Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 24 April 26 >

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 a1, a7, nonnotable neologism. NawlinWiki 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going to disneyland

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

Dicdef. Could possibly be transwikied if it's actually used by someone.—Scott5114↗ 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lam

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

Councillor in Westminster, California, population 88k. Mostly is a puff piece. No sources. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lam was the first Vietnamese-American elected in the United States, as the earlier user stated, and he remains a very influential leader within the Vietnamese community of America. -Friends of Tony Lam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.138.246 (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but thoroughly rewrite to remove any unsourced negative remarks per WP:BLP - the plethora of coverage in reliable sources as shown by Google News should be enough for anyone to start writing a neutral article. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 23:47Z
  • Very weak keep. Even though I had never heard of Mr. Lam before, after doing some research I feel that notability isn't a problem. As it stands now, the article is completely unsourced though. I realize it's a stub but at this point, we're looking at an article that was created 13 months ago. Having said that, I'd still advocate cleanup/a major rewrite over deleting the article. Seed 2.0 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Although unsourced, this is a well written, reliable, article of notable subject. Nousernamesleft 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the article. Although it might not be too neutral for some people, it is decently sourced. What sources I can find have all commented favourably on Mr Lam. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-25 03:49Z
  • Note that all versions from this one onwards up to the one prior to my rewrite contain copyvio from this newspaper article: ANH DO (9 August 2002). "`I have done my best'". The Orange County Register. p. 1, Cover. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-25 04:19Z
  • Keep - passes notability test with flying colors. Just need to improve the citations. --Valley2city₪‽ 05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following Resurgent insurgent's rewrite. schi talk 06:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Councilman is pioneer for Vietnamese - Tony Lam of Westminster is the first Vietnamese\emigre elected to public office in the United States. San Jose Mercury News. March 23, 1993. As you might expect with such a notable person, there is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policies. -- Jreferee 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as first Vietnemesse [sic] elected to council and for controversy surrounding him.--St.daniel talk 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ditto others. --Remi 15:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The typical Westminster, California City Councilmember would not be notable, but this man is the very first person from an entire ethnic group to hold elected office in the United States. OCNative 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Canadian Idol (Season 4) fishhead64 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jones (singer)

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

Brandon Jones isn't very a very notable Canadian Idol entrant, and many others more notable then him have pages Lemonflash 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - subject could potentially be article-worthy, but at the moment the article is unsourced, and violates WP:ATT and WP:BLP-—arf! 05:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It just looks like it needs some cleanup and a few sources, which shouldn't be too hard, but I will agree it looks like WP:COI, but that can be easily fixed... really it just comes down to needing to be Wikified and made more encyclopedic, and even fixing the grammar, but this isn't beyond impossible, and doesn't look like notability is too much of an issue. Kiwizoid 06:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article on that season of Canadian Idol, until his career gains traction. -- Zanimum 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article on that season of Canadian Idol. Keep There is enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and the article can meet Wikipedia article policy standards. Some articles include 1. CCNMatthews. June 21, 2006. Brandon Jones Named New Brunswick Idol ; Will Represent Province in Canadian Idol Semi-Finals Beginning June 26 on CTV.; 2 Canadian Press. August 1, 2006. New Brunswick high schooler Brandon Jones the latest to be booted from Idol.; (3) Canada Newswire English. August 2, 2006. Brandon Jones is First Male Eliminated from Canadian Idol. -- Jreferee 23:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I revised my reasoning to merge (e.g. add content into the article on that season of Canadian Idol, delete original content, and redirect topic). With less than 1,500 characters, I would be hard pressed to call the content an article. Even though the topic meets WP:N and the article can meet Wikipedia article policy standards, there should be enough text to cross a threshold between "this is an article" (a written essay or report on a subject) and this does not amount to a written essay or report on a subject. One sentence is not a written essay or report on a subject. Thus, even though the topic meets WP:N, the article can meet article policy standards, merge indicates that the content of such a very short page should be merged. -- Jreferee 15:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional detectives for younger readers

[edit]
List of fictional detectives for younger readers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable list Elfguy 14:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperCity

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Tizio 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adirondack Architecture

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

No context, no references. Seems too vague to be merged anywhere. Propaniac 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aqeel Abbas Jafri

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

Little more than a CV. Other users and I have marked the page with wikify, cleanup and likeresume tags, but the original creator has repeatedly removed these from the page. Suspect this to be a publicity effort by his publisher. Jvhertum 17:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The long list of books is the give-away in my mind of it being a CV. Running out of WP:AGF for creator User:Imadkasir, who also keeps uploading unacceptible images among his Wiki-unfriendly actions. DMacks 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't think the notability is primarily the books; i think he's notable as a journalist and quiz show writer--some of the books are apparently the compiled questions from the show. (Assuming it can be documented. Writing undocumented articles about relatively unfamiliar but possibly notable subjects is not of help to anybody, including the subjects, because the articles will generally get deleted. )DGG 04:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Federal Court of Appeal (Canada). Walton Need some help? 16:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Court of Appeal Law Clerks

[edit]
Federal Court of Appeal Law Clerks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability guidelines, likely created as a vanity article. Rizla 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this can be merged into Federal Court of Appeal (Canada), unless there is something more to be added than a list of names. CitiCat 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per CitiCat. The article is just a list of names with no other information. --Cyrus Andiron 13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. As just a list of names, there's no 'there' there. DarkAudit 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would agree with merging if there was any information other than names. I still strongly believe the names should be removed. There is no published list of clerks and no way to verify who joins every year besides personal knowledge (original research). Besides the fact that the individual clerks themselves are non-notable people - there is no published material on the significance of their position in the same manner there is for USSCC clerks. At most there should be a few lines in the FCA article stating the number of clerks each judge has and their role. Rizla 00:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Is there a source for the list? CitiCat 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, it might be worth noting that the courts website doesn't think the clerks names are important enough to mention CitiCat 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment However, the Supreme Court of the United States website does not provide a list of clerks or the names of judges to whom they have been assigned either. I note that the policy on original research states, "The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas." Facts are not ideas. The only source for facts will often be primary sources. Once again from the original research policy: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Primary sources need only be verifiable -- the information here can easily be verified by a simple telephone call to the court house.
That may be so, I'd be willing to concede the point that someone could concievably verify the list via personal sources or phoning the court, etc... I do not really want to get into a technical discussion about wikipedia policy semantics. However, there is still a matter of whether the clerks are really notable, which I strongly believe they are not. I do not see the need or the purpose to outline the names of the clerks in an encyclopedia. No matter how prestigious or competitive it may be to obtain the clerkship within the legal profession they are still of minimal significance outside of the court. I believe the crux of most peoples argument for keeping the page is based around the precedent set by the USSC clerks page. With respect to that the USSC clerks have multiple substantial articles written about them and their impact on the court (See refs.) in large circulation papers, not to mention the established prominence previous clerks usually go on to. In comparison to Canada, not even the Supreme Court of Canada clerks have had any articles written about them or their impact on the court. Let alone the Federal Court of Appeal clerks, which is of much less significance than the SCC. It seems to me the clerks are of the same notability as say, a legislative assistant to an MP. Rizla 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Rizla, the problem with your argument is that it takes an effect for a cause. The lack of an article that elaborates on a topic cannot be a reason for deleting an article on that topic. It can only be a reason for expanding the article that already exists. As for information on the role of clerks at the Supreme Court, you may want to check out the biography of former Chief Justice Brian Dickson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.145.50 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete A rather pointless, unsourced list of legal clerks that will need to be updated on a yearly basis. Most judges on the FCA are not notable enough to warrant their own articles, which means that being their assistants conveys (next to) zero notability. If White House interns collectively don't merit their own article, then neither should FCA clerks. Caknuck 07:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robopound

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

Drinking game that seems to be non-notable outside of Princeton University where it originated. The external links point to Princetonian self-published pages, and a Google search for <robopound -wikipedia> does not turn up any non-Princetonian reliable sources that have written about the game. [3] Only results in Google News come from the Princetonians' newspaper. [4]

The previous nomination was here. No citation was provided by Plokloon for the "New Jersey newspaper" where this was supposedly mentioned; and the comment by infix glosses over the problem of the lack of independent, non-self published sources. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 22:22Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'll interpret the page creator's blanking as a deletion request. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-25 07:02Z

Haynesville football

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

The article is blank and falls under WP:NOT and WP:DELETE — Ian Lee (Talk) 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auscision Models

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

A non-notable model train manufacturer Mattinbgn/ talk 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

Powerline Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Mattinbgn/ talk 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rankism (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable neologism seemingly used only by its crank-ish creator, originally flunked an AfD in 2005 and was recreated; the article is filled with spamcruft two years later, with no indication of notability. Should be merged with Robert W. Fuller to the extent there's anything salvageable in here. THF 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. I think it's mildly notable: 32,100 Google hits is way above the kind of stuff that's commonly debated here (and 16 on Google Books and 27 on Google Scholar). But the fact that it hasn't been edited for a year suggests it's not that notable. 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhagen

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

The article is non-notable and provides little or no content. ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 09:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Denominated Currency

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

Original research. In response to a prod, the author added a ref and some links but they are not very specific. It is "proposed by John Edward Nelson". Who is this guy? Where has he been published? Has anybody else agreed with his ideas? -- RHaworth 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mazen Kawar and Petra Tours

[edit]
Mazen Kawar and Petra Tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:VSCA. Strays somewhat away from the subjects of its title. Note also the "my father" reference. -- RHaworth 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (computer game)

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

Non-notable viral marketing "game"-- only a single news item from a source (The Guardian, UK) to be found that even talks about the site. Beyond that, no verifiable info outside of the site itself, making the sum of the article Original research. Variations of the article have been deleted 8 times previously, when it was under the title "Lost.eu". Finally, the URL for the site itself is currently blacklisted on Wikimedia due to spamming by its participants. --LeflymanTalk 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you win, I disagree with this deletion but that may have more to do with the time and effort spent working on this article then the amount of notability this game has. I wish I could find away to change your minds but that is a really good argument agaist the article. The only thing I have a problem with is, holding the fact that the url is on the black list against the article, I would think if such strong measures had to be taken against the site then it has to say something about the games notability, just not anywhere close enough to save it from deletion I fear. Delete if you must, I'll stop contesting, at least for now if the game gets much larger then I would like to revisit this issue.Vantar 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being deleted eight times by seven different admins speaks volumes about the "notability" of this site. Added {{afdanons}} preemptively due to subject. MER-C 05:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of outside reliable coverage -- lucasbfr talk 09:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as nn. On a more general note: say what you want about ARGs like ILB but at least they didn't borderline encourage institutionalized spamming. That's why I feel it's not really unfair to use the fact that the site is blacklisted against the article, even if the two aspects (notability and some of the more obnoxious type of spam) are unrelated (ie. this isn't just a case of 'guilty by assocation'). Notorious maybe, but that doesn't establish sufficient notability, in my opinion. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I think a lot of people are getting the wrong impression about this as soon as they hear that the goal is to get as many people to sign up as possible. While that may be the case, this Wikipedia article is not here for that. It is a neutral article about a real, popular online game. As for it being non-notable, I think the figure of 230,000 users definately makes it notable. A google search also turns up 171,000 results (although of course most of these are just people trying to get sign-ups). I do think that this game will continue to grow at an extremely rapid pace, and as it approaches its goal of 7 million players, it will definitely become notable (yes, I know about WP:CRYSTAL -- no need to throw it at me) and covered by many sources. I don't have a figure right now for how fast the game is growing, but I'm looking for one and if I find it I'll put it here. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, The Guardian article says it is getting 2,500 new subscribers per day, a number that will probably increase as more people join, and will probably quickly make this game quite notable. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been reported in the Guardian, a noteworthy British paper. http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,,2033707,00.htmlsamwaltz 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Merriam Websters (m-w.com), multiple is "the product of a quantity by an integer". One is, in fact, the product of 1*1, and is, as such, a multiple. I will, in any case, look for a few more instances. samwaltz 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Rangers A.F.C.

[edit]
County Rangers A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An indoor football (soccer) team that plays in Kingston on Hull. No assertion of notability, so should be CSD a7, but speedied once and recreated, last speedy tag was removed by anon IP with no comment, so bringing here for consensus. A few of the player's names have live links but most link to clearly unrelated individuals. Delete Aagtbdfoua 00:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • County Rangers A.F.C. is NOT an amateur team it is a semi-professionsl team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countyrangersfc (talk • contribs) 15:21, April 25, 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Robbins

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

Not notable. Article almost falls over itself attempting to assert notability but, no, no sign she's more notable than the average professor (WP:PROF). kingboyk 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sanchez. --kingboyk 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentBecause, I edit this article extensively I am recusing myself from voting. In response to comment. I want the article to meet notability requirements so edit it to show what requirements are met. Her nomination for awards and and coverage in national media make her more than average professor. She is roughly as well known as danah boyd. How can I or others improve the article.Typewriter 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment also just added reference to ibiblio speaker series she was asked to lecture in. Other lecturers in the series include danah boyd, cory doctorow, jimmy wales, and Bob Sutor.

