dog!" happens to be a slur of choice among some people.
My understanding is that this pejorativeness is somewhat built into the term, but in a weird and neutrality-seeking way. As discussed above, 'nashi' alone has specific undercurrents in Russian political thought. 'Nashism' as a term distances its user from these undercurrents, and stresses the idea as an idea. Thus, when describing this phenomenon, people supporting these undercurrents would be more likely to use 'nashi', not feeling the need for such a stress, and people not supporting them -- either out of neutrality or opposition -- would be more likely to use the '-ism' suffix. Consequently, there would be much more negative than positive references to nashism as such. 'Nashi' not carrying such connotations in English, it might be possible to describe the ideology under Nashi (ideology) and redirect Nashism there, but given than the researchers currently are, and are likely in the future, to use Nashism as the predominant term for the topic of research, this would be borderline WP:OR. Digwuren 08:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please dont' try to read my mind. My reason for deletion is stated crystal clear: the current article is bullshism, the term is a catchy neologism, and I failed to find enough solid references from reputable politologists to write a decent article. Casual mentionings in polemic articles do not count as sources. `'юзырь:mikka 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS has a preference for secondary sources such as peer reviewed journals, there is no mention that is must be from a "reputable politologists". The article referenced in Polis Journal meets the WP:RS criteria. Notability of individual authors is not an an issue, because M. A. Fadeicheva's article was peer reviewed prior to publishing in the journal. Martintg 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To begin from the roots, Who says that Polis Journal has any reputation at all? who says it is peer-reveiwed? What are the credential of the editorial board and reveiwers? Please provide proofs that it has any say in Russian political studies. Yes notability of individual authors is an issue. Any graduate student can write and publish an article, but people will laugh if you suggest that each of them may make a full wikipedia article. At best, such article may be useful as source of further, more reputable references. `'юзырь:mikka 00:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that the latter page has an English translation ([53]) which reflects the celebration and review, but not the peer review comment, which in original Russian is presented as a postscriptum in the tone of oh, and by the way, there's a slight change. Unless clarified, this might cause confusion to people who do not read Russian. Digwuren 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete The current text is totally incomprehensible, even after reading Nashi (Ours) article and hence more harmful than useful as a stub. If one is going to redirect this article to "Nashi (Ours)" , then the Nashi (Ours) must be expanded to contain section "Ideology", which says it is called "Nashism" and describes it from valid sources, otheriwse the redirect is meaningless. If there is any valid description of the topic, I highly doubt that the current content is re-usable, with the exception of the trivial statement that "Nashism is the ideology of "Nashi" (if it is true). But is it so trivial that non-copyrightable, so to say. Mukadderat 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, at this point there is not such ideology as "nashism", there is only a group called "Nashi" that supports Putin but otherwise has no distinctive ideology, and that is fairly adequately covered in appropriate article. -- Ekjon Lok 23:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However the Russian Political Science Association [55] and their peer reviewed journal Polis [56] says there is such an ideology as nashism. I trust them more than the opinions of essentially anonymous Wikipedia editors here as to the existance of nashism. Martintg 10:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ofcourse not, no academic journal is responsible for the views published, their responsbility is in ensuring that the article meets the required academic standard regardless of the view. Peer-review is not ensuring political correctness, but ensuring academic standards. Martintg 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also you obviously cannot read what "anonymous Wikipedia editors" say. They do not deny the exastance of nashism. They say that the article is beyond reasonable standards. (And I say it directly that it is plain false.) `'юзырь:mikka 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do not deny the existance of nashism, why do you want to delete the article? The article is clearly a stub, so ofcourse it may not meet general quality standards, what article stud does? We certainly don't go deleting stubs on the basis of quality. Martintg 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR applies to the Wikipedia article, in no way can this wikipedia article can be considered a personal essay, it's a bit short to be considered an essay, nor is it OR, it cites a reference to a secondary source. You seem to be implying that the cited source is WP:OR, if you are, then you are mis-undestanding WP:OR. Please read WP:NOR#Reliable_sources: "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims". Thus a source from a peer reviewed journal is perfectly acceptable. Martintg 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your article is synthesis. Who says that fadeicheva describes the "Nashi" movement? It is false statement, not following from her text, as I have already written here. Also, the 3 fantasies of Fadeicheva are already covered by normal English words: nationalism, chauvinism and racism. Her theories of "Nashism" is nothing but a fringe theory drawn upon a nodiscriminate buzzword. She is not quoted by a single source. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate her musings. `'юзырь:mikka 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fadeicheva isn't describing the "Nashi" movement, but is describing the three aspects of the ideological framework of "Nashism", the nationalist aspect as represented by the Nashi movement, and also the two other aspects, the chauvinist and racist aspects as well. This isn't my synthesis, the section of text in the article is quoted verbatim from the abstract of Fadeicheva's article as published in the Polis journal [57]. Ofcourse other people use the term nashism such as Andrei Illarionov mentioned above. Nashism is also mentioned on page 27 of Boris Kagarlitskij's book "Restoration in Russia: Why Capitalism Failed" [58], page 103 of "Philosophy in Post-Communist Europe" By Dane R. Gordon [59] and pages 33, 59, 60 and 205 of "Poverty, Ethnicity, and Gender in Eastern Europe During the Market Transition" By Rebecca Jean Emigh, Iván Szelényi [60]. So nashism is hardly fringe theory. Martintg 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Expired prod but the rationale for it was "no indication of why this is a notable book" which I find unconvincing. This might just barely meet WP:BK: references with passing mention to this work are easy to come by (see e.g. [62] [63] [64]) and author does have some notability. Procedural nom. Pascal.Tesson 04:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT When I prod'd the book, the article on had the name of the book, the author and the name of the person who wrote the forward. To me, that does not indicate notabillity. Even notable authors like Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare wrote non notable things. If an important author wrote a letter to the editor of the community newspaper saying hew would like the town council to improve the street lighting on his street so his kids could play outside on summer nights, that is not notable of an article on its own. All I was saying in my prod was that based on the info provided, I had no idea if this book was as unworthy of our attention as the letter or more worthy of our attention as say Dickens' Bleak House. Now that more info is provided, I see why it is wiki worthy and have no problem with it staying here. Postcard Cathy
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was notability sufficiently demonstrated; keep. DS 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gilliard