Delete, she is just a college professor with a blog. There are too many other similar people for her to get an article. Black Harry 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Intellagirl is a cutting edge blogger who combines Real Life with Second Life. Her work and writing is moving educators past Web 2.0 into Web 3.0, in ways that Wikipedia opened up 2.0. To strengthen the article, it needs more images, an indepth teaching philosophy, and a closer look at the ways that she "breaks out of Real World learning". Alys Obviate 3:00 UTC — Alys Obviate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Not a registered user, forged signature; edit actually made by User:154.20.20.89

Keep, Intellagirl is absolutely a pioneer in the field of distance education, where linear, text-based courses remain the norm. Sarah Robbins and the merest handful of others pushed back the boundaries of technology in education to investigate early on what might be done in Second Life and, by extension, in similar environments. Her blog shares her research activities with the education community. Ozma.malibu 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Ozma.malibu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User blocked. --kingboyk 12:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article is way too long. Needs editing to the essential bits. See a sampling of other Second Life and M.U.V.E. notables who may or may not have a page:

jk 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because other similar articles exists is not a reason to keep this article. TJ Spyke 07:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is part of an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors. --Cyrus Andiron 12:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is incorrect all links mention or quote Robbins. I double checked this morning.
  • Delete I agree with User:Stammer. The fact that 2nd Life is going trough a popularity phase is skewing the notability of this person. Once the hype is over, little of her notability may be left. P.S. someone like Lawrence Lessig is on quite another level then Intellagirl. I'm sorry girl. you're just not there yet. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Second Life is definitely being hyped quite a bit right now. Popularity does not necessarily imply invalid, though.
  • Keep Plenty of references make it seem valid and potentially informative and useful for someone in those circles. --Remi 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - She does seem to have gotten some media attention, but most of the references qualify as trivial mentions. There's one full fledged article, from The Star Press, a local online news source. Falls a little bit short of WP:N, in my opinion. Even so, I just wanted to say that notability is permanent. If reliable sources write about her, then she meets WP:N, if they don't she doesn't. Whether or not it's a result of a temporary bump in the popularity of Second Life is irrelevant.Chunky Rice 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking sufficient sourcing to establish notability. When and if that changes she can have an article, but not now. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chunky Rice. The "quotes" are hardly substantial bits of any of the articles cited. If you look at Lawrence Lessig, he has entire columns dedicated to his field, in addition to humongous interviews (length and sheer number) from people who want to know more about his views on the free software movement. Sarah Robbins, on the other hand, has not even been approached by a non-local paper to conduct an interview on whatever groundbreaking ideas she might have. - Pandacomics 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News coverage satisfies WP:BIO. --Infrangible 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Best known for blogging, speaking and educating in Second Life" says it all, really. BTLizard 10:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with caveats and Comment on Pandacomics's assertion above: Lawrence Lessing is a superstar in the world of academia. Comparing Robbins to Lessing in order to establish that she is not more notable than an average professor would be like saying Ben Folds Five should be deleted because they don't have the press coverage of The Beatles. Phone up ten random names from a list of college instructors and see if anywhere near half of them have had major news outlets covering either their research or teaching. The Interest in her work is notable (even if being nominated for a graduate school prize is not). My weak support for keeping comes from the article not being a particularly well-written or useful article. I don't know anything more about Robbins's research after reading it as before; discussion of the contents of her two papers would be more useful than knowing she still has a dissertation to write. --Myke Cuthbert 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) oh, and I also find the template to be an attempt to skew discussion or discount people's views. I see nothing different than a typical AfD here. -- MSC [reply]
But see, Lessig's superstardom is what makes him notable, in accordance with WP:N. - Pandacomics 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A human hand with an upright thumb.
  • I am switching to Neutral. The fact that the article was poorly written, plus some subliminal stereotypes, may have induced me to discount the sources' relevance. Stammer 14:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the vote

[edit]

Because we are NOT voting, I started this new section to conduct a reasoned discussion as opposed to rough binary responses. I have shredded this article - thrown cold water on the "promotional" aspects and distilled it to the most useful (and verified) portions.

The information here is useful to me personally as I watch this EdTech research community mature. Robbins is a notable personality in the study of this new media. Granted, this is a case of boosterism bordering on a vanity piece - but the timbre of debate is fueled by community bias. If Robbins were comparably notable in Wikimedia circles, there would be no debate. Period.

Please leave this article be - it is useful. I have given enough to this community to assert this. See my winning Wikispecies logo entry and 2 "photos of the day" [6] [7]). jk 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you contributed to the community doesn't make her any more notable. - Pandacomics 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Majorly (hot!) 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharps Barber and Shop

[edit]
Sharps Barber and Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Non-notable, unsourced, promotional. --Finngall talk 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Kid Glove Shave Gel per discussion, as the two go hand-in-hand. --Finngall talk 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bible colleges

[edit]
List of bible colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. Unreferenced list, no definition of Bible College, lacks criteria, and some of don't use the term bible college to identify themself. We have categories that do a better, accurate job: Category:Seminaries and theological colleges, Category:Universities and colleges by religious affiliation, Category:Christian universities and colleges, and many, many more categories that have them categorized better.

In sum, there is no definition of a Bible College, no sources, questionable institutions on the list, and some are "seminaries" and universities that don't fit the title of "bible college".Arbustoo 01:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems that you cannot have red links (like you can have in the article) in categories. That makes categories inherently disadvantageous for content development (which is partly what lists are for; see:Wikipedia:List_guideline).
  • Keep - As per list guidelines: seems to be informative, potentially helpful in navigation (especially for someone curious about bible colleges), and may be helpful for content development (if someone wants to go ahead and write about Bible colleges that are currently not here on Wikipedia or simply improve existing articles).--Remi 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modified - to Keep or Move - if this supposedly is not just bible colleges, then move it to List of Christian colleges. It can easily be made to fit list guidlines (if it already does not). --Remi 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Its had a source tag on it since June 2006, and not a single source. Many of these don't even identify themself as a "bible college." Remi, your reasoning is based on "potential" that "may be" helpful. If someone wants to know about a Christian institution of higher learning (where its a college and they use the bible), we have categories and other articles about religious studies. Arbustoo 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will be helpful to someone. It can also be improved as all articles could. --Remi 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but a category would be fine. Metamagician3000 09:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Category - Lists of this kind are much better as categories. However that leaves the question of what to do with the introduction. In Britihs evangelical circles, Bible College is a term we understand, as referring to a college preparing students for christian ministry; I suspect that the measning elsewhere is slightly different, but that does not matter. This leaves the question of what to do with the introduction. Though unsourced, it looks right to me: it is littler more than a dictionary definition. A redirect to seminary will not do as in Britain that means an establishment traning for the Roman Catholic ministry. The introduction should be moved (my cut & paste) to Bible College, which is at present a redirect to this list. This should become the main article for the proposed category. Peterkingiron 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 11:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace River Bible Institute

[edit]
Peace River Bible Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable, non-accredited school. Has about 200 students (graduates, distance learning?) (not sourced), and lacks independent sources to show notability. Below, even the creator of the article votes only "weak keep." Arbustoo 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do public schools make money? Interesting question, they certainly take it, just look a your property tax bill. I'm paying over $1500 a year for public school's I've never even set foot in, at least for $4k you get to attend classes. I'm fairly sure I could find a high school article with <500 enrollment and at least the students are not perpetually vandalizing this article like most of the high school articles here. With 6 references, it is better referenced than the average high school article. The articles you've mentioned sound notable enough for inclusion, what else are you looking for, a New York Times review of a religious college in Alberta? Sexsmith, Alberta doesn't sound like a town that is likely to have their local newspaper archived in Lexis Nexis anyway. Looking at the article a second time, it looks like a decent stub with room to grow and doesn't need to be deleted. I'm not saying I'd want to attend, but that's not justification to delete the article. --Dual Freq 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public schools are paid for by tax money, and thus important to society. That is the rationale for keeping all public schools. This, on the other hand, is privately operated and not even accredited. The rest of your comment is unclear. We don't have sources to write a decent article. You have sources about a waterball fight, and firefighters from 10 years ago. If that's reason for inclusion, fine. But that seems to be a very low bar.
  • Should we include keep biographies of people who have 5 local newspaper mentions? Or you just think we should keep this unaccredited schools with 5 mentions? Arbustoo 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually did review the article and it seems valid. Sure, everything can be improved. I agree there. --164.107.223.217 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. You must provide proof for your claims. Arbustoo 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had not thought it notable, but the references have shown otherwise. If the argument is that N is not sufficiently proven by published references in RSs, that should first be discussed more generally. I don't think it's the generally accepted one at WP. DGG 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Somewhat sloppy article in areas, but holds a world record, and could be expanded into a good article. Jmlk17 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-read the article. A local paper (and only a local) says it held the record for a waterball was beat by another school. Importantly, if you look at the date of the sources it says another place beat its record in April 2005, but the article published in June 2005. So what that means is we CANNOT find a source that it earned the "record," but rather you have a local paper say it held the record. Fairly shakey grounds for inclusion.
    • What sources do you know of that can allow it to "be expanded into a good article"? Arbustoo 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaftari

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

Delete - if it weren't so old I'd mark it speedy for no assertion of notability. Non-notable family, orpahned article tagged since July. Otto4711 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the one bluelink isn't a WP:RS and doesn't make this family name inherently notable. This is not an encyclopedic article, it's a contextless possible WP:COI article which is a magnet for spam (see the shoes link). --Kinu t/c 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's hardly even a stub as there's no information in the article (except for the shoe tidbit which doesn't really tell me anything beyond 'some person in Lebanon owns a shoe factory'). WP:NN. The same probably goes for Assaad Chaftari as well (~300 non-Wiki Google hits, not much of substance beyond the Washington Post article) but I'll leave it to the nominator to decide whether this should be a joint nomination or not. -- Seed 2.0 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.SlideAndSlip 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazoun

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

Delete - unsourced orphan article on a family of questionable notability, abandoned since October 2006. Otto4711 01:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Alison. MER-C 11:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldofbags

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

No assertion of notability in the article, and Google seems to lack any hits that aren't shopping sites. Esrever 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Paulson

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

I declined a speedy delete on this as asserting notability (as president of Franklin Financial Corp., a subprime lender), but then came up with only 3 Ghits when trying to find sources, and none for "Franklin Financial Corp" (as opposed to "First Franklin Financial Corp", a completely different company). Mr. Paulson's Yellow Pages lawyer listing gives no indication of notability as a lawyer. NawlinWiki 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just to clarify...I am a mortgage broker, have been for 10 or so years. First Franklin Corp. (an unrelated company) was a subprime lender but they quit making loans a few months ago. My understanding is the Franklin Financial with Mr. Paulson, purchased their mortgages at a steep discount and resold them to Fanny Mae, making a very hefty profit. All this transpired quietly a few weeks ago. I would think he ranks up there with the top 400-500 after sealing this deal. Jeff Pardell 12:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)*— Jeff Pardell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Comment Yes, Mr. Paulson would be notable if he were indeed on the Forbes list (which is actually called the Forbes 400 -- but I couldn't find him on it. Go to the Wikipedia page and check the external link -- and note that to make the Forbes 400 in 2006, you had to have a net worth of $1 billion. Can anyone find a reliable source to show that Mr. Paulson is on this list? I haven't been able to, and the article author hasn't supplied one. I also note that the article author edited my nomination comment, and blanked the AFD notice on the article page. NawlinWiki 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, this editing was in error, this was my first time making a nomination.friends4lunch 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article claims he is on the Forbes 500. Not only is the 500 for businesses, but it hasn't been updated since 2002. Ourai тʃс 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the assertion is proven. There are only three Google hits for '"Neil Paulson" "Franklin Financial"', and they are all exactly the same opinion post. Corvus cornix 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 G-hits for the combination of his name and the company [16]; my search of the Forbes 400 comes up nil. Unless the assertions are proven, or there are other criteria brought up, delete. Ourai тʃс 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the fact that he has done all this stuff by age 51 makes him notable to me. BTW the Forbes 500 includes the Forbes 400 list plus the next 100 people that are poorer. Brian Germane 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Forbes 500, which includes only businesses, hasn't been updated since 2002. There is no possible way an individual could be on the Forbes 500 list for 2007. Ourai тʃс
  • Delete The Forbes 500 is for businesses. The Forbes 400 (for people) is published in September, and it's not quite September 2007 yet. Plus the military background is crap; the brigadier general he supposedly worked under retired in '77. [17] 'Tis a hoax. Phony Saint 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response No, I didn't; thanks for clarifying. He's still not notable pending the September 2007 issue. Phony Saint 04:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. Michaelas10 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shemale

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

Little more than a puffed up dictionary definition. This should really be a redirect to Transwoman, with the relevant differences in usage mentioned there. I realise the word isn't "politically correct", but the majority of people who use the term don't mean it in a derogatory way, so most users searching for "shemale" would expect to see a transgender-related article, rather than one about the usage of the actual word. If this word was primarily used in an offensive way it might be different, but it's the intention, rather than the effect, which is important here. Delete and redirect. Saikokira 01:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No decision yet. On the one hand, the nominator's claim that the 'majority of people who use the term don't mean it in a derogatory way' is utterly false and unsubstantiated, whereas the word's clearly derogatory usage has been well-cited. It is a slur against transgendered women - the derogatory nature of which is certainly not diminished by its use in pornography. Moreover, the nominator's exact claim has been a cause for repeated, tendentious editing (inevitably without citation meeting WP:V) by a number of anon and 'single-role' accounts. However, I do agree that the article as it stands could certainly be redirected into a more general article topic, and an appropriate mention of the obviously derogatory nature of the word placed therein. I'm not sure which way is best, so I'll mull it over and will observe the comments of others before deciding whether to back this deletion for an entirely separate reason than the nominator's, or whether to reject the deletion as unwarranted for the reasons given. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable term clearly in need of expansion. Notability is declared right off, and while it could do with expansion, that's certainly not the realm of deletion. The nominator's assumption that the word is not used derogatory is imprecise. While it's not always used offensively, the usage as such IS frequent. Presuming nobody else takes a run at it, I'll try to expand the article tomorrow evening. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThere is a long history of conflicting edits, with many in the last few weeks, and the cur version seems to be a compromise that removed much of the original content. The concept is clearly notable, its more than a dicdef, and the content from LQuilter (and probably other eds.) should be merged, and then a more informative consensus versions sought. Deletion isn't a good way to start improvement. DGG 03:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree, this article still needs a lot of work and shouldn't be deleted to accomplish that. However, if it is to remain as it has been the past week or so, deletion would seem better. I was involved somewhat with the current revision and support reverting to the version referenced above by Lankybugger. --Patrick80639 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - way more notable than a mere dicdef. The wikt link will attest to that. Furthermore, redirecting to transwoman is bound to be problematic due to its largely pejorative definition regardless of what the nom states above. This on its own indicates that it will be problematic. It does need rework, however, and I see that Lankybugger has already made a reasonable start on it - Alison ☺ 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a very notable term, and the article goes beyond dicdef and etymology, discussing the cultural connotations of the term in an encyclopedic context. Krimpet (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Transwoman, both articles talk about the same issue, I think it should go in a subsection of the official term -- lucasbfr talk 09:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and every single paragraph of the article is cited (except the 'list' which I myself just tagged). Patrick, can you elaborate on specifically what 'not cited, POV' content you refer to in your delete vote? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The proper way to deal with a revert war is to protect the page until discussion on the talk page resolves the dispute, not to delete the page. The proper way to deal with POV material is to fix it. Sancho 15:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading others' reasons for merging this with Transwoman, I've come to agree and have changed my vote from "delete". This article is filled with redundant information. Also, term is so common, many people may indeed use it to find information about transwomen, not about the term itself--Patrick80639 14:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gives a definition, usage both historically and in current culture, and interpretation. I believe this is an encyclopedic article separate from the information that should be provided in Transwoman. This is about the word (and not only in the manner a dictionary would cover it), not the people it refers to. Sancho 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Both are short articles: one about the subject matter, one about a derogatory term for it. Why do we need two separate articles for that? Sandstein 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as stated above. There has been some mention that we ought to keep it per the faggot/gay analogy, but when you excise the overlapping material between this article and transwoman it is clear that the analogy does not hold - the only new information this article provides is a dicdef and a brief etymology, which is rather self-evident in a term like this. Merging relevant content into a small section on transwoman is more than appropriate. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than a dictionary definition—and if someone wants an article on transgendered women, transwoman is linked in the first line. --Dookama 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Cleanup I think it should've been cleaned-up first before someone decided to use AfD nod material. --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Transwoman. Article does not seem to stand alone and would help expand the Transwoman article. About the redirect, I'm fairly ignorant so I had no idea it was a derogatory term. If I wanted information about this topic, I would probably search Shemale. I think a disclaimer at the top of the page (if a redirect is used) should explain that it is a derogatory term. hombre de haha 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not per nom but because I think this would work better with Transwoman. Kolindigo 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge, As per faggot/gay and also because the word shemale does not belong in an encyclopedic article about transwomen. Just because both articles lack some information does not mean they should be merged; the derogatory usage of the word shemale is quite different to the actual usage, meaning and content of the transwoman article. Both need cleanup. Cheers! Lauren♫/∆ 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete: G12 (copyvio). --Kinu t/c 06:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eguie Castrillo

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

The result was delete both. Majorly (hot!) 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carter (British Indie Performance Artist)

[edit]
Chris Carter (British Indie Performance Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable vanity. AlistairMcMillan 03:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it seems to be another non-notable vanity article by the same editor(s):

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Darling

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-26 16:44Z

Circus Royale

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

This had a denied speedy deletion attempt some time ago, but it still looks like serious nonsense. Google is inconclusive because the name is fairly vague, but the article as is should be deleted. JuJube 04:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denim & Diamonds

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

non-notable band, no notability asserted really. can't find any substantial coverage via google, and (though this is not an absolute criterion of notability) they only have 7,000 plays at their myspace, http://myspace.com/denimanddiamonds Calliopejen1 04:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Anthony.bradbury with edit summary NN group. . W.marsh 14:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proshockers

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

No sources, notability is stated but not defined, etc. Joe Decker 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I should add that it was a disputed prod. --Joe Decker 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Criminals

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

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the following rationale: "The people in this list can be encompassed by those lists in Category:Lists of criminals, so this is unneeded". I agree, but this fits no WP:CSD. The deletion was contested by the author, see the hangon tag in the history, so WP:PROD is also out. Sandstein 05:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tawfique Chowdhury

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

The principle reason is notability, as per Wikipedia:Notability (people). The manager of a college, still in university, and there seem to be no real references in any sort of media organisation or credible sources after a google search. Indeed the page contains no references. Recurring dreams 06:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, obvious nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl "Misdemeanour" Williams

[edit]
Karl "Misdemeanour" Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this (unsourced) biography to be a likely hoax, as I can find no corroboration anywhere for the claimed "#1 hits", etc. JavaTenor 07:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Orderinchaos 09:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Kelly

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

Suspected hoax. The article is unsourced and I was unable to find any relevant google hits Mattinbgn/ talk 07:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Ninjas

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

Fan-made Flash game in early development, little apparent notability and does not pass WP:V. ~Matticus TC 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 people or group with no assertion of notability. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-25 12:27Z

China11

[edit]
China11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unsourced, likely vanity article. Sumple (Talk) 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was click our very own "kill" button. Krimpet (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kill Everyone Project

[edit]
The Kill Everyone Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not cite sources and does not meet guidelines for WP:WEB Qapf 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB -- lucasbfr talk 09:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

definitely keep

Keep i think something that's been running for 6 years and has 78k registered users is notable. Mgfcmartinez
Also I am curious of the timing of this AFD. The article has existed for two and a half years; why is it suddenly not notable enough on the day of completion? I suspect that (like me) Qapf heard on the radio this morning that The Kill Everyone Project is reaching its end. I suspect that (unlike me) Qapf didn't know what it was and looked it up in Wikipedia. If so, Qapf found it through its notability. If not, Qapf, you need to explain your actions. Perhaps you should withdraw this AFD for a few weeks on the grounds that it makes you look petty, even if you weren't.
POV Notice: I have over 30,000, and I have edited this article. — Randall Bart (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It literally ended while I was composing the above, and my body count is 33333. — Randall Bart (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete lack of any reliable, non-trivial, independent sources. Alleged mentions in blogs surely do not constitute this. Timing of this AFD is irrelevant, this article has no notability. This is (allegedly, again no legit sources) a website where you click on the screen and if you do it enough you can call other users "noobs"...?? It doesn't cut it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aresian Well

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

Neologistic term for something that does not exist and likely never will, does not appear to have garnered much interest outside of its main proponent. Most of this is straight out of the pages of science fiction. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while being "straight out of the pages of science fiction" and "does not exist and likely never will" are not grounds for deletion (see Dyson sphere, for example), "neologism" and "no independent sources" definitely are. There are lots of references, but only two that antedate the concept's invention, both of those by the inventor himself. Google produces no relevant results outside Wikipedia. --Huon 10:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google turns up the SSI/AIAA publication. Unfortunately a typo in the AAS volume contents page (full content not online) lists it as "Artesian Well". Are these not relevant? AJWM 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you explain why you think that the bulk of the article is a "content fork" from space elevator? It seems to be neither the bulk of the article not duplicative of the space elevator article, to which it refers readers for further details on that aspect. AJWM 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Fountains of Paradise reference is called out from the technique of wobbling the tether to avoid Phobos, Clarke presented it there first. It solves a problem unique to Mars-based orbital tethers. (And there's nothing to prevent a beanstalk also being used as an elevator.) The terminology debate (which has been quite acrimonious on the space elevator page) should not have any bearing on retaining/deleting this page. AJWM 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'beanstalk' for a space elevator has only been used in jest (by Larry Niven in Rainbow Mars). Michaelbusch 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get that from? I think The Beanstalk Project might disagree, and NASA explicitly use the elevator/beanstalk analogy on their own website — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article draws a distinction between "elevator-like hoisting mechanism[s]" and continuous-flow arrangements, calling the former space elevators and the latter "beanstalks". It says that Arthur Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson used beanstalks in their books, when they were actually elevator-like hoisting machines. Not that it matters too much. Anville 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Heinlein used the term 'beanstalk' in his novel Friday -- as the space elevator page mentions. Niven's use postdates the referenced paper.AJWM 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even our own space elevator article mentions that they're sometimes called beanstalks. It also gives a 1980s sci-fi reference for the term. --Huon 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User "Michaelbusch" seems to have a personal grudge against this concept, vis his (erroneous) comment above, his comment "I dislike this not being speedy-able" above, his comments on the article discussion page that the idea is "pointless", and his comment on AJWM's talk page that the idea "is amusing, but Mars' volatile inventory is relatively low and that of the asteroids high, so I see no market. Michaelbusch 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)" This assertion is unproved, and Michaelbusch, as an asteroid researcher, may have a significant bias here (it also ignores delta-vee considerations). Michaelbusch also initially tagged the article for deletion. While there may or may not be a legitimate policy reason to delete, Michaelbusch's remarks should be discounted. AJWM 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there might be a good bit of fluff in the references which is not directly connected to the concept at all. Still, the Space Studies Institute looks legit and notable enough. Wikipedia is not paper, what is the problem with keeping something that has only one reputable reference?MadMaxDog 07:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That SSI reference is a conference talk delivered by the inventor himself. It's not as if anybody but Mr Mayer has ever written (or said) anything about the Aresian Well. Without claiming that such is the case here, I happen to know that it's possible to deliver talks about any kind of nonsense at conferences, making such talks less reliable than, say, articles in peer-reviewed journals. And with all due respect, I doubt Mr Mayer is notable enough to confer automatic notability on his project. Furthermore, User:AJWM claims to be Alastair J. W. Mayer, the inventor, leading to a conflict of interest. --Huon 09:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:AJWM says that I have a personal grudge against this concept, which I will chose to not consider a personal attack. I do want this material to be removed, because I have spent considerable time studying the economics of spaceflight, and have a certain lack of patience when it comes to nonsensical ideas. That said, WP:N is sufficient grounds for this material being excluded from Wikipedia. My comments above and those quoted by AJWM were simply me treating the idea as a concept, independent of the question of its inclusion. I do regret that material like this isn't speedy-able, because it would save me considerable time as compared to setting up AfDs. Michaelbusch 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AJWM claims that WP:COI doesn't apply, but at the same time claims to be the inventor of the idea and to be writing a science-fiction novel based on the concept. This is a contradiction. Michaelbusch 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made no comment one way or the other about WP:COI. These false assertions by Michaelbusch seem to be bordering on personal attacks themselves. If the consensus of Wikipedians is to delete the article or merge its content into other articles, then so be it, but let that decision be for legitmate Wikipedia policy reasons.AJWM 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AWJM posted this on Talk:Aresian Well: "While I am the originator of the idea (but not of Martian beanstalks in general), that was almost twenty years ago and I have no particular proprietary interest in it." I took this to be a denial of WP:COI. If I was mistaken, I apologize. And as has been stated, the deletion was nominated per policy (notability). Michaelbusch 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No refs forthcoming, and if someone wanted to rewrite it they'd be better to start from scratch. Daniel Bryant 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air-Stream Wireless Incorporated

[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP, reads more like an advertisment. Thewinchester (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 csd g11 Gnangarra 11:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aireal Australia

[edit]

WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article has remained virtually untouched since creation and tagging for attention, no notability established. Thewinchester (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Hub

[edit]

WP:CORP, and reads like a massive advertisment. Thewinchester (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria G11 Gnangarra 11:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Music

[edit]

WP:CORP, article reads like an advertisement and has not been touched since creation. Thewinchester (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria A1 - no context/content— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)

Australian Meat Holdings

[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP, no assertion of notability and hardly touched since creation. Thewinchester (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 11:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finotti

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

The article reads like an ad for a non notable painter. The original article was a copyvio of the Italian website of the painter, but it seems the text was translated into English meanwhile. The main editor is User talk:Lanfrancafinotti, which is presumably the painter herself. -- lucasbfr talk 10:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure as permitted by policy for a clearly unanimous result. YechielMan 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Worldwide Exploration

[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP, fails to demonstrate notability and has not been edited since creation. Thewinchester (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, weakly. Daniel Bryant 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst Broadcasters

[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP, non-notable small group of rural radio stations. Thewinchester (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A1 Gnangarra 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ribbon (Bus Company)

[edit]

WP:CORP, non-notable bus company with very few edits since creation. Thewinchester (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria G11 Gnangarra 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Depot

[edit]

WP:CORP, non-notable organisation with only a single location, minimal edits since creation. Thewinchester (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete spam. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-25 12:55Z

Bwired Group

[edit]

WP:SPAM, reads like an advert and not updated since creation. Thewinchester (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CDS criteria A1 Gnangarra 11:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbontech

[edit]

WP:CORP, non notable company with no major edits since creation. Thewinchester (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; see also WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flosbee

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

Non notable sport with no sources. Badly written too. Virtual Cowboy 11:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 11:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay shree Krishna

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and especially not a non-English dictionary. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CustomWare Asia Pacific

[edit]

WP:CORP, non-notable company, they only implement software developed by other companies. Thewinchester (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exetel

[edit]

WP:CORP, article makes no attempt to assert what if any notability this company may have, also privately owned. Article has also been the subject of edit warring, and if deleted a salting may be worth considering. Thewinchester (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a former insider in that industry there are 4 there I could see that probably meet the same objections that apply to this one in terms of Wikipedia policies. Orderinchaos 11:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, as you can see by following some of the links that MER-C provided, Exetel did achieve some notability last year when it announced that it would introduce p2p deprioritisation and restated its position on copyright infringement by its customers. Indeed, this issue became a significant part of the recent edit wars even though they started simply because somebody who was banned from the Exetel support forums thought he could get back at the ISP by adding negative and incorrect information to the Wikipedia entry. My reasons opposing inclusion of the proposed edits regarding those announcements may be read on the Talk:Exetel page so I will not restate them in this discussion. I have since considered editing Exetel's entry to include an NPOV version of that information however I am concerned that it would start another edit war. That is why I suggested that the page remain protected when we finally achieved consensus.