[edit]
Writing in really big letters certainly helps add gravitas to your argument. Nick mallory 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are quite important to the discussion. If he gets a NYT Obit, there should be no argument about the article's existence. --One Salient Oversight 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And, actually, the mention in the NYT blogs is more than sufficient. "[H]e was a blogger’s blogger who had the attention of some of the most influential on the scene, and he was also considered to be one of its most important black voices." What exactly was the thinking process of Naconkantari that made him reflexively deem him un-notable? This is contrary to policy. Please see my "Request for comments" at the bottom.  ∴ Therefore  talk   04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable blogger Naconkantari 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Absolutely delete. This guy never publshed anything of note in any kind of reputable publication. He was a mere blogger though well-liked by many. He had a following on the Daily Kos and parlayed that into a blog which had some following. However, EVERYBODY who has a blog with more than a few hits a day should be included by that standard.--Susan Nunes 3 June 2007
    • — 66.53.125.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Don't let Biruitorul's tactics discourage you. New users are welcome to participate in Wikipedia as well. Biruitorul likes to wave around his flags as if he is enforcing rules. Let's be clear on one thing: There is no rule against new users participating in Wikipedia, and the effect of Biruitorul's campaign of discouragement is to reduce participation and attack the motives of other people, in what is little more than a direct attack on the community spirit of Wikipedia. Ankles 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4.243.173.101 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It is irrelevent if this user has "few or no other edits." Wikipedia is open to everyone, including newcomers. Every user started somewhere, and if this is the last article this user ever touches, her opinion still counts as much as yours. -asx- 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment : 1) then why does the template exist? 2) "irrelevent" is not an English word. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Spelling flames? Really? Come on. And the template exists because some people think it should, which doesn't make it an official policy. Cromis 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Relevant points from AFD etiquette:
          • Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.
          • Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.
        • As new and first-time editors may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and use inappropriate arguments for retention or deletion, and because AFD has a history of attempts to use sockpuppets or canvass external to the site, the template exists to remind editors of this context. --Dhartung | Talk 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a perfectly valid concern, and it's what preserves the integrity of Wikipedia. And there is a correct way to deal with new users: inform them of the guidelines and policies that apply. What we cannot do is block their participation. New users are allowed to participate in Wikipedia. Ankles 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Gilliard was a major force in the blogosphere when he fell ill in February, and was a major force in the blogosphere from the early days of political blogging. He was influential in setting the tone and the message of the liberal web community. -asx- 07:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A major blogger has written about Gilliard's life as a blogger, [68].
Comment When a slew of right of centre blogs were recently nominated in AfD [69] [70] etc I was kept busy finding sources for them in the New York Times and Washington Post etc because thousands of mentions of them on the net or in other blogs were not deemed sufficient for notability by certain editors. Is there a Wikipedia standard for what counts towards notability on blogs? If mentions by other bloggers on the Daily Kos or Huffington Post etc are sufficient for notability in this AfD then this should be made clear for future AfDs, of all political leanings. Nick mallory 10:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blogs are not sufficient to demonstrate notability by themselves, although they may be used as sources in limited fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mhh, I think you should see the banning policy, the user who nominated this is an experienced user of Wikipedia, please try to assume good faith in the future. The Sunshine Man 13:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Assume good faith" is a fine starting point. But there is no requirement to pretend to be a complete idiot and assume good faith when bad faith is plainly in evidence, nor is it helpful to condescendingly tell people that since the initiator is an "experienced user" we must disclaim our own opinions about possible malicious intent. Cromis 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an actual rationale, other than WP:ILIKEIT? Biruitorul 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thin edge of what wedge? What's teh differerence between blogger and about.com? What the difference between blogger and Wikipedia? Not much.
  • Keep: One of the earliest bloggers on DailyKos, one of the first two frontpage bloggers on DailyKos, and an important commentor. Obviously every blogger won't be important. Or worth remembering. But we continue to remember and celebrate important journalists and writers in newspapers who influenced the discussions of their time. Steve Gilliard was someone who greatly influenced the liberal blogging scene in its earliest days. His greatest impact was creating the no-nonsense take-no-prisoners approach to blogging that defines much of blogging on the left today. -denniswine — 71.212.83.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! The right wing is trying to obliterate this man's memory now? What has this country come to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.78.211 (talk • contribs) — 68.36.78.211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - "What has this country come to?" is not a valid keep rationale. And no one is trying to obliterate his memory - surely his memory can live on outside Wikipedia. Biruitorul 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - "Surely his memory can live on outside Wikipedia" is not a valid delete rationale. -asx- 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I've provided my own rationale in my vote. Let's face it: 68.36.78.211, with a mere 16 edits to his name, likely doesn't know much about Wikipedia deletion process, and "What has this country come to?" is in fact not a valid keep rationale. And as I've said, no one is trying to "obliterate" his memory - we're merely trying to uphold Wikipedia policy here. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On that note, let's definitely uphold Wikipedia policies WP:CIV and WP:NPA. --Milton 04:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Gilliard's blog was influential and reached a wide audience. His grasp of military history and colonialism was assuredly non-trivial in that the scenarios he painted vis-a-vis the Iraq Conquest and Occupation were spot-on.
Ah, let me quote the full line in WP:WEB that I was alluding to: "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". So we still lack evidence of notability. Biruitorul 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep: Had a decisive impact on the liberal politics of his times, through his early and close involvement with Daily Kos. --Peripatetic 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSteve Gilliard was influential in both substance and style for at least 2 major blogs, DailyKos and Firedoglake, as the founders of both readily admit. His use of British colonial history to highlight the Iraq war--even before it started was pioneering.Bwthemoose 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC) — Bwthemoose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Gilliard was one of the first "guest" posters at Kos and helped build that site to the behemoth it is today. Previous to that, he was a popular writer for the seminal "Netslaves" site. In addition to his continual citation across the blogosphere, he was frequently quoted by Vanity Fair writer James Wolcott on Wolcott's Vanity Fair site. Excluding Gilliard, who in terms of influence and popularity, was the equal of Kos and Atrios, both of whom have extensive Wikipedia entries, from Wikipedia would not be conducive to a fair representation of the state of Internet political commenting. — Dave1021 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is irrelevent if this user has "few or no other edits." Wikipedia is open to everyone, including newcomers. Every user started somewhere, and if this is the last article this user ever touches, her opinion still counts as much as yours. -asx- 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'm not going to repeat everyone else's arguments, but I agree to most of them. The article isn't much more than a stub, but that's not in itself reason for deletion. Let it evolve. Wefa 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A nobrainer. Gilliard played a pivotal role in the left-political blogosphere in the US. --86.80.117.11 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: This was me, actually. --Martin Wisse 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There has been a blantantly obvious attempt to flood this discussion by single-purpose accounts; am tagging all such comments now. Lipsticked Pig 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put the template at the top of the page, but seeing it cause me to look, and the first three editors I looked at were [73] [74] and [75] ...with the other anon user edits, I think its pretty blatant.Lipsticked Pig 18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stupidly, I somehow didn't check to see how new the article was, so, given it hasn't been given enough time to prove its notablility, I feel like leaning towards Keep Lipsticked Pig 19:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the above user assumes malice where this is not in evidence. --Martin Wisse 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This would seem obvious. Steve Gilliard was one of the founding fathers of the left blogosphere and of what is now the largest political blog community, the Daily Kos. While his independent blog was not as popular as Kos or Atrios or some others, I was under the impression that popularity of a subject was not the deciding factor for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article does need serious editing, however. zeke L 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. I have to strongly question the timing of this AfD: why did you decide to propose it within hours of the announcement of his death? Wouldn't it make sense to wait for a month or two to see if his notability (which can't help but be in flux at the moment) will change? Often people become more notable after they die, and often an individual who may have only received limited news coverage will receive significant news coverage shortly after death. Many of the articles we have on notable individuals exist because online references from independent reliable sources became easier to find once the obituaries, tributes, and other articles were published. --Charlene 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already stated today that this article should be deleted as the notability of bloggers is extremely suspect. Of course as I was the first person to state this viewpoint someone deleted my post. Freedom of speech huh? VonBlade 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored your earlier vote, which may have been removed accidentally. For the record, notions of "freedom of speech" are misplaced here - you don't own Wikipedia, so it's not your right to comment here. Same goes for me and all but the owners of the site. We're here as guests; we have no legal right to edit here. Biruitorul 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • VonBlade and everyone else, even those without accounts and no history, have exactly the same rights to edit as you do, Biruitorul. You can act like your opinion is more important than everyone else's, but in fact, it's not. -asx- 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where exactly did I "act like [my] opinion is more important than everyone else's"? I merely pointed out that "freedom of speech" is not at issue here. Please do not make false accusations against me. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gilliard deserves continued inclusion on Wikipedia based on "notability" criteria in both the "web" and "people" sections, specifically