In the event that the page is deleted I fail to see why salting would be appropriate. This is exactly what opponents of Exetel would like to see and I keep checking this page now to see that it hasn't been deleted by somebody who has some ridiculous grudge against the ISP. The chances of it being recreated after deletion are slim. The only reason for this happening that I can think of is that somebody may see that 23 other Australian ISPs are included in Wikipedia yet there is no entry for one of the more popular ISPs. --AussieLegend 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ Mureithi

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

I am using the prod rationale (by Fang Aili at Talk:BMJ Mureithi), which I endorse, to nominate this article for deletion. This is a non-notable person, see "Jonathan Nyaga" -wikipedia (1 hit); "BMJ Muriithi" -wikipedia (14 hits); "BMJ Mureithi" -wikipedia (11 hits). Also, this appears to be an autobiography, given the name of the original contributor. (Bmjmureithi (talk · contribs)). Ezeu 13:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Machete

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

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. Article did look like this until a large amount of information was pasted in from a wrestling fan site. One Night In Hackney303 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC) One Night In Hackney303 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Walton Need some help? 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Schilling

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

Local politicians are still not notable. No significant press coverage found. Two hits from the local paper do not rise to the level of notability expected here. No improvement to this article has been made since August 2006. DarkAudit 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ummm ... if you're citing WP:BIO, here are the clauses directly referencing politicians: (a) Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures; (b) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage; and (c) Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Which of (a) or (b) are you claiming she fulfills?  RGTraynor  23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A strikingly similar article on a fellow Atlantic County freeholder was just deleted. This article at least includes a mention in what appears to be a statewide political blog, but it doesn't exactly meet the "news feature" required of WP:BIO. Otherwise, she doesn't seem notable outside her local area. -- NORTH talk 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC) !Vote withdrawn. -- NORTH talk 22:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • J'accuse WP:CANVAS says: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki. "1. Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc." Talking to two people who have already taken part in this current round of discussion hardly meets the definition of 'excessive'. DarkAudit 04:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note to note The record will show that this 'solicitation' consisted of contacting all of two (2) editors who were already active participants in these discussions. As the relevant portion of WP:CANVAS shows (quoted above), the Arbitration Committee sees contacting only two people as 'common practice'. I have agreed to refrain from contacting anyone else regarding these AfDs, but have still been accused of acting in bad faith. DarkAudit 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN local politician per WP:BIO. ccwaters 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to notability save for being a politician at the county level. Precedent has shown election to state legislature to confer insufficient notability for inclusion on its own, so serving at the county level definitely should not. With nothing else there to merit an article... Caknuck 07:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by nom and Caknuck. Not even close to meeting WP:BIO, no matter how much mud Alansohn tries to stir up to obscure this. --Calton | Talk 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Walton Need some help? 16:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kelly (Freeholder)

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

Non notable local politician. Four hits from the local paper does not rise to the level of notability expected here. No improvement to the article since August 2006. DarkAudit 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing administrator The nominator, as part of a series of bad faith nominations, has submitted this AfD, despite the fact that previous AfDs on this and related articles submitted by this same individual have resulted in decisions to keep articles in question. On top of the clear efforts to subvert consensus, the nominator has stooped to soliciting votes, actions that are almost certainly in violation of WP:Canvassing. I strongly recommend that this AfD be withdrawn, given that the process has been thoroughly contaminated by the nominator. As to the definition of votestacking provided at WP:CANVASSING, Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters. It seems undeniable that this line has been crossed. Alansohn 04:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to note The record will also show that this 'solicitation' consisted of contacting all of two (2) editors who were already active participants in these discussions. As the relevant portion of WP:CANVAS shows (quoted below), the Arbitration Committee sees contacting only two people as 'common practice'. I have agreed to refrain from contacting anyone else regarding these AfDs, but have still been accused of acting in bad faith. DarkAudit 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As no source was provided for the only "four hits" claim, a check at www.newslibrary.com using "Joe Kelly Freeholder" found a few dozen, about ten time the number claimed in the nomination. I'll check when I can on LexisNexis which should have a few dozen more. number Multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability under the WP:BIO guideline, the only relevant Wikipedia policy that addresses such articles. DarkAudit attempted to have the article deleted eight months ago, and clear consensus was that the article met any and all qualifications to Keep as is. As such, the claim that the article has not been improved in eight months is more irrelevant than usual. This is yet another attempt to override a clear consensus. Alansohn 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Source was Google News for 'Joe Kelly Freeholder'. Standards change. Policies change. You seek absolutes and results set in stone. You're not going to get that on Wikipedia. What is acceptable today may be unacceptable tomorrow, and vice versa. If all you're going to come up with is another stack of newspaper articles from one paper, I urge you to reconsider. I have asked a number of educators about this, leaving out specifics, of course. They say it's iffy, but even when the incidents are unrelated, using a single newspaper as the only reference is frowned upon. DarkAudit 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Did you just type the words "standards change?" What happened to your mantra of ignore all rules, when that was convenient. Can you point out exactly which standards changed that entitles you to undermine an established consensus with a clear and undoubted keep at your previous failed AfD. Again, talk to all these supposed educators and you can have them change WP:BIO to match your original research. Until then, all you're doing is taking yet another bite when you were completely rejected last time around, a practice that's frowned upon. Which policy are you following / ignoring this time? Alansohn 02:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I invoked WP:IAR to show you that your demands for policies set in stone will not be met, and cannot be met. All of Wikipedia are evolving documents, up to an including the guidelines. What may have met with a weak consensus eight months ago, eight weeks ago, or even eight hours ago, may or may not meet with a similar result now. A keep result in August may or may not meet with similar results. The article was flawed then, and I said so. The article was not edited even a single time since then. Be Bold should not mean fighting to the last man in an AfD while the article withers and dies from neglect, no matter what the outcome of the AfD. You asked for 'time'. You got it, and did nothing with it. If you had no intention of doing any improving of the article, as it is so readily apparent, it wouldn't have mattered if I'd waited any more than I have. The 'consensus' you keep trying to throw in my face over these articles were in no way based on the merits of the articles themselves. They were solely based on the lack of a cooling off period before they were re-nominated. This time there was a cooling off period. You squandered that time. No, there's no policy on how long a cooling off policy should be, and there probably won't be one. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that the majority of Wikipedia editors do not feel that a local politician who fails to gain significant notice outside the borders of their home district warrants an article. They use WP:BIO as their guide, then make their own judgment accordingly. The editors make Wikipedia, not the policies. You're asking Wikipedia to stop changing. To stop evolving. To stop growing. To stop, period. DarkAudit 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply I agree that Wikipedia is non-static. The problem is that the changes that you have claimed at WP:BIO between your previously rejected AfD and now just don't exist. I expect that you can provide clear examples of the policy changes to WP:BIO between the time that your previous failed AfD was rejected and your current attempt at undermining consensus. Please read the previous AfD and tell me that you can honestly believe that the previous AfD was not on the merits of the article. We have made Wikipedia policy and we reached consensus, one article at a time, and it has been reached for this one. You just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that, even after having only been able to get only one, lone individual to agree with you. How big does the margin have to be to get you to accept consensus? You are following WP:IAR to the letter. If everyone followed your lead, all we would have is anarchy. Alansohn 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • J'accuse WP:CANVAS says: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions. Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who voted in a previous AfD on a given subject) may be acceptable.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki. "1. Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc." Talking to two people who have already taken part in this current round of discussion hardly meets the definition of 'excessive'. DarkAudit 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; fails WP:BIO for notability of politicians. For my own part, I have been recently canvassed on AfDs where I have !voted against the editor who alerted me. While nom did alert me to this AfD, and is aware I supported deletion of a similar article, I've: (1) participated in hundreds of AfDs and would likely have chimed in on this one anyway, (2) feel this AfD is readily supported on the merits of the nomination, (3) have had Alansohn likewise (and for no good reason I can discern) preemptively post to my talk page regarding DarkAudit's evil intent, and (4) am not sure what makes this a "bad faith nomination" beyond DarkAudit's plain belief that these articles about county commissioners are non-notable, but the same brush would apply to Alansohn's charges of misconduct in AfDs that just happen to be on articles he plainly passionately wants to save.  RGTraynor  05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply RGTraynor was one of the individuals directly solicited by DarkAudit, the nominator, to participate in this AfD and to vote to delete. While I appreciate the small measure of candor, RGTraynor waited five days to participate in this AfD, which would seem to belie the claim that he would have voted in this AfD regardless of the fact that he had been solicited. The post to RGTraynor's talk page was made in an effort to encourage recusing himself from this matter, a suggestion which has clearly been ignored. Despite protests to the contrary, it seems clear that this AfD has been thoroughly contaminated by a rather clear instance of Votestacking. Alansohn 05:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... a suggestion that was never made in the first place; if Alansohn had any such intent, he could have come out and said so. In any event, given his plain desire to save these articles (at, in so far as I have noticed, extremely passionate and prolonged lengths, despite overwhelming consensus to the contrary), he should have left it to more neutral editors to make any such charges. He has not done so. To borrow a phrase from the legal profession, to receive equity, you must give equity.  RGTraynor  07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my reasoning here. Caknuck 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by nom and Caknuck's reasoning [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Schilling (2nd nomination)|here]]. Not even close to meeting WP:BIO, no matter how much mud Alansohn tries to stir up to obscure this. --Calton | Talk 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, empty. NawlinWiki 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Steckbeck

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

No information and no references. Prod tag was deleted without comment. Alvestrand 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Naconkantari 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Finnerty