Web: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations;

People: Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Additionally, I note the presence of the following "bloggers" and their rather extensive entries in Wikipedia: Atrios, Kos, Mary Scot O'Connor, Little Green Footballs, Protein Wisdom, and Captain's Quarters.

Finally, I note I have been tagged with the "single user" label. I have made minor edits and contributions over the past few years, mainly to Music and Comics sites (specifically, I recall adding to posts on Brian Wilson and Jack Kirby). I only signed up for an account because I thought it was necessary to comment on this matter. Ironically, if I had maintained my anonimity, my commenting status would have been overlooked. I apologize for identifying myself. Dave1021 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He didn't start Daily Kos. Skarioffszky 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... noted. vote changed to Delete then. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I agree with Silly Dan that the article should focus more on influence. He was a popular blogger, and considering that this article could fit roughly 250 times on a 3 1/4 floppy, it's not like the servers are going to overheat. He was quite well-known in the blogosphere, and should be treated accordingly. --Milton 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Daily Kos is a massive thing, and considering his work with it, strengthens his notability. --Milton 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is clearly notable, and this is in staggeringly poor taste. I can't even conceive of the kind of person who would choose to initiate this now. Cromis 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - where are the multiple, non-trivial published sources? This is not about callousness; it's about process. Not every individual who dies, no matter how nice a person he was, deserves a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we should keep emotionalism out of the discussion. Biruitorul 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As soon as I created the article I realised that, since Steve was a blogger, the article would be up for an afd. At no point did I think that this afd is somehow political in motivation, nor is it in "poor taste" and nor do I believe that Biruitorul is somehow trying to be political by voting to delete it. I do wish, however, that Biruitorul and other pro-deletionists would do some off-site research into Steve's notability by looking into the histories of Daily Kos and other political blogs that have Wikipedia entries. There is enough references to Steve in the mainstream media by columnists like Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Jacoby to show that his influence impacted upon US political discourse. The point is not whether The News Blog was popular or published by the mainstream media, but whether Steve Gilliard can actually be described as notable. Please look at the external links provided both here and at the article itself. --One Salient Oversight 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for that measured response, One Salient Oversight. I don't discount the possibility that Gilliard was notable (I myself heard of him a couple of years ago), and indeed I hold no malice toward his person (despite his having branded Black Republicans as race traitors). I think this AfD would have been much more appropriate in a couple of months, too, when the dust will have settled a little. I will keep looking into the matter of his notability, though. My main concern remains the slippery slope one, because I really don't want to open us up to a flood of blogger articles, though of course it's possible for a blogger to achieve notability. Biruitorul 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Fair enough, I didn't notice that the article was very recently created. Nonetheless I think there's something kind of warped in nominating even a newly-created article for deletion the day the subject dies, especially in a case where the odds are pretty good that he is notable. Assuming good faith is one thing, but one should also try to avoid even the appearance of trying to use process to make a political point. Wikipedia will not be hurt by having an article on him for a week or two. In fact, given that virtually all the high-profile left-wing blogs mentioned his death, more actual people are likely to be finding actual value in reading this article right now than at any point in the past or future. So a dispassionate viewpoint with regard to process is one thing, but given that the process of deciding whether to delete is one involving actual human beings and their opinions, waiting a few weeks (which would, as someone else pointed out, also give time to wait for media coverage) wouldn't actually hurt. And, just to be clear, I would say the exact same thing if a midlist right-wing blogger died. Cromis 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cromis, please note that the article itself did not exist until June 2.[76] Newly-created articles or articles on newly-deceased persons have no special exemption from AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he contributed to notable blogs --Philip Laurence 00:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm unimpressed by the 'slippery slope' argument, and believe he's notable enough even if "only a blogger" to be included. That someone is a blogger, or is known primarily as a blogger, strikes me as a poor rationale for deletion. He's known by name to a substantial number of Wikipedia's users (at least those users who have a similar interest to mine in terms of the intersection of politics and the Web); those users deserve to have access to a Wikipedia article on the guy. -- John Callender 01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the subject is notable, the article needs more work, but will presumably get it. 75.131.167.31 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Holgate 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please forming daily kos and other contributions look like notable things yuckfoo 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reform AfD Sockpuppets hijacked this one, I say we restart it. Whsitchy 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment while i recognize that this comment will be spa'ed, (and therefore am not voting on this afd) since i have previously only corrected spelling and grammatical errors (which i don't believe necessitate the registration of an account), i would still like to make the claim that steve gilliard has been quoted on several "notable" weblogs, and hence it would be reasonable to give some background for users interested in finding out information about the man whose words they read. along these lines, i also believe the article should be listed for heavy revision, as it should give more information such as steve gilliard's education, upbringing, etc. Keonhp 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he had an important role in the early days of the netroots, a movement that everyone now agrees has dramatically changed democratic politics, has been analyzed by many, and has been unsuccessfully cloned (and mocked) by the right. Strong keep, and strong sanctions for jerks using this page as their place to wage some sort of political war and mask it with wikipedia policies.71.39.78.68 03:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, no personal attacks and assume good faith. As I've said, I hold no brief against the man - de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Biruitorul 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assume good faith. But empirical evidence overrides assumptions. And when I see a delete contest occur so soon after the article appears, after the man has died, I can draw the legitimate conclusion.
        • Some trigger-happy admins delete articles within minutes of their creation. It actually happened with this article and I had to contact the admin to bring it back. Putting an afd notice on the article was always going to happen. It is not because of bias, but because of Wikipedia's self-regulating editors and admins. I don't blame them for putting the notice there at all. This entire afd discussion has been important in the article's creation and future existence. I do not see any ulterior motives at all by those who support deletion. --One Salient Oversight 06:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google News Archives comes up with 50 references. [77]. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a lot of political bloggers on Wikipedia on the right, the left, and the center. Most have been significant, quoted, and talked about in the mainstream media as well as the blogosphere. He's been a contributor to other, better known blogs, which have been noted here, and he has been criticized publicly by newspapers like the Boston Globe, and right-leaning political bloggers, most notably Jonah Goldberg. I'm not questioning Goldberg's credentials or even how far he has gotten in the media (I know his mother and her friends helped a lot in that aspect), but aside from writing a book about the 100 people "ruining" America which essentially had a page which only had one word in describing Courtney Love ("Ho."), what has he done differently that Mr. Gillard didn't do? Strongly keep the article. Nemalki 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable blogger with influence. I recommend quick removal of the afd notice on the article page out of some deserved respect.  ∴ Therefore  talk   04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to defend a few editor's motivations in this heated debate...