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

Non notable local politician. No longer even holds office. No significant press coverage. Edited in January to show he lost his position, but otherwise untouched since August 2006.DarkAudit 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't seem to have held notable office. --Dweller 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the third attempt to delete this article, the first a no consensus, and the most recent a keep. This is indeed the nominator's second attempt at deleting this article, aimed at overturning the previous consensus. I would assume good faith, but the nominator has already demonstrated an extreme lack of constructive dialog by describing edits to the article with the bad-faith statement that "Spamming a list of committees he serves on for the board is impressive...". Alansohn 17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The board page has been redirected to the county page. There has been no real effort since August to make any additions to this page. One of the Freeholders links in the infobox redirects to an unrelated author's book. Any news coverage has been of the local variety only. For an encyclopedia of international scope, the achievements of what is basically a County Commissioner that do not gain notice very far outside of that county do not rise to the necessary level of notability. DarkAudit 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply' The previous attempt at deleting this article resulted in a decision to Keep the article as is. While continuous improvement is a wonderful goal, there is no obligation to keep on improving the article above and beyond the consensus that any and all standards were met in the previous AfD. The "international scope" claim is a great blurb but does not exist as a standard anywhere in Wikipedia. This is simply an attempt to take another bad-faith stab at deleting an article. And if this fails, we'll see another, and another and another. It's time to put an end to this gaming the system once and for all. Alansohn 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Just because one AfD results in a Keep, it does not mean that the result is set in stone. If an editor, any editor, sees flaws that have not been fixed since the first AfD, it is well within their rights to nominate it again. DarkAudit 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply Effectively you have granted yourself unlimited veto power to override consensus. If you have identified a "flaw" you can -- and have already -- taken repeated bites at the apple, trying to find a different group of people to go along and override settled matter. This article has been edited to address the specific issues you raised, without any valid response. Alansohn 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply The Keep you're putting out there was a discussion that focused almost entirely on how quickly the article was renominated, not on the merits of the article itself. Any editor could have put this article up for AfD again. It just happened to be me. The flaws are still there. It's still an article of only local interest. There's nothing there that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et. al. WP:BIO would suggest that this alone could warrant deletion. If the other AfDs had never happened at all, this is still a flawed article that does not meet those guidelines. DarkAudit 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply I still can't find this does it play in "Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford. et. al." standard. What is the factual basis of your claim that The Press of Atlantic City is not a reliable and Verifiable source? I can't possibly rebut claims that have no factual basis. Please refer to some valid Wikipedia policy. The issues you raised have been addressed. Address the article as it stands. Alansohn 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Reply I make no such claim. Show me where I have. How does 'insufficient' transmute into 'not reliable'? DarkAudit 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Reply - The Press of Atlantic City is a source and he has received significant coverage there. There's nothing there that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et. al. deprecates the use of this source and requires additional sources; a policy that does not exist. Alansohn 15:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Reply you've made my point for me, which is that he has not received any coverage anywhere else. That would fall under the "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." guideline of WP:BIO. DarkAudit 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Reply - I agree 100%. There is no claim that he is notable "just because" he's an elected official. At the top of the list on WP:BIO where you pulled the "just because" clause, is a statement that "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." The claim that this individual is notable is based on the fact that there are nearly a dozen independent, reliable and verifiable sources all of which demonstrate notability. The claim stands proven. Alansohn 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I won't try to speak to the nominator's motives but the bottom line is that this article currently cites exactly zero non-trivial reliable sources about this man. I Googled his name and I saw exactly zero non-trivial reliable sources (plenty of mentions on various partisan web pages, as well as other trivial mentions amounting to littler more than stating his name an office, but nothing both non-trivial and WP:RS) in the first couple of pages of results. I checked on him at newslibrary.com and saw exactly zero mentions of him outside of a single paper: The Press of Atlantic City (and even in that paper, I recall only two or three articles in which mention of him is non-trivial). This seems to indicate to me that his notability, such as it is, is entirely local. I'll add the caveat that I didn't spend copious amounts of time looking through the Google and Newslibrary results, so it's entirely possible that I might have missed something, or there might have been something beyond those first couple of pages of each, which does better establish his notability. But the point is that neither I nor any other reader should have to dig for the sources establishing his notability. The burden of proof of notability is on those who want to keep. If those folks would care to find and cite the non-trivial reliable source coverage of him (preferably from more than just The Press of Atlantic City), then I think that would pretty much end the attempts to delete the article. Without such sources being cited, the deletion nomination is entirely understandable within the assumption of good faith. Mwelch 02:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply A search on newslibrary.com using "frank finnerty" freeholder as search terms found 192 sources, with substantially more than 2 or 3 non-trivial mentions. As requested, sources have been added to support the biographical information using multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. The burden of proof has been met. Alansohn 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply A search for 'Frank Finnerty Freeholder' at the same site did not return an item not from The Press of Atlantic City until item #73, which is from Vineland, NJ. Vineland borders Atlantic County, so it's within the scope of local coverage. The first item that could be considered 'non-local' is #133 from the Newark Star-Ledger. That's 14 pages deep into the search. Out of 195 items and 20 pages of search, I found three items from Newark and two from East Brunswick. The only out-of-state mentions were from Doylestown, PA., which could still be considered local to Atlantic City. Reliable and verifiable, but still just local. DarkAudit 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Reply I can only deal with real Wikipedia policy. Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that invalidates The Press of Atlantic City as a source. Alansohn 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply When it is virtually the only source, it does not rise to the level of notability expected of WP:BIO. The only news items outside of the Atlantic City metro area were buried in the bottom of the search. The source isn't invalid, but it is insufficient. DarkAudit 14:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply The Atlantic City metro area is a rather large one. The WP:RS source is reliable. Wikiepdia policy requires multiple sources, not multiple publications. If you believe this to be Wikiepdia policy you have to do a much better job of demonstrating the claim. Other than your arbitrary and invalid claim requiring coverage in multiple publications, the article stands as notable. Alansohn 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a courtroom; there's no burden of proof. There's consensus. All the sources added are from the local newspaper. While it's true that Jimbo once said Wikipedia is intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge", he lied. It's an encyclopedia, and some stuff just doesn't make the cut. I know that there's a swingset in the backyard of my childhood home, but no one cares. WP:BIO is purposely written so that not all local politicians are notable, and Frank Finnerty isn't. -- NORTH talk 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply There is a consensus. The consensus on this article is Keep. This bad-faith nomination aims exclusively at undermining consensus. Please point out the supposed Wikipedia criteria that defines a newspaper publishing 75,000-100,000 issues per day as a "local paper", and therefore invalidates the ample sources provided. So far, the score is Frank Finnerty, 9 sources - Your swing set, zero. Don't address non-existent articles with no sources. Please address the current article and try to find a real Wikipedia policy that invalidates the ample sources provided. I won't even touch calling Jimbo a liar. Alansohn 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreeing with Mwelch. Moreover, there is fairly established consensus for the inclusion of officeholders/seekers, and this is clearly well below the threshold it lays out. Eusebeus 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find no bad faith here. The original discussion had "no consensus" on this article. The second AfD (which was the first to specifically address just this article) was deemed "Keep" when a handful of editors responded in agreement to this post:

Speedy Keep - I had stepped away from my computer for lunch only to see that during my brief break, the article had reached a no consensus for an AfD, and that it was being resubmitted for deletion, all within a span of 46 minutes. While I will do my best to assume good faith, it is very hard to accept that this is not just another attempt to undo an AfD that just failed. As with the Sue Schilling AfD, can I politely suggest that as a genuine show of good faith this AfD be withdrawn and that a period of time — say several weeks or a few months — be allowed after the rejected AfD to allow the article sufficient time to be improved to allow the article to better meet the WP:BIO concerns. Alansohn 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's now eight months since that was written... I think that's long enough. --Dweller 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply The article has been approved with nearly a dozen sources. Address the article in question, as I have, and while you're at it, please show me the eight-month deadline in Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh? I don't know what you mean by "deadline". In the last AfD you asked for "several weeks or a few months"; it's been eight months. I addressed the article in question way up there ↑ --Dweller 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article has been improved. There are multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Are you addressing this article or the AfD from eight months ago? Alansohn 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sigh. I addressed the article above. Here, I'm addressing your comment at the top of this AfD, where you throw mud at the nominator. All I'm saying is that this is unfair... he has waited far longer than you requested in the last AfD. On the basis of what you wrote in the last AfD, it is entirely appropriate for the article to be reconsidered for deletion now. --Dweller 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you addressing this article or just trying to undo what happened eight months ago? Alansohn 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't understand this question; I think I've made myself adequately clear. --Dweller 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You have offered no reference to Wikipedia policy that would justify deletion of an article that uses multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, in compliance with WP:BIO. Address this article. Alansohn 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I suggest you read this AfD. You'll find my comments about this article at the top of this AfD. I'm trying, very patiently, to tell you here that this is not a bad faith nomination. --Dweller 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I am just as patiently emphasizing that this article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, and that it should be evaluated on its own merits, as specified at WP:BIO. Alansohn 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Reply Check with any university level researcher, and they will tell you that nine articles from one newspaper does not count as either multiple or independent. The Philadelphia Inquirer is independent of the Press of Atlantic City, but the Press of Atlantic City is not independent of itself. DarkAudit 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Reply I could check with a "university level researcher", but that would be original research. Independent means of each other; you can't use ten articles about the same event to show notability; ten separate articles from the same source would be OK. Provide a Wikipedia source that supports your interpretation. Are you saying that one more article from a different source would prove notability? Alansohn 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Orange County, CA metro area is even larger, and articles about local politicians from that area have been deleted for not having notability outside the local coverage area. WP:BIO has this to say about politicians: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Atlantic County, NJ does not meet that guideline, just as Allegheny County, PA or Monongalia County, WV would fail, as well. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This is the sticking point. He has received virtually no press coverage outside of his local area. That shows a distinct lack of notability. "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." That speaks for itself. DarkAudit 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments galore. There is always an obligation to keep improving articles. This comment is particularly troubling. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles consisting of a singly paragraph on questionably notable people is not the eventual goal. Even if there was consensus that the article met standards in August, that doesn't mean that there's consensus now. Both consensus and the standards can change.
That being said, there wasn't consensus to keep the article in August. Have you actually read the prior nomination? "The result was keep, though consensus backs that clearly on the basis that the previous AfD was so recent." Well, the previous AfD is no longer so recent, thus that "consensus" is no longer valid. Furthermore, have you seen the actual !votes? To paraphrase:
  • Speedy keep based on my inability to assume good faith, and because the prior AfD only closed 46 minutes ago.
  • Keep for now, on the condition that it be approved.
  • Keep per a rather weak precedent.
  • Speedy keep based on someone else's inability to assume good faith.
  • Delete per WP:BIO. The only one to cite anything resembling an actual reason.
Note that the logic of the prior AfD being 46 minutes ago isn't particularly valid. If a blanket AfD closes by no consensus, it's a perfectly reasonable reaction to renominate the articles separately.
The Press of Atlantic City is not significant press coverage. For "Please point out the supposed Wikipedia criteria that defines a newspaper publishing 75,000-100,000 issues per day as a "local paper", I'd say you're quite confused on the definition of the word local. "From, or in, a near by location." That sounds like Atlantic City to me. DarkAudit wasn't trying to cite OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. If there is precedent for deleting the local politicians of Orange County, I'd have preferred he link to an actual discussion demonstrating that. He was also pointing out that this isn't a personal vendetta against you and the great state of New Jersey. The freeholders of other counties in other states would be non-notable as well.
I'm sure there was more I wanted to say/respond to, but I can't think of it at the moment. Oh well, there's always next time. -- NORTH talk 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. An Orange County school board member unknown outside of Orange County who has received no press coverage outside of Orange County is quite relevant to the discussion of an Atlantic County freeholder unknown outside of Atlantic County who has received no press coverage outside of Atlantic County. No one is fighting the last AfD. Rather, I'm fighting your comments in this AfD that bear a striking resemblance to the comments you made in that one (i.e. I'd like to assume good faith but I can't; we've already decided this; etc.). -- NORTH talk 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The "precedent" is irrelevant. No school board members have Wikipedia articles, thousands of elected officials do; if anything precedent supports this article overwhelmingly. This individual has been elected to the top position within the Board of County Freeholders. Furthermore, your "source" is relying on a statement made by the nominator himself. This article uses multiple real sources. Alansohn 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In many places, school board members are elected officials. So what makes a freeholder more notable than a school board member? A freeholder is more likely to have significant press coverage. However, Frank Finnerty does not.
(Also, what source? I made no reference to any source, nor did I say anything relying on the nominator...) -- NORTH talk 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This article provides nine, independent reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, and should be evaluated on its own merits, as specified at WP:BIO. Where did you obtain your definition of "significant press coverage" that excludes the ample sources provided? Alansohn 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Atlantic City newspaper talking about something in Atlantic City isn't exactly significant. -- NORTH talk 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a South Jersey newspaper covering a sequence of multiple Atlantic County events, all of them newsworthy and non-trivial. Not unlike the New York Times covering a New York City issue. Again, this is just your own personal bias, and is not based on any relevant Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal bias that New York is more important than Atlantic City. Also, important issues, ones that truly make mayors of New York notable, are going to be discussed by newspapers around the country, if not the world. On a smaller scale, notable events in Newark are likely to be discussed in The Trenton Times. But I don't see the events concerning Atlantic County freeholders being discussed anywhere except Atlantic County. -- NORTH talk 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the specifically relevant Wikipedia policy that states that area coverage from an area newspaper makes the source invalid for use as a reference. Alansohn 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are well into WP:DEADHORSE territory here. It's obvious that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you that a local politician needs to be notable outside his own district to meet most editors' interpretation of WP:BIO, and that a single newspaper, no matter how many different times it mentions someone, will still be seen as one source in many peoples' eyes. DarkAudit 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Show me a Wikipedia policy that requires deletion of this article and I'm convinced. The article provides multiple, independent, reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Rebut this claim by reference to a relevant Wikipedia policy and I will be more than happy to change my vote. What can I do to convince you that this article is indeed notable? Alansohn 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Nothing. So probably best to stop trying. Everyone who has contributed to this debate is firmly entrenched in their position, so there is very little point in the already-involved editors continuing to argue with one another. This is not the first time this issue has come up. The "what if references are in some local paper only" question has come up in a myriad of AfD debates. There has long been a strong sentiment that that is often not enough. But no one has yet found a satisfactory way to codify that sentiment into WP:BIO such that the specific wording of the sentiment 1) garners a general consensus, 2) is written so that the standard for when other papers are required is not subjective and 3) wouldn't result in obviously notable articles winding up in AfD just because they are sourced by, say, an investigation run solely by the New York Times. So, no, you will not find this "local only is sometimes not good enough" sentiment codified in WP:BIO. We all admit that, OK? That is granted. That fact does not automatically invalidate the sentiment, however. Inclusionists often weigh in on AfD debates and voice a "keep" opinion even as they acknowledge happily that the subject comes nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. They do this because they don't care what WP:BIO says and are happy to tell you so. And there is nothing wrong with that. That is their opinion. It simply gets contributed to the whole debate like everyone else's and then we see where the consensus in that debate turns out. If that inclusionist sentiment proves to be the consensus on a particular AFD candidate, then it will be kept, even if it doesn't technically meet WP:BIO. I, and obviously others, feel this is a case where "local paper only" notability is not sufficient. Clearly, you disagree. And we all grant that the letter of WP:BIO doesn't specifically back our position. OK? These points are all made and made and made again in the above. So whatever new editors (if they have the patience to actually wade through all of the above — no small feat) who now come upon this debate can see all of the arguments now, decide in which camp their personal opinion falls, and then vote accordingly. You have done an excellent and commendable job of taking an article that had originally no defense of its notability (zero cited sources) and at least giving it a defensible position (multiple reliable source mentions, albeit all from a single newspaper). Sincere kudos on doing that. Some (like you) will feel that's good enough; others (like me) won't. The AfD process is a recognition of the fact that these difference of opinion are inevitable. That's why the whole point is to take in the full consensus of editors. If enough editors agree with you that the strict letter of WP:BIO is what should carry the day, then that will be the consensus. If not, it won't. And since this is not a strict numerical vote, but rather a discussion in which the closing admin will consider the strength of the respective arguments in deciding the consensus, then the fact that the letter of WP:BIO backs your position may weigh to your advantage there, also. And that's fine. If that admin says something like, "After discounting the "delete" votes because their reasoning isn't backed by the letter of WP:BIO, the consensus is keep.", then I can certainly live with that. But in any event, there's no need for everybody to keep saying the same things over and over again here. Mwelch 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is why the AfD process is so fundamentally screwed up. There are simply no rules. An article that fully meets WP:BIO, will be deleted. Why? Because "we all grant that the letter of WP:BIO doesn't specifically back our position" but refuse to actually abide by it. I have followed through on my side of the bargain, improving the article with ample sources. But, solely based on whim and personal bias, a majority will vote to delete it. Why we do we bother wasting our time defining explicit policies if they will simply be ignored when inconvenient? Alansohn 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Hmm. I'm not sure against whom I'm being accused of harboring a personal bias. You? Mr. Finnerty? I'm sure each of you is a fine individual, and I don't know either of you, nor know enough about either of you to have any basis whatsoever for harboring a personal bias against either of you. I know nothing of Mr. Finnerty, and my impression of you is that you're a perfectly reasonable and intelligent person exercising genuine good faith, and with whom I just happen to have an honest difference of opinion on this matter. No big deal. And I also do express my opinion merely on a "whim". But I would agree that your dissatisfaction seems to be with the whole AfD process, as it is structured, more than anything else. WP:BIO is not defined as a policy. It is a guideline. By definition, it is intended to be used as a guide, but also to be tempered by editors' judgment with the full expectation that there will be exceptions, and that when the resepctive judgments of different editors about those guidelines conflict with one another, it is consensus that will decide which way carries the day. That is why, with regard to the "bargain", I said at the outset that as far as I was concerned, I'd want to see more sources than just The Press of Atlantic City — that was and is my judgment. WP:FIVE are the only things firm around here. Everthing else is flexible by design. I am generally guided by WP:BIO. In general, my AfD opinions will fall along WP:BIO lines. But neither I, nor anyone else, is absolutely bound by it when declaring an AfD opinion. And I especially will not be bound by it when I know full well that, as I mentioned above, there is a strong and frequently expressed editorial sentiment (that a single local newspaper is not always enough) coming from many others beside myself, even if that sentiment hasn't been expressly codified in the guideline. I'd suggest (and I mean suggest respectfully, not antagonistically) that if you're already convinced that despite the fact that the strict letter of WP:BIO is more aligned with your position than ours, you still expect the majority of editors to vote to delete, perhaps that is a sign that at some level, even you yourself have sensed that that sentiment is the general consensus of Wikipedia editors, even though it hasn't been codified of WP:BIO. Mwelch 07:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the reason for insistence on multiple sources, it seems to me, is that it provides a backstop for checking the reliability of the information: relying on one single source is means that any problems with source would go undetected. For all we know, it could be a paper published by Frank Finnerty's uncle Keith or employing his cousin Peter, or it be a sworn enemy of Frank Finnerty, etc. Equally, the fact that Finnerty gets little or no reliable-source traction outside of his home county -- and seemingly barely within it -- argues explicitly for a Delete. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Insufficient!=Invalid. DarkAudit 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, hopefully the last thing I'll have to say. When Alansohn asks, "Why we do we bother wasting our time defining explicit policies if they will simply be ignored when inconvenient?", the first reaction should be WP:BIO isn't explicit policy. It's a guideline. Furthermore, IMHO, my opinion is backed up by WP:BIO, since I don't feel an Atlantic City newspaper talking about an Atlantic County freeholder qualifies as significant press coverage. Can I show you a specific guideline that says it isn't? No. Can you show me one that says it is? No. It's just our individual interpretation of the word significant. -- NORTH talk 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply WP:BIO states "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That number 6 is a footnote for the word "independent", which states "Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable)." It cannot be any clearer that the word "independent" restricts two sources about the same basic event, not two (or many more) references from the same source. This individual and this article mets this criteria. Can you explain why you continue to refuse to abide by an explicit Wikipedia guideline, a policy that the nominator himself deems relevant? Alansohn 11:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Because it's not an explicit guideline. The only thing set in anything close to stone is WP:FIVE. You keep asking to be shown the explicit policy that supports a position. It doesn't exist. Thanks to WP:IAR, there's no explicit policy that supports anyone's position here. We're allowed to ignore the rules because excpt for some very special cases, there are no rules. DarkAudit 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Calton. Arbustoo 05:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mwelch. MetsFan76 13:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps I can help with the notability v RS question. If the caretaker (janitor) of a school was quoted in all of the world's quality press following an unfortunate incident at the school that had nothing to do with him, he would be the subject of multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. However, he still wouldn't be notable. The notability guidelines establish a minimum bar that must be jumped, but it's a minimum, not a maximum. Just because you've made it into the Nowheresville Recorder on umpteen occassions, doesn't prove notability. --Dweller 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply You haven't helped at all, nor do you demonstrate an understanding of either WP:N or the WP:RS policy. Mr. Finnerty has been mentioned in hundreds of articles. The nine sources selected are all articles where Finnerty is the primary subject. These are not mere mentions. What you have done is misinterpreted and subverted a rather clear policy as an excuse for deletion of an article where WP:N has been established rather explicitly. It is only through denying the existence of a clear Wikipedia policy that such notability is being denied. As has becoming tradition, where policy is in clear contradiction to a poorly thought out and unjustified vote, the strategy is to deny it applies or to claim that it means something completely different. Alansohn 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He means absolutely nothing to anyone outside the Atlantic City area His accomplishments have been met with less than a yawn in his own state. I do not believe he meets WP:BIO. I have said why I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. And because of WP:IAR I don't have to do anything else. You're asking for a policy that doesn't exist, by trying to cite a policy that doesn't exist. Policy is bunk. Precedent is bunk. Like it or not, those are good things. DarkAudit 15:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no outside of area policy. The text of WP:BIO has been cited, yet you persistently refuse to acknowledge the straightforward definition. Your only justification for your actions is that no rules apply whatsoever. You have not only acknowledged that you have no basis whatsoever to justify your vote, you are stating that any policy that exists doesn't apply to you. At least we're clear that your participation is completely invalid. How can you justify participating in this process and using WP:BIO as an excuse for your vote, while insisting that rules don't apply? Alansohn 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not a vote, it's a discussion. Please read WP:IAR. You are trying to find something set in stone that does not exist, and has never existed. WP:BIO is not set in stone, and will probably never be set in stone. It is up to each editor to interpret that guideline themselves. I have done so. It is then up to each editor to explain why they interpret the guideline in that way. I have also done that. There are no absolutes here. A continued effort to try to find some will only result in disappointment. DarkAudit 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no discussion going on here. It's all a bunch of Just Not Notable, either shrouded in reference to Wikipedia policy or just plain and simple stating that no Wikipedia policy exists. It seems a bit contradictory to claim that there are no rules and then claim that I should read the rules and follow them. There are rules or there are none. You've argued it both ways, sometimes in the same sentence. It is only rather selective and disingenuous misinterpretation or direct ignorance of Wikipedia policy that you have used to "justify" your vote. Alansohn 19:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • What part of this is not a vote did you miss? I keep pointing you to WP:FIVE and WP:IAR because they are the only policies of Wikipedia that are anywhere near concrete. Everything else is a guideline that is constantly evolving. You're asking us to bullseye a target that is either constantly moving or completely non-existant. The way I read WP:BIO in regards to local politicians is that this man has not done enough to gain sufficient notice outside of what would generally be considered his home district to warrant an article. That is my standard for local politicians. That is my standard and my interpretation of the guideline. The final word will come from the closing admin based on the arguments presented by all participants, though. DarkAudit 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, having been covered only in local media does not generally satisfy the "significant press coverage" criterion for notability. -- NORTH talk 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So now the Ignore All Rules crowd returns to rules when they think it supports their cause. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes states explicitly that "'This page is not policy. [emphasis in original] This page is for quick, easy-to-follow tips. Detailed rules, guidelines, and suggestions should go on the various notability policy pages instead." Thus the relevant policy is at WP:BIO. The next sentence, selectively omitted states "Candidates for municipal election are not notable; these should only have articles if they already meet other criteria for inclusion." As all other criteria have been met, WP:BIO is satisfied. Alansohn 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey now, I never cited WP:IAR. There's no "crowd", we all have our own opinions. I've always said my opinion is backed up by WP:BIO, one of these so-called rules. WP:BIO has not been met if your interpretation of it is that local media does not satisfy significant press coverage, which, apparently, is a relatively common interpretation. -- NORTH talk 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there any coverage that would satisfy your own unique interpretation of WP:BIO? Alansohn 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Something that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et al. might help. I'd have thought that was perfectly clear given the definition of the word local. And I like how you've characterized my interpretation as unique given what I just said. -- NORTH talk 21:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unfortunately, it is an interpretation unsupported by what WP:BIO actually says. Alansohn 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Saying that "major local political figures" need to "have received significant press coverage" isn't supported by WP:BIO? Oh dear me, I need to have my eyes checked. Now, it is true that Footnote 4 does provide a definition of significant press coverage, saying merely that it's someone who "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles," saying nothing about whether or not those news articles have to be significant. Well, it seems we have a problem then. And it's not with me or my interpretation. WP:BIO is a guideline, which means it needs to reflect consensus. The Common Outcomes page (as well as the 7-1 !vote here) shows that consensus lies elsewhere on the definition of significant. Fortunately, WP:BIO also says, "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." -- NORTH talk 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South african legislation 2006