    • I didn't know Naconkantari before this, but a look at his talk pages show this editor to be experienced and respected admin(?). I truly believe that, whether or not you agree with his decision, his motivation for this AfD nomination wasn't due to right-wing political beliefs or anything like that; a political blogger dies, suddenly an article is created, yeah, there are reasons to suspect it's somewhat of a memorial. My cursory search when this AfD first went up, before there were any comments, didn't lead me to vote one way or the other.
    • One Salient Oversight created the Steve Gilliard article; he then posted on this site an invitation for people to come over an edit it. He wrote "I've just created this article. Please feel free to add to it. Remember to keep the language neutral and back up all facts with external links." So I don't think he was vote-canvassing. If there is one good thing to come of this, we have a bunch of new people here who can now contribute (welcome peeps!)
    • Biruitorul saw a bunch of brand new accounts expressing opinions here in this AfD. The Wikipedia system is easy to "game"; I think all of us would like to know when there is the appearance of impropriety, and to weigh the opinions expressed accordingly. That doesn't mean that the opinions of new editors are irelevant or unwelcome; but I think Biruitorul's actions were appropriate. When a corresponding right-wing blogger dies, I hope someone like Biruitorul is around to tag potential single-purpose accounts in an AfD as well.
In short, its not hard at all to assume good faith for these editors, and so I'd ask you all to do so. Lipsticked Pig 05:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A LexisNexis search shows dozens of references to Steve Gilliard in major newspapers, magazines, wire stories, and television transcripts. Google Book Search shows references to him in a shelf's worth of real dead-tree books. This one's a no-brainer. —phh (t/c) 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would tend to agree more with Lipsticked Pig's assessment of Biruitorul's actions as appropriate if the user had additionally tagged the prominent delete of SPA 66.53.125.90 aka "Susan Nunes" and the delete of Vonblade with 2 edits to its name. Inconsistency, at best. This matter is an embarrassment and serves only to delegitimize Gilliard.  ∴ Therefore  talk   06:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I have read so far of those who are proposing deletion, none appear to be doing it from political motives. As the original creator of the article and a supporter of the article's existence, I am certain that the only reasons some are voting for deletion is because they are not aware of Steve's notability and/or are rightly concerned about minor blogs and bloggers getting articles on Wikipedia that don't deserve it. I ask that all supporters of the article find as much information on the internet as possible about Steve and add it to the article, thus showing his notability. I am certain that those voting for deletion will change their minds when presented with hard evidence. --One Salient Oversight 06:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. And finding "as much information on the internet as possible about Steve and add it to the article", as One Salient Oversight proposes, will not necessarily show notability; we need reliable sources and self-published sources (e.g. blog posts) aren't good enough. Skarioffszky 10:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if Wikipedia wants to remain relevant, it needs to get over its bias against some sources like blogs. In this case, the fact that Steve Gilliard was widely cited and respected in a certain part of the blogosphere you will only find on blogs.--Martin Wisse 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it's understandable that a high-traffic personal blog can diminish the motivation to create an entry, and equally understandable that the author's death would raise that motivation. Holgate 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's notable, Google agrees, he is referenced by other sources. Aristoi 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one is easy. Steve Gilliard was a top blogger and a major player in the formation of the netroots. Ankles 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion To me it seems strange and inappropriate that a person's death can effectively trigger a notability dispute on Wikipedia. Maybe it's too late for this article, since so many opinions have already been contributed, but in the future, I think it would be a good idea (in this kind of situation) to wait for a week or two before starting an AfD page. -- 18.252.6.55 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again, I repeat, the article did not exist until June 2. If people are unwilling to have a notability discussion about a recently deceased person, then waiting to create the article in the first place is the advice to give. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do believe the original AFD proposer was acting in good faith, but failed to do the proper research before deciding this was a worthless subject. Unfortunately, whatever the truth here, their actions here created the impression of Wikipedia and its editors as callous, heartless brutes, deletion happy and snooty about what is and isn't noticable. --Martin Wisse 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Naconkantari is not a new user -- in fact, according to Lipsticked Pig, is an admins. As a matter of policy, I assume his intentions were done in good faith. His actions, on the other hand, are open to commentary. Lacking apparent due diligence to research the matter properly, Naconkantari first deleted the article out of existence, and then, upon complaint, nominated it for AfD. The user's willingness (rf: User talk:Naconkantari#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gilliard) to close this AfD with "no consensus possible" with an immediate re-run of this AfD with autoconfirmed protection, indicates an antipathy to the subject that strikes me as on-going. Why hasn't this matter been resolved by now? Clearly this was, at best, an error in judgment.  ∴ Therefore  talk   17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO is satisfied by his widespread notability and influence. He gets 1,020,000 Google hits, and editors above have noted there are dozens of print articles about his work found in searches of Google News and LexisNexus. Thus there is a basis for writing a substantial article based on independent substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, satisfying WP:N. He appears to have had an especially notable web presence and influence on DailyKos. Edison 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guy had more readers than hundreds (if not thousands) of community newspapers. It was one of the top 5000 blogs in the world (and Technorati ranking was hurt by being split between two different URLs). Like it or not, Daily Kos is a historically important site, and its founding members are as significant as the early cast of The Real World or the founders of Wikipedia. --The Cunctator 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why are people surprised that an article was created for him after his death? I personally think it's long-overdue. As for allegations that this article is mere fancruft (dunno if that's a real term or not), I propose that every article on Wikipedia was created by fans. --Milton 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep: No reason to delete just because an article was created after his death. It's not the first time this has happened after all. --86.40.194.134 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There were several articles written referencing his role in sinking Michael Steele run for governor. Drewish 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of notability: His new blog address, which had only been active for a couple of months, is linked from 6,530 other web sites. His old blog address, still active, is linked from 12,000 other websites. Technorati ranking was 1539, putting him well above 99.999% of blogs. This is significant evidence of notability. [1] [2]
  • Definite Keep: The man clearly had a notable gift for stirring up controversy, as evidenced on this page. He was also a very influential blogger who was startlingly prescient on how and why the Iraq war would be a disaster, basing his rationale on a deep knowledge of military history. Wrote pithy commentary on the popular Netslaves site on the rise and fall dotcom empires and their sundry IPOs. Also known for the extraordinary range of topics he wrote knowledegably on. Deirdremcglynn 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those citing WP:WEB are looking at the wrong policy for determining Gilliard's suitability for an article. As WP:WEB states:

This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. emphasis added - fnv

So it is a set of standards for whether a web site, web page, blog post or some such should have an article. Thus, if this was a discussion of whether The News Blog itself should have a page, then WP:WEB would be relevant. It is not, as the article is about Gilliard, a person, whose notability is a seperate topic from the notability of his primary blog. WP:BIO is the pertinent basis of discussion I believe. --FNV 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are so many reasons to keep this article, not limited to: 1) Gilliard was a major left-wing blogger, and he influenced Daily Kos, considered by many to be the top political blog in the U.S., as well as certain electoral races. 2) Gilliard was notable enough for the New York Times to profile him after his death. 3) It is in horrendously poor taste for this article to be considered for deletion at this time (for what should be extremely obvious reasons). I don't care if "poor taste" is not a reason to keep an article. Online or not, common decency always applies.B1oody8romance7 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on point 3: for all we know, the AfD initiator holds no brief against Gilliard, and mourns his death. That doesn't indicate poor taste, but rather a desire to uphold standards, which aren't suspended after someone dies. Plus, for the record, Gilliard himself was no stranger to horrendously poor taste, as his infamous Sambo post demonstrates. Biruitorul 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for comment May I be so bold as to suggest that this AfD end early.
Given its clear notability viz-a-viz the New York Times and my suggestion that Naconkantari did not follow proper policy, which I quote:

[Before nomination of AfD,] first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Notability is not subjective. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Lacking said demonstration and the skipping of the proper step of tagging the article with the notability template, I recommend that this the AfD tag be removed from the article in order to rectify this error as soon as possible  ∴ Therefore  talk   03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second. --Milton 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.B1oody8romance7 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ankles 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen, brother. Peripatetic 10:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. FWIW. --One Salient Oversight 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. --Milton 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say no to a Speedy Keep. There are obviously a few good faith delete !votes here which would rule out a speedy. This should run the full 5 days, if only to see if some consensus can be formed here... early closure either way will likely just lead to a WP:DRV. It might also be beneficial for someone to contact Daily Kos per the link below and ask them nicely not to show up and ballot-stuff; it's not going to influence this AFD either way and will just obfuscate the !votes with actual policy/guideline reasoning behind them.--Isotope23 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for giving that link, Toast. I am a member of the Daily Kos community (albeit very new) and I have posted a message on that comments thread that explains the situation. I'm trying to defuse the annoyance that some people might feel. On one level, you can understand their angst - a beloved blogger has died and they see the afd and see red. On another level, they don't fully understand the Wikipedia process. I've pointed out to them that the result of this afd will be a high quality article since it forces editors to prove his notability. --One Salient Oversight 13:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There does seem to be some level of mainstream media attention here, and not just because of his death; some of his Photoshop work was controversial enough to be discussed in The Washington Post. (See [78].) If a blogger receives a non-trivial reference in a major newspaper of record, that is enough notability in my opinion. There aren't all that many bloggers who meet that standard, and all of them who do should have articles, since WP:NOT paper. *** Crotalus *** 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crotalus two other Washington Post mentions: [79], [80]. Unquestionably notable. --Tkynerd 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most bloggers aren't notable, but Gillard was one of the exceptions. His work was significant enough to garner secondary coverage in major mainstream media sources, and the article's fairly well-sourced and cited. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While personally I think this chap seems quite non-notable, you can't argue with the multiple significant mainstream media sources. Also suggest invoking WP:SNOW for a speedy keep. Vizjim 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He needs to be kept on. There is also the incident of him facing down Rosie O'Donnel's lawyers.Msaroff
  • Keep. If you delete Gilliard, you might as well delete my entry and that of Daily Kos. Daily Kos wouldn't be what it is today without Gilliard's work. Still, I suspect the NY Times obit later this week (for which I was interviewed, so I know it's coming) will make this whole discussion moot -- Markos Moulitsas, Dailykos 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was not aware that one had to rise to some level of "worthiness" to warrant an entry in Wiki. Steve Gilliard was a real person, and while his writings and accomplishments may offend some, they are far more real than those of Batman, Superman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all of which have Wiki entries that are not targeted for deletion. -- John Craft, --76.17.124.206 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, subjects simply have to demonstrate a level of notability. Also note that we don't do comparative notability and you are comparing a real blogger to fictional characters (2 of whom are ridiculously recognizable icons I might add). A better line of reasoning would be to assert how the subject meets notability requirements as some others have done above.--Isotope23 18:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, the issue here is the ambiguous notability requirements vis à vis bloggers. This is essentially a clash of online cultures, with a tendency among some editors to guard the barriers in an overzealous fashion against the perceived influence of bloggers on content. This isn't to impute bad faith on recommendations for deletion, but instead to suggest that WP:BIO currently lacks the kind of guidelines hashed out in this AfD thread, and that this lack can be mis-perceived as an invitation to rush into the AfD process. Holgate 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree Holgate, I think WP:BIO is not ambiguous and is rather fair in this case; if external news sources take notice then he meets WP:BIO. If not, then he doesn't meet the guidelines. At least a couple of editors above have framed strong arguments for retention based on WP:BIO and provided sources for their arguments (even as some others have relied on more dubious lines of reasoning like external linkages and vague concepts of importance to a certain website or set of fellow bloggers).--Isotope23 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Steve Gilliard was one of the few black/African American political bloggers of note in what is known as the left blogosphere. Many readers both before and after his death, were suprised to learn that Gilliard was black. Gilliard's critical writing style and depth and breadth of knowledge gives the lie to observations that brilliant writing has no crossover; that people will tend to stay within their own 'ghettoes' when it comes to expertise. Had he lived, I have no doubt that Gilliard would have been asked to become mainsream. Until his untimely death, I visited his blog daily for four years--gtdanyelz gab 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Fiqah Qari