[edit]
South african legislation 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Data dump. Punkmorten 15:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans von Boetticher

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

Contested Prod - This page has been tagged for lack of sources and no assertion of notability since September of 2006 [26]. Currently, there are two sources listed. One of them is in German and the other is a link to buy his books. I beleive it should be deleted as there are not multiple non trivial sources that confirm his notability. Cyrus Andiron 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are a number of species for which he is the taxon author (see what links here). All taxa are considered notable by definition, and so far this has extended to the taxon authors. If the species' taxobox has a red link, the author article is bound to be recreated, and this seems an unhelpful way to proceed. Why is a source in German unacceptable for a German person?Jimfbleak.talk.
10:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep For the reasons I give on the talk page. Sorry about the link to Amazon.de, but that is where I found the correct names of his books, so that was my reference. Ideally of course we need someone to write an article on the German wikipedia and we can all copy that. Smallweed 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-addition of information. Or lack of information in a stub article is not reason for deletion. A little googling gives this list of taxa names proposed. A cursory glance tells me that most of these are no longer valid names, but it should tell a casual editor that there is more that needs to be known. Similarly one gets clues from entries in wikispecies and interwiki links. This is apart from a long list of other publications. The subject is dead and therefore links to old books sellers or Amazon should not be considered as vanity. Shyamal 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the article has been improved. Well done to whoever made the improvements. It now mentions some of the animals that he is responsible for naming. As I said, at the time I put the prod tag on there, the article did not assert notability. I guess it only takes an AFD to get people motivated (obviously the tags weren't helping). Also, I checked the German WIkipedia article before I nominated to see if it could be transwikied over to English, but they have a stub as well. The article was dormant for about six months, so it is great to see so many people still interested in improving it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a general practice to use AfDs to force article improvement. Shyamal 00:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to force article improvement. As I said before, the article in its current state did not assert notability or cite any sources. I looked for sources myself, could not find any and thus nominated the article for deletion. After I nominated, someone else knew where to find sources and added them to the article. The article was tagged for six months before I nominated. I did not use the AFD to improve the article. It simply happened that the article was improved during the AFD process. This happens all the time. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a tag for sources, also. However, if you personally cannot weigh the value of an article, I stand by my original suggestion to ask the birders or other editors (WikiProject:ToL talk page is good), who may weigh the value of an article. The article is small enough and so little has been done that it could simply be re-added, and no harm either way. Still, the author is rather famous in birding circles for his books, and it seems unlikely he meets nonnotability standards. This is something a birder would be able to know and source, especially one of our Continental European birders. KP Botany 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
KP Botany 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
List of celebrities featured in Bo' Selecta! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - collection of miniature plot summaries masquarading as an article. Otto4711 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viaden Media

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

Promotional article for nonnotable gambling software company. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Not enough reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability.Cúchullain t/c 21:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigerman

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

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, even if the subject's intentions are noble. This article was written by Thecatman1 (talk · contribs), the creator of Tigerman, which also brings up conflict-of-interest concerns. Tigerman has received outside attention from only one source approaching secondary & independent: an editorial in Nightflying Magazine that looks a lot like a press release (the about the author section is almost word-for-word from here). Tigerman "National Wildlife Humane Society" gets 9 unique Google hits. Fails WP:WEB & WP:NOT. — Scientizzle 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<long conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigerman>

  • Noting >Radiant<'s Comment, then my followup comment, made me realize that we are by-passing this link.

<long conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigerman>

This by-passes all of the other exchanges of comments. Please, let us adhere to Scientizzle addition of that link for Further Discussion, in respect of his desire to move comments to the destination of the link he created.