[edit]
Nur Fiqah Qari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and vanity. see also another afd candidate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohd. Nizam Shapie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pusat Cemerlang Silat __earth (Talk) 07:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd. Nizam Shapie

[edit]
Mohd. Nizam Shapie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and vanity. See also related afd candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nur Fiqah Qari Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pusat Cemerlang Silat __earth (Talk) 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pusat Cemerlang Silat

[edit]
Pusat Cemerlang Silat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A training center is that non-notable. See related entry: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nur_Fiqah_Qari, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohd. Nizam Shapie __earth (Talk) 07:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tasle Alley

[edit]
Tasle Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think there's much more that can be said about this tiny dead-end street in Manchester, unless someone goes and fills the article with obscure details like the type of tarmac used to cover it. Digital Spy Poster 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eaiea

[edit]
Eaiea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable constructed language that can be played with a musical instrument rather than being spoken. No reliable sources cited. 0 relevant hits in Google Scholar or JSTOR. Only relevant hit at site .edu is here, which is an essay from a staff member in the School for Design and Media arts, not an expert in this field. Does appear to be discussed on various webpages and blogs. In contrast, Solresol, a similar musical language, gets 7 JSTOR hits, despite being invented a hundred years before the internet and electronic journals. Delete Aagtbdfoua 11:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

88 BJJ

[edit]
88 BJJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable martial arts school per WP:CORP, suspected WP:COI authorship. RJASE1 Talk 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Law BJJ

[edit]
Third Law BJJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable martial arts school per WP:CORP, suspected WP:COI authorship. RJASE1 Talk 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, potential sockpuppetry between Controllerman and Michaeljbroderick. Sr13 01:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Broderick

[edit]
Michael J. Broderick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiography, notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. Reads like a resume. RJASE1 Talk 13:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy: Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails :BIO. Limited details may be appropriate for userfication if Mr Broderick wishes to continue editing. Deiz talk 14:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. Moreschi Talk 17:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Fails WP:BIO and no references. I couldn't find any sources through search engines, so probable non-notable. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Broderick is a well known casino marketing expert. Has numerous publications in respected casino and gaming periodicals. Michael J. Broderick appears in search engines. 500,000 Google hits, writes in Indian Gaming Magazine [81] and IGWB Magazine [82]. He also spoken at the Global Gaming Expo [83] Controllerman 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reality check: "Michael J. Broderick" casino returns 94 total Ghits [84]. Subtract press releases and other PR material and you're not left with much. Controllerman links to a Yahoo search though, so let's try that: [85] - nope I don't see 500,000 there either -- 268, again many are PR pieces. But we don't count G/Yhits anyway. Oh, and Michaeljbroderick/Controllerman: have a read of WP:SOCK before creating any additional accounts. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AbsoluteDan: Controllerman is not me. Thank you.Michaeljbroderick 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I trust you would understand, however, that accounts created solely to comment positively on an AfD about an autobiography are viewed with suspicion by many experienced editors. Please forgive any unintentional offence such opinions may cause, as assertions that WP:SOCK has been violated in such cases are regrettably almost invariably accurate. Deiz talk 09:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. The guy must feel lonely to write an article about himself ;).--Svetovid 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Svetovid: "The guy must feel lonely to write an article about himself" comment is subjective and innapropriate. As a new user and I am unfamiliar with WP protocol as of yet. My inclusion was not vanity nor puffery, it was an attempt to begin to fill a blatant void in WP on notable casino industry operators other than Donald Trump, Steve Wynn, Terri Lanni, etc. Thank you. I apologize to all editors if I have offended your sensibilities and WP TOS.Michaeljbroderick 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Svetoid, I urge you to retract that statement. Whatever the outcome of this AfD is, Michaeljbroderick is a new user and should not be treated in such an impolite manner. He may well decide to contribute further to Wikipedia outside of this article, and that sort of thing is only going to leave a sour taste in his mouth about us. Riana ⁂ 05:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stellatomailing 00:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments made by "User:Cremepuff222". Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Once again, Broderick is a noted and respected expert in the casino industry. Although mentioned by me above, Google hits and search hits not justifed reason for AfD. There is a significant void of notable experts in this industry. And while not cited or referenced (yet), substantial and verafiable information exists on the guy. Just the article is not completed. Plus (and I do not mean to point fingers) the opinion of a 14 year old who knows nothing about gaming and probably has never stepped into a casino carries no validity.Controllerman 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Controllerman, Please refrain from voting a second time. Thank you. Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 21:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nat Tang, Please do not edit my contribution to the discussion. This is not a voting process. Refer to:it does not operate like one. Your changes are an indication to edit-warring. Any further modifications will be reported to an administrator.Controllerman 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please discuss any further disputes regarding such procedural matters on the talk page of this article or one of the user's talk page. I have begun a discussion on Controllerman's talk page here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rest assured that several administrators are watching this discussion, and they will be more than happy to take action if anyone acts improperly. As far as I can see, everything is functioning normally here. Deiz talk 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well, the cold facts are that Mr.Broderick worked mostly (if not only) in small casinos, none in Vegas. He was mentioned five times in the Google news archives, none as an expert. There were 425 speakers in the last edition of the Global Gaming Expo, so unless he got great reviews from WP:RS of his conferences, I do not suppose this would be grounds for notability. The hispanic prize is too limited to be taking into consideration. The Romero prize was conceded for his contribution in the small casinos category, but we do not know how many people competed for the prize, not even how many judges and their credentials. Maybe this information could lend some notability. The conference where the prize was conceded (Casino marketing Conference) has only 10 mentions in the Google news archives, all press releases. This is a sign the conference itself is not notable.Stellatomailing 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* I don’t know if I can comment on my own article, or if I am breaking a cardinal rule here, but if I am, my apologies as there is no malfeasance intended. If I may make a few observations and indulge in the other editor’s time I would appreciate it. First of all, as a new user to WP I did not know the correct policies and procedures to creating articles and editing, especially if the editor has a direct relationship to the article, for this I say Mea culpa. I should have done more research instead of a cursory review. Second, I am surprised about the lack of material in WP regarding the men and women who are notable and respected in the gaming and hospitality industry, above and beyond the Steve Wynns and Benny Binons and Donald Trumps. The men who have molded the industry to what it is today. A few names (especially on the marketing side) would be casino host superstar and groundbreaker to modern-day player development Steve Cyr, or John Romero, the Godfather of modern day casino direct mail marketing, or Dennis Conrad, Stanford graduate and casino marketing guru. Or how about Todd Moyer, former Senior VP of marketing for the Trump Marina who’s innovative and entertaining casino floor promotions have set the standard in the industry. Do any of these names ring a bell? No? I thought not, but ask anyone in this business who these people are and they will know. The list could go on and on, but I wish to be brief. On that note, I wrote about the best person I knew who has made a significant impact on gaming and casino promotions, especially market driven, targeted behavioral casino promotions. And please do not be mislead or swayed by Stellatomailing’s insinuations that I have only worked in small casinos and none of them in Vegas and therefore am not noteworthy of a WP article. This is only indicative of this editor’s (and possibly others) ignorance of the industry. If any one takes the time to research Lincoln Park (now known as Twin River) in Lincoln, Rhode Island, they will see that it has over 4,500 gaming devices on its floor. NO CASINO IN VEGAS EVEN COMES CLOSE to this number, and, as a extra note, this is considered to be the 4th largest casino in the country, after Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, and Bally’s AC (which by the way none of these are in Las Vegas). And if you take the time to research the Southern California properties I have had the privilege to serve, you will see that Trump 29 Casino had 2,000 positions and Agua Caliente with the Spa Resort Casino had a combination of 2,000 devices, which by industry standards is considered to be very, very large. Finally, the Romero Awards are considered to be the premier prize for a casino marketer. More so than an ADDY or any other advertising or marketing award. Do not try to diminish the value of this prize as in the eyes of the industry (which by the way I again repeat Stellatomailing seems to have no experience or understanding) is very important and respected. If you do the research you will see that the judges are more than qualified and the awards are named after a great man in this industry. And don’t even get me started about the International Hispanic Awards or the Sol Azteca. It is shameful that recognition of something that has given because of a significant and positive contribution to a community has been minimized in the manner expressed above. In a last note (I promise) I would like to thank Controllerman for correcting the references in the article. I have an inkling that no one who has already contributed to the conversation will take the time to substantiate through the citations from respected third party periodicals the documented contributions suggested in the article, but after seeing the abundance of criticism on the obvious and overt display of groupthink as well as journalistic and editorial amateurism shown here and on WP, this is to be expected. I mean honestly, where can a 14 year-old make a “significant” contribution on a topic that the have never seen or participated in. That’s like me editing or thinking of contributing on a topic like quantum physics. Let the experts decide, but then of course I doubt there are too many of them here as they are probably all working at their respective casinos. And Athaenara, nice VSCA comment. Real classy. LOL. Flame away and chao!Michaeljbroderick 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Michael: don't get angry. I understand you are saying that those are the biggest casino's by numbr of slot machines([86], we know that the most cash and most profitable is Foxwoods, or are we talking about footage? Or cash? No matter what, isn't it a fact that the Strip market is the largest in the US? You could have worked in big or small casinos, but did you create a marketing campaign that changed the entire industry and everybody adopted? Did somebody write about it? About the prize, it can be a fantastic prize (please note that I am just asking you to provide the notability for it), but both my opinion and yours do not really matter in this case - i.e., it doesn't matter if I like the Oscars or not, everybody else likes it and it can be verified. This is why I asked for judges, number of entries, who fought for the prize... and it must be in writing somewhere. Do the convention include everybody, or they invite only certain people to talk? What are the grounds for eligibility? I went through the links you provided, and I do not see anything from AP, Reuters, CNN,etc. saying that you are an expert, only some articles mentioning you without qualifying you. When I mentioned the Sol Azteca prize, if it is awarded only to people who helped the Hispanic Community, you are excluding too many people to consider it as a notable award (to Wikipedia, remember).

There is a number of things that can be said regarding your contributions to the industry, etc. - but there is an easy way to set that dispute without fighting: please provide WP:RS that you have the notability to be in Wikipedia. Stellatomailing 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. C'est "spam", je penses. Sr13 01:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smarthome

[edit]
Smarthome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is little more than direct quotes from press releases and other promo. Tagged for CSD yesterday as blatant advertising (G11), but the tag was disputed. Suggest deletion as spam. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Solano

[edit]
Claudio Solano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. Autobiography. RJASE1 Talk 14:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be notable, also the article is extremely new and is very likely to improve. I vote delete because it seems that the editor is Claudio Solano himself, so WP:AUTO applies. Malc82 14:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Static

[edit]
Clear Static (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: this band had a Top 20 Billboard single (on both the Dance Music/Club Play and Dance Music Sales charts)[87] and national tour (opening for Duran Duran)[88]; either of which is enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Closenplay 10:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Couevas

[edit]
Sean Couevas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record producer per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 14:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ocatecir Talk 07:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Label Records

[edit]
Blue Label Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record company per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7CGEN

[edit]
7CGEN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 15:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Sculpting

[edit]
Musical Sculpting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This invention is not an original invention but a simple sequencing using MIDI support. Many other musicians have performed, using MIDI support and/or disklavier pianos, before Mr. Taussig. Alegreen 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epigram (newspaper)