  • It's okay to reply to comments on this page, but in order to keep the page readable, I encourage everyone to use concise statements with proper formatting (indent, you don't need to use line breaks, etc.) so the core of the discussion isn't drowned in minutiae. The talk page is a good place for working out details. — Scientizzle 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clearing that up Scinetizzle. I was getting quite confused with comments on the article's Discussion Page, my MyTalk's page, then this page (which I understand). Then, what really threw me, was a link to another page from this one, "Further Discussion Link". Consequently, that's where I have been commenting and making a case for a KEEP on my article. If anyone goes there, they will see I counter-pointed with logical examples and precedent. (Please let me know if I am doing the "indent" thing right. I know HTML, but Wikipedia has it's own coding system). lol
I saw chakal's comment there, and it was obviously unsolicited (eloquently written, but a bit confusing to me). I did however, after seeing his comment, send an email and showed him this link, where people were putting DELETE, and asked that if he felt it was a KEEP, to say on this page (ONLY AFTER he mentioned he would like to see it stay, and gave comment as to why).
The one thing I did grasp in his comments, is the Stealth part, to which I quoted and replied. I also quoted you, and replied to it there. I could have had someone else submit the article (stealth?), but my mind doesn't work that way. The subject of the article is a good one, and stands useful merit. So, any editors reading this page, please follow Scien's <long conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tigerman>, and allow me the respect for my counter-point comments to be read, and replied on.
Scien mentioned the article can always be resubmitted, but preferably by someone else other than myself. That makes some sense, since the art has been released by the creator (me) to Wikipedia with no copyright issues to deal with.
Although my preference would be to take the existing one (since there has been so much time spent, by so many), to make it acceptable.
Please refer to my comments, on the redirect link from here, on how it makes logic to KEEP, and the overwhelming precedent that allows for it to be able to stay.
The webcomics and [Category: Albums By Artists] is very compelling arguement for editors here. (especially concerning Advertising, Self Submits and References).
Webcomics have been granted sizable latitude (especially concerning one or no References) since 1993 here. Categorizing and putting the Tigerman article in that category (webcomics would make a much better fit here. I have not ever viewed it as a webcomic because of the very intense digital art, but if an existing niche is needed and available, especially for the latitude that category gets, then it's the best fit possible here.
This may satisfy all editor's concerns, with the precedent of [Category: Albums By Artists] answering to Self submission of one's own work.
In closing (some may say YEAA!!) it is always easier to DELETE than to CREATE, so, please consider that, and Jimbo Wales' quote "Nothing Is Set In Concrete" and "Be Bold".
Thanks For your time (for those so patient with me)
(sometimes, a newb who works very hard, makes a good future seasoned worker)
I look forward to being a seasoned and fair worker here. My nature is to always excel.
I feel I have much to offer in filling voids concerning issues of extreme importance, to life, the human condition and the health of our Earth.
[We Are The Gardeners Of Earth]
Thecatman1 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously added comment, in error, to the proposed Scientizzle Further Discussion Link.

I would not be opposed to someone else reading the Tigerman Saga, and then writing the article. My permissions have been granted on the art accompanying it. That's what made it so sure to not violate any copyrights. I really am not attempting to advertise anything, but instead, define a character and exploration of a genre (ie, digital art illustrated e-book) that is somewhat new ground for art.

If it advertises anything, it would be "save endangered species". The profit in that is non-monetary, but it is "noble cause" (that's notable ..) It's uniqueness in of itself, also makes it notable. Don't let my opinion stand in the way of reading it though, at least until the end of Part I, (Chapter 15). ;)

I realize I will probably not see Tigerman in Wikipedia at this point, but people (editors and admin) are certainly welcome to explore it, and decide for themselves whether I am advertising anything. If then, they want to take over that article, for "notable" value they may see, then all conflict of interest, and any other issues would be moot.

Thecatman1 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- blatant nonsense, perhaps a test how long it would survive, no hits outside of Wikipedia and mirrors --Pjacobi 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Metric Model of Multidimensional Geometry

[edit]
Dual Metric Model of Multidimensional Geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is clearly a hoax. Evidence:

  • It's loaded with buzz words and fine sounding phrases about holism, universality and the genius of Einstein, but it does not make any meaningful statements about its subject
  • There are no Google hits for "Dual Metric Model" that aren't derived from this article
  • The author has made no other contributions to this or any other article
  • It was probably written as an abstract (it's the right style and length and begins "This work deals with...") - presumably for a spoof submission to a scientific conference

andy 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 effectively withdrawn by nom, all deletion reasons now answered by sourcing. -Docg 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey St. Clair

[edit]

This biography of a living person remains completely unsourced ten months after its first tagging. A proposed deletion tag was removed yesterday. I submit it here so that it may either be cleaned up or deleted. If it is kept unsourced, I suggest that we set a reasonable timescale during which the article should be supplied with reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless given basic sources within 2 weeks -Docg 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unsourced WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 10 months is more than enough for an article to be sourced. (It also reads like a "who's who" entry to me rather than an encyclopedia article; I suspect this article will never be sourced and that the subject is on the fringes of notability). I agree with Guy that we should delete all unsourced articles on living people. --kingboyk 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Struck --kingboyk 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some sources. His book has been reviewed by the New York Times (added), he has written for Harper's Magazine [27], the Organic Consumers Association [28], and of course, a slew of left-wing magazines and sites (not added, he's pretty prolific, no reason to pick any specific articles) ... notable. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [29] and some of the other links gives the basic facts: what books he's written and so on. All the personal stuff is unsourced though.--Sus scrofa 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as cleaned up by our favorite rodent. It should be observed that, whilst it has been proposed at WT:BLP (here, inter al.) that unsourced biographies of living persons be deleted absent a compelling keep justification, it is far from clear that such proposal will command the consensus of the community, especially because similar proposals (directed, I concede, broadly, viz., at articles irrespective of topic) were emphatically (and properly, IMHO) rejected; because, even as policy is generally descriptive rather than prescriptive, it is well settled that that it is inappropriate that policy be made at an insular AfD, even one mentioned prominently at WP:AN and WT:BLP, the objections of Tony, Doc, and Guy would not, even were the article still unsourced, have been dispositive here. Joe 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think AnonEMouse has done a good job. I have no problems with this article now. Unsourced biographical articles should of course be deleted if an honest attempt to source them fails (and that's irrespective of what any "vote" masquerading as consensus says--it follows from the Verifiability policy). However in this instance the attempt has been triumphant. Thank you, that Masked Mouse. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker Toys

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

Forwarded from WP:RFD, as suggested by User:WJBscribe. Appears to be a nonnotable line of toys, without references. YechielMan 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make me laugh their lines are well notable toys and found all through different search engines! The Shockins have been sold around the world and online. The licenses based off their items are well known throughout the comic world, music world and the wiki world. Stop trying to keep a company down when people make articles about them its getting ridiculous! They have every rite to be here the same as Stikfas, Neca, McFarlane, Hasbro and the rest of them! They have made convention exclusives which are on ebay and in price guides. I think you need to look a little harder next time buddy or maybe you just do not want to. I think this article should remain if cleaned up properly. I have done some work on it myself but am no super editor like the rest of you. This is your job as Wiki editors not to delete everything but to clean things up and make them presentable for others looking for this info. Oh and there is plenty of references to their toys do a search they are also in every real toy magazine that you can pick up at Borders or Barnes and Nobles or your comic shop! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smeagal (talk • contribs).

Wow how nice of everyone to gang up on one person and agree with two bias people against this company. It should not be deleted as there is no reason to. It is a noteable company and makes noteable products therefore it should remain listed. And if it should not how about reasons why instead of talking trash about the companies owner, how is that not against the rules here?? Plus he did not write the article someone else did so it is not advertising either. Is there anu sane editors here who are not bias?

I don't believe I talked trash, I stated fact about past events. The owner of Shocker Toys may or may not have made the article, but its always been him (or a friend) previously, and surprisingly you are countering with the same lines used in the past (I apparently work for a rival company etc), interesting too how the forum thread I linked to has been removed too... Adycarter 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still see the article...oh right its is for members only. The fact that you are racing around their forums shows that you have intentions that are not good. You are giving wiki a bad name for sure and they should put a stop to it. Back on topic looks like someone cleaned up the article and it looks good. Some stuff has been removed but I agree since they didnt have facts to back them up. The stuff that remains is fact and has external resources attached by the editor who cleaned it up. See now this is a logical way to go about things.

Well it wasn't for members only... I took a look at the forum as it was linked to on the page. Im hardly "racing around it". The "someone" who cleaned up the article just now was me. So Im giving wiki a bad name? How exactly? Adycarter 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey Addhoc I'll tell MTV you called them low quality....this is what I mean even with the proof the beholders remain blind and cast judgment with a blind eye instead of doing their jobs! There is also plenty of sources besides MTV, Toy magazine articles, ABC news articles including WIKI pages containing info on the Toy Company. The article has been cleaned up and should be worked on so it may serve to show wiki readers the vast products offered by different toy companies.

The MTV source is a trivial mention from a gossip page. Addhoc 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither citation constitutes any evidence whatsoever of notability of the company. --Orange Mike 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company does exist and does make a few products. While thier infamous reputation precedes them, there is no reason to not have the information included about things that they have made in the past. In that sense, thier site would count as a verifiable source, but only as it pertains to thier past product catalogue. There are a few e-tail sites which verify that the product is either in-stock or sold out, so there is legitimate merit to some of User:Smeagal's claims. There is a community of fans around their product, just as there is for McFarlane Toys, NECA, SOTA, Stikfas, etc. albiet a smaller one. They also had a few SDCC exclusives that did recieve covereage from reputable news sources within the action figure community. The information and proper links are out there, Smeagal, and Shocker Toys in the past, have failed to provide them. My only area for concern about this entire deal is that there are improperly sourced claims of fact elsewhere in the Wikipedia pertaining to actual product where it really means product that this company claims to be actively developing. Those are two very different animals. One says that the product exits and is being sold/distributed, the other says that the product is being developed and has not yet hit the market. --Avatar of chaos 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change Vote To Keep(kinda) - I've cleaned up the page to contain some information on the company and its licenses, Ive removed the list of products, as Wiki isn't a catalogue and this is now in style with other toy company pages. Adycarter 15:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DalOUT

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

While certainly an interesting article, the only linsk I can find to it on google are to its website, its parent website, and some blogs. Notability does not jump out, and as LGBT student unions generally aren't notable, I suspect this is the case here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. Article seems to fail the organization notability guideline, nor does it really make any claims to pass it. Veinor (talk to me) 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. The article has been substantially improved and all comments were in favor of keeping it. This is no longer a deletion candidate. Thanks for the excellent work. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Benkowski

[edit]

This article is completely unsourced and appears to be about a very minor wrestler. A proposed deletion tag was removed a couple of days ago but the article remains unsourced. The subject of the article is probably a living person, as no death date is given and the birth date (if accurate) would make him seventy years old. I propose that this article should be deleted if it remains unsourced. If this discussion is closed without deleting, without being sourced, I think it would be reasonable to set a timescale during which the article should be adequately sourced according to the biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No longer unsourced. 1ne 09:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    That's good as far as it goes. The birthdate is sourced to imdb and the weight is on "Obsessed with Wrestling". But the rest of it? "Kenny was a natural athlete in high school, lettering in both football and shotput. When he graduated from high school in 1955, he moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin where he found employment as a factory worker." That's unsourced. "After his military tour..." well a man of his generation might have been drafted, but we don't really know. "To help pay the bills, Kenny started his own landscape business, which is where he got the "Sodbuster" nickname..." Unsourced. "He never left the midwest area, as he was rooted in the area with his landscape business , wife, and three children. He continued working for the AWA nearly thirty years until they went out of business." Completely unsourced. If I trim this to sourced information only (and I shall have to do so if this is kept), it'll look something like this:
    Kenny Benkowski (billed as "Sodbuster" Kenny Jay) (born 27 March, 1937, Holdingford, Minnesota) was an American AWF wrestler based in the American MidWest, mainly the WTCN studios in Minneapolis. His official fighting weight was 228 lbs (16 stone 4 lb, or 103 Kg). In a January, 1972 article Wrestling Monthly said he had "lost more matches than he has won" but that he had a recent victory against John the Greek, a wrestler from Chicago. His partnership with Verne Gagne and The Crusher had gained him his biggest victory to date, against Larry Hennig, Harley Race and Chris Markoff, all three of whom had in the past scored individual victories when matched against Benkowski.
    --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you google "Kenny Jay", you're going to find more stuff about him, like: [30] [31], and [32]. 1ne 19:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the article cites its sources. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have now provided properly-formatted references for the claims given in the article, as well as cleaning it up. 1ne 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article now has reliable sources and the WP:BLP concerns seem to have been satisfied. --Coredesat 01:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the ony questions were blp and sources, then those have been dealt with.--Wizardman 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks to User:1ne who has improved this article immeasurably. I no longer consider this article to be deletable. Excellent work! As this is a clear "keep" I'm withdrawing this listing. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't find any claims of notability, nor any reason why it should be, but this doesn't quite fall under speedy deletion. Prod tag removed. Veinor (talk to me) 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears to be hosted by the University of Minnesota, and I'd be staggered if the text of this article was not a straight lift (read: copyvio) from an exhibition catalogue. No opinion on the subject, but the article is an unambiguous delete since there is pretty much nothing here that would survive cleanup. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This site is not hosted by the University of Minnesota or The Goldstein Gallery. I initiated this project. I am working with the collection of the Goldstein Gallery as a contract lecturer of History of Costume.

    Most of the acquisitions of the Goldstein Gallery are not recorded in descriptive text, drawing or photograph in any published source. The published cataloge provides photographs of a few items and lists it's costume holdings at the time it was published about 20 years ago with short one-line descriptions. Since that publication hundreds of new items have been added to the collection. Therefore the majority of the Goldstein's holdings remain available only to those members of the costume history, clothing design, and theater costuming community who live in the vicinity or can afford to travel to St. Paul, Minnesota to see them.

    Also, the Golstein Gallery continues to acquire new historic costume items every month. No traditional form of hard copy publication could keep up with the acquisitions to make the important popular culture history information embedded within those garments available to the public.