[edit]
Epigram (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. This is student ephemera that has never done anything notable, never been observed independently from outside its University, has failed to ever win any award the sole award it was incidentally nominated for (and that was just in a student-friendly newspaper). The article contains no informative material beyond the fact that it is the student newspaper at the University of Bristol, which article is already clear on the point. The editors of the article insistently refuse to allow it to be a redirect (largely by insisting it be deleted instead), have removed the PROD tag without explanation or justification and so deletion is the only route remaining. It's useless as a redirect anyway, since noone would ever search for such a parenthetical phrase. Note that the glut of apparent media references are all 'shortlists' for the award it failed to win, and thus not actually about Epigram. -Splash - tk 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. University newspapers often have many notable alumni. --Eastmain 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the above summary to be really quite inaccurate. The article contains a lot more information than the University of Bristol page - the latter merely contains the sentence "The students' newspaper is called Epigram, and is produced fortnightly during term-time." One of the six newspaper URLs refers specifically to the paper's stance during the history teaching dispute. I would hardly call six references a "glut", particularly when they have been put there in response to a call for more references. But overall, the main arguments against the constant redirection by Splash were that, firstly, he was doing it without consultation; secondly, he was redirecting it to the University of Bristol Union page, which did not mention Epigram at all (other than a "see also" link to the Epigram (newspaper) article, leading to a looped divert); and thirdly he was deleting a large amount of useful information and not moving it onto the page he was redirecting to. I believe the article demonstrates its notability now, and should be kept. Tim (Xevious) 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a brilliant article and could do with expanding, but the newspaper is notable (along with the alumni it has produced). Certainly other universities have articles about their student media - Oxford (The Oxford Student, Cherwell), Birmingham (Redbrick) and Sheffield (The Steel Press) are just the first three I checked. I can't see which bit of Wikipedia:Notability it doesn't meet. MrBeast 11:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Student-run college newspapers are neither inherently notable nor non-notable. A notable one might have notable alumni (Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote for one), might have won awards from respected organizations, might have large circulations, might have been the primary news sources covering notable events which coverage was picked up by other news media, and might have received notice from the press, TV or journalism reviews for doing a great job or a lousy job (as in promulgating hoaxes) or for standoffs regarding journalistic integrity against the administration or to protect sources. Not seeing in the present article much evidence of any such notability. The article is not informative about the year the paper was founded, whether it includes a printed edition, or any measure of its circulation or influence within or without the college. Arguments just saying "it is notable" do not satisfy Wikipedia standards for keeping an article.Edison 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that this is necessary to complete the encyclopaedic picture of the University of Bristol. Without it, there would be a gap in information. I think the article as it stands is in need of improvement, but I don't think its deficiencies in present content are reason enough to delete the article in entirety. --Fritzpoll 22:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Other University media articles are allowed. Its a decent article which could do with expanding. Its well references and its a nice link in the Bristol Uni navigation box which as the above user points out "is necessary to complete the encyclopaedic picture of the University of Bristol". Can't really undertand why is been put up for deletion when every pokemon gets an article Francium12 talk/contribs 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above is incorrect: there is no automatic right to a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not a directory. Furthermore, the above argument seems to be a good summary of WP:AADD ;-) Ohconfucius 04:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having received an award by Guardian, a very reputable newspaper in the UK, is enough to show the newspaper is notable enough to remain here.--Kylohk 12:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above is incorrect: A nomination is not an award. Ohconfucius 04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prodded this article once, and added the notability tag. I believe that while every attempt has been made to assert notability, there are no hard achievements per WP:N or WP:ORG to support its retention. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is at least one student newspaper in every university and college, and most are not notable. This appears to be quite a young journal, which has never won any award, let alone a "major award". No notable alumni can be cited, and no press coverage to boot. The references supplied are all either self references, or are trivial mentions which list all nominees for the awards, so one can in no way say any part of this article is reliably sourced, except for the existence of award nominations, and the fact that a story was picked up by the Times. I do not feel that any of these count as valid assertions of notability per our policies and guidelines. If the article's information is essential to give a complete picture of the Uni, then the content could arguably be integrated there. As it stands, it does not merit an article of its own. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either, so we should delete the article, without prejudice to re-creation when it actually becomes notable. Ohconfucius 04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Considering that the Guardian awards cited rate the paper as one of the top four student newspapers in the country this makes the paper somewhat more notable that most of the articles in Category:United Kingdom student newspapers which havent faced the wrath of deletionist wikipedians (yet!). If Epigram doesnt warrent and article then neither do any other student newspapers. Considering the Telegraph, The Times and the BBC have all picked up on Epigram stories the paper does have a certain level of notability which other student papers do not. Don't merge - the navigation box is there for a reason Francium12 talk/contribs 11:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latejami

[edit]
Latejami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable constructed language for use in machine translation. Only references are self-published. The language also goes by four other names. No relevant hits on .edu sites via google for any of the language names. No relevant hits in JSTOR for any of the language names. No relevant hits for the author in JSTOR so he's probably not a renowned expert where we might infer notability even for a self-published source. Delete Aagtbdfoua 21:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite and fictitious numbers

[edit]
Indefinite and fictitious numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable humour topic / non-notable list greenrd 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETE. Krimpet (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Ball special abilities

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Dragon Ball special abilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is filled with flaws. First, it includes a number of attacks that have been seen only once and never again, like Jan-Ken. Thus, it is an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, the article lacks any real sources; the only sources listed at bottom are from fansites, which are not independent and therefore not useful (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article also contains 45 non-free images, which seems a bit excessive to me, and also is written primarily in-universe. Based on the above reasons, I nominate this article for deletion. Hemlock Martinis 00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't see how this article can be improved. And because some people like it isn't really a valid reason to keep it. --Hemlock Martinis 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete altogether unencyclopedic. Nyttend 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. valid topic it the corresponding fancruft domain. Contrary to conclusion of colleague Hemlock Martinis, IMO the very fact that it lists rarely known "Jan-Ken" shows its usefulness for a certain category of people (I presume Dragon Ball fans is a quite sizable population). And most certainlyit is not "indiscriminate collection of information. It is a very specific (discriminate) list related to a prominent domain of wikipedia articles. Note: While myself I consider this topic is waste of time and disk space, I respect the opinion of many people who actually wasted their time on creating all DragonBallistic articles. Mukadderat 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, the amount of effort put into an article is rarely a good reason to keep said article. If DBZ fans like it so much, there's a DBZ wiki they can move it to, where they can give it the proper attention. --Hemlock Martinis 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All but one of the abilities have no possibility of ever having any out of universe information (and that one only has a small possibility). These can only be described as how they appear in the series instead of how they were developed or have effected the real world. Fictional topics that cannot do that need to be merged or removed. TTN 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Useful to someone" and "I worked hard" are not valid criteria for inclusion. 81.104.175.145 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\talk 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Melbourne thunderstorm

[edit]
2003 Melbourne thunderstorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stubby article with no references whatsoever to indicate which storm this article is referring to. I almost speedy deleted this one but thought it best to bring to AfD in case there's more to this than meets the eye. - Longhair\talk 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good call bringing this one to AfD Longhair for some necessary TLC and peer review. I had to do some reading up and searching into this, and I think it may be good enough to stay subject to improvements. In a media release by The Hon Dr Sharman Stone, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the storm in question was described as a 1 in 100 year event[89]. Also, some more information from a stormchaser group on the thunderstorm which includes details and copies of the BOM alerts[90][91].There's also purported to be two articles in The Age and one in The Herald Sun about the storm, which one of our University-related friends might be able to dig up the text of. Thewinchester (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename - Meets WP:V, WP:N. I was there when it happened (the night of 2 December 2003 - I was in Melb on and off until the 19th) and remember the absolute *flood* of coverage (pardon the pun, especially with any unlucky Fairfield residents reading...) that followed it for weeks. Everyone was calling it a 1 in 100 year event at the time. Made for a pretty spectacular light show from the YHA in North Melbourne! Orderinchaos 02:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per the Winchester and Orderinchaos. Capitalistroadster 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was going to say delete, but the above comments suggested there were plenty of references, so I've rewritten the article and added several refs and an image. --Canley 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per changes made by Canley and others. Fantastic effort! Zivko85 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-42,GGLJ:en&q=link:stevegilliard.blogspot.com 12,000 Web Sites Link to stevegilliard.blogspot.com
  2. ^ [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-42,GGLJ:en&q=link:www.thenewsblog.net/ 5,000 Web Sites Link to www.thenewsblog.net
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_3&oldid=1116715827"