    Since my upper division students perform 6 artifact analyses every year under professional suppervision, I thought that Wikipedia could serve as a venue for disseminating information on specific historic garments worn in the past in Minnesota and in the United States.
    Of particular interest are the garments that were produced and worn before the advent of mass production of apparel. This includes the majority of children's and women's wear in the 19th century, and more than three-quarters of men's wear in that era. Each item is a unique interpretation in its time of what was considered fashionable or appropriate dress. Individual clothing designers/seamstresses, whether home sewers or professional seamstresses and tailors, had great influence on how the people in an area dressed, so that for instance, people in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota would be dressed slightly differently than people in nearby Des Moines, Iowa, because their clothing was designed and constructed by different people.
    Teh notability of this imformation lies in its specificity, i.e. detailed descriptions of actual garments, and in its uniqueness---each of these garments is a unique example of what it meant to be properly dressed in a specific time in history.
    An additional reason for using Wikidedia as a medium for disseminating this information has to do with the problem of dating the garments. Donors of the garments provide to the Goldstein Gallery the information that has been handed down through family oral history, but oral history has a tendency to collapse facts into smaller bundles of information that can generalize information. The process of dating a garments requires comparison with similar garments, or garments with similar details, of known date and provenance. Wikipedia provides a good venue for "debating" the dating of specific garments through the editing process. Individuals who have examined the garment in question can all contribute to the construction of the garments description in the Wikipedia article describing that garment.Lutz0013 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a discussion forum, or a webspace provider. An article on the Goldstein gallery should be about the gallery, not contain an exhaustive list of the garments inside of it. That information would be in an article about said garments, but I highly doubt they would be notable themselves. Notability is the main requirement for inclusion, along with verifiability, and I don't think that there are enough reliable sources about the Goldstein Gallery to make it notable. Veinor (talk to me) 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Would it be more appropriate for the artiface analysis portion of the article to be located within the 1860s costume history section of Wikipedia? Lutz0013 17:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure where to specifically address Guy's suggestion that the artifact analysis in this page is lifted from some catalogue. This is patently not true. The artifacts existence can be verified with the Goldstein Gallery and Museum curator. But it's description is only available from the students in my class who worked at describing and analysizing its probable dates of use. This is the kind and quality of work some of them will be doing on their jobs when they graduate at the end of the month. Dr. Hazel A. Lutz Lutz0013 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the original research is removed, can the Goldstein Gallery and Museum information be somehow attached to the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities page? It's located on the St. Paul portion of the Twin Cities (sometimes called Minneapolis) campus. 64.131.24.230 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless cleaned up. The whole thing's a mess, and it barely asserts notability, and it really does look like it was lifted from somewhere. Even if it wasn't, it would have to be almost completely rewritten, I'm afraid. (I went to the University of Minnesota for two years and lived in the Twin Cities my entire life and I've never heard of this. Then again, I've been to the St. Paul campus very few times...) Grandmasterka 09:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of characters in Patlabor. I'm just redirecting since the merger seems to have been already done. There's more content on the history at Kanuka Clancy if someone's inclined to merge that too. - Bobet 09:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiichi Goto

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

I am also nominating the following related pages.

Shinobu_Nagumo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Noa_Izumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Asuma_Shinohara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hiromi_Yamazaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Isao_Ohta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kanuka_Clancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Takeo_Kumagami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mikiyasu_Shinshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seitaroh_Sakaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shigeo_Shiba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not convinced these individual characters are notable enough for their own articles. Also, this, and the associated articles, are merely near-copies of the text already contained in the main article Patlabor. I considered a bold Merge & Redirect, but with this level of notability I thought an AfD was probably best. EliminatorJR Talk 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is just a waste of time. Just redirect and forget them. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tony; if you delete these people are just going to re-create it with crap... so just redirect them to proper information already in the main article. No AfD needed. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-26 00:35Z
    • 1) Why are these pages being considered for deletion, but not pages for Robotech, InuYasha or Naruto characters? Four television series and three films aren't enough for characters from an Anime series to be considered "notable"? We might as well eliminate the Robotech and Star Trek TNG character pages as each has only one television series, and Robotech's movie was never formally released.
    • 2) "...the associated articles, are merely near-copies of the text already contained in the main article" With most of the pages, I would agree for now, as I created them recently, and they have not had time for major expansion through multiple-user edits. But the page on Kanuka Clancy is far larger and more detailed than her description on the Patlabor page. Mintchocolatebear 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to a List of characters article per WP:FICT. Should the characters at some point warrant expanded articles, no prejudice toward doing so. Otto4711 12:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting a wiki page for any reason other than bigoted/hateful information, or completely opinionated or false information, is itself an act based on subjective personal choice, and not based on fair or open-minded practices. If the article does not contain blatantly false, one-sided, or emotionally injurous material, where is the harm in keeping it? And considering a decision towards deletion of a character page without taking into account the situation of other pages with similar content can be seen as prejudice against the pages in question. Deleting articles "because someone at Wikipedia says so" runs counter to why Wikipedia was founded, and will result in people not wishing to contribute to the growth and development of the site. Vandalism, bigotry, and false/unsourced information are detremental to Wikipedia. But outright deletion of valid, informative (if small and new) pages is equally harmful.
    • "Should the characters at some point warrant expanded articles...". There are no talks of further developing the Patlabor series. What has been produced is the current limit to what is out there. No change in the series will take place.
    • You did not address why Kanuka Clancy should be deleted, even though the page is much larger and more developed than the other character pages. 63.253.163.50 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Otto4711 on redirecting the majority of the character information (minus Kanuka Clancy) to a "List of characters" type page. It preserves the information I have on the character pages, without negating the importance of the main characters to the series. We can include the images from the individual pages on the characters page.
      • Concerning the "Should the characters at some point warrant expanded articles..." comment: Perhaps you should make expanded articles for the others, similar to my Kanuka Clancy page, if you want them to stay. Again, they should have a "List of characters" page.
      • The Kanuka Clancy page should not be removed or redirected to the "List of characters" page. As Otto1147 said, "Should the characters at some point warrant expanded articles, no prejudice toward doing so". Kanuka has an expanded article, and it should be kept as it is. Mintchocolatebear 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response to 63.253.163.50 - I am not suggesting deleting anything despite your histrionics to the contrary. I am suggesting a merge and redirect. Please read WP:MERGE and WP:DELETE to learn the difference between the two. Deleting the articles would mean that searching for the character would yield a "no article by that name" result. Merging and redirecting the articles means that anyone searching for a character will be taken to the article where all the characters are listed, so they will not only be able to find information on that character but on other characters from the series. If there is no more information that will ever become available on the characters, then the information that does exist will sit comfortably in the List of Patlabor characters article and anyone searching for a specific character will be taken there. That there won't be any more information about the characters is an argument in favor of merging them into one substantial article rather than a string of smaller ones. Otto4711 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of chars article. Jtrainor 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Not notable on their own, so merge them to a list of characters article instead. Peace man, The Hippie 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of characters in Patlabor Snarfies 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeThe description of the character is too brief and could be better placed in a character list.--Kylohk 22:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsensical attack page. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-26 00:33Z

Thomas Valivkiyevkov

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

The details of this person's life are slightly implausible, and google shows 0 hits for a person by this name. I believe this article to be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Majorly (hot!) 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMania 6

[edit]
DisneyMania 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A similar article has already been deleted following an AfD, see Articles for deletion/DisneyMania 9 Adambro 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

DisneyMania 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DisneyMania 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DisneyMania 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

DRV overturns this result (with original closer's concurrence) to Delete. [33] Xoloz 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Walton Need some help? 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coldspot (Wi-Fi)

[edit]
Coldspot (Wi-Fi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Though I guess I would say that as the article creator! Neologism it may be, that doesn't make the subject unnotable. As suggested in the article, coldspots will be a more valuble subject than hotspots, as there will be a a complete web. We currently talk about mobile phone "no signal areas", so why not Wi-Fi Coldspots? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To confirm, like I said above, while Google News does give quite a few results for "coldspot" they are all for a refrigerator company. Even a USENET search via Google Groups, usually the place to go to look for neologism use, doesn't turn up anything in the top-most relevant results; of the top 20, 17 are about the refrigerator, and the other 3 seem to be about a ska band called Coldspot 8. Not about Wi-Fi (in addition, Groups gave no hits for coldspot wifi). Confusing Manifestation 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me on a quick search, and the term is in wide use in Norwich, which is the UK's first wi-fi city. Jen Kettle 20:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful concept, which is now increasingly relevent as significant areas like the City of London (with 350,000 workers) now have large-scale Wi-Fi networks and phones like the Nokia N95 sport Wi-Fi access, so people are more likely to be wandering around expecting coverage to be consistent than they would with an old-fashioned laptop. An article in The Times (you know, the paper that Americans call the 'London Times' or the 'Times of London') on April 22nd 2007 referred to the concept behind this article - but by the less interesting, specific or politically correct term of "blackspots". 80.229.220.14 04:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE ill-formed page, but I'll keep it for a while (a week or so) to allow merging any worthy material into the main page. See: Talk:Barry Manilow#Trivia page - Nabla 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Manilow/Barry Manilow Trivia

[edit]
Barry Manilow/Barry Manilow Trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Forked page to put overbtrivia The way to deal with bloated trivia sections is to prune (or better remove) them, not to fork them into non-articles full of nothign but dross that nobody wants in the main article. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep its all trivia. I moved the snippets in it from the main section because it was trivia. I created a new section for it because it also represents contributions that weren't mine, and being reletively new to this WIKI thing wasn't sure of what the protocol was for deleting other peoples work. As it appears that there are strong feelings on the issue, what is the next step? Does it get deleted by a vote or what?

Goinglogo 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominated. For more information, Goinglogo, see the guide to deletion. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion to gain a consensus; although very often they tend to look like votes in theory they are not. After consensus is reached, usually five days, it will be removed by an administrator. Your conservative approach to other editors' work and reasonable reaction to this situation is very much appreciated, and this isn't something that will be held against you. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and RENAME contains noteworthy information. Could be better presented on a page renamed Barry Manilow's medical interventions with a shorter trivia section following. 67.98.154.56 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Talk:Barry Manilow/Barry Manilow Trivia and keep. This is an irregularly formed subpage. (see Wikipedia:Subpages). Subpages of talk pages are allowed as a repository for material that requires editing or is otherwise under construction. At least some of this material probably belongs in the Barry Manilow article in chief. "Trivia" is likely inevitable in articles about popular music performers and similar celebrities, and some of this information rises above "trivia" in my eyes, but this is beside the point. Someone has tried to move "trivia" out of the article while keeping it for future editing: this is better than simply deleting it, and should be encouraged. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This certainly appears to be well-sourced. Is there no way of fitting all of these "trivia" points into the main article as per standard BLP policy? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It will be a shame to lose well referenced material, but some of it really is very trivial indeed. An article about nude sunbathing and Reagans being a case in point. If I thought any of this stuff was relevant, important or even interesting I would have stitched it into the main article. This is especially the case when there is so much of his contribution to music that has yet to added to the article. - Goinglogo 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge just the key "noteworthy" information back to the main article. First trim out the useless trivia, and especially delete anything that is not neutral and verifiable and scrupulously attributed to reliable sources, per WP:BLP. There should be perhaps a half dozen to no more than a dozen high quality select bits of "trivial" information that would actually be of interest to the majority of readers. So select several "good" ones, and dump the rest into the dustbin of history. Additional items should be proposed and discussed on the talk page, and added or substituted in, only with the consensus of the editors. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton Need some help? 16:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Ashley

[edit]
James Ashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Previously kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ashley.

A news story, made a bit of a noise at the time, not much since, no evident historical impact, one news report is sole source, several uncited opinions in there as well, article is unambiguously biased towards the view that the police were in the wrong, but there is no evidence of sufficient interest or sufficient sources to fix this or the uncited facts. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] Edward 23:54:52, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Andrews (criminologist)

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

No external sources, tagged for cleanup since October 2006 with no cleanup taking place, pretty obvious autobiography, the author has also added Andrews' theories (unreported by anyone other than Andrews) to at least one passably notable historical murder case. "Keith Andrews" Criminologist gets just 35 google hits, quite a few of which originate in Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The author of the entry has cited Mr. Andrews as holding an LLB but does not, as is normally the case, cite the university this was obtained at. Perhaps he could be contacted and asked for a clarification on this matter. Valandro26 Apr 2007
  • Delete, individual with marginal notability. No evidence of published work, and most of the 35 Google hits are from Wikipedia or its mirrors. ♠PMC♠ 06:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. No reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. Majorly (hot!) 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Bank Police Department

[edit]
Cut Bank Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Nom - By no means is this police department (or most PDs for that matter) notable Rklawton 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete *boggle*! Eight - count 'em! - officers in this small town police department. Almost qualifies for speedy, since there is virtually nothing to be said which is not inherently obvious from the title. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or conceivably merge to Cut Bank, Montana if there's anything salvageable here (which doesn't appear to be the case, at first glance). I do wonder which US police departments ought to be considered notable enough for an article, as there's a broad spectrum between this one and the NYPD or LAPD. JavaTenor 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cut Bank, Montana. The police force is a major public service in the town, but it is too local in scope to justify a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 8 officers and a dog catcher? Any sheriff's or police department or municipal public service department will be in the news locally many times a year, and are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but as a part of info that is usually only of local interest, they usually do not need a stand alone article. Most do not get regional or national coverage (and if they do, it is usually because of a one-time crime report). Unless the sheer amount of encyclopedic information would be too long for inclusion in the article about the county or other governmental unit which controls the department, they should be given appropriate but not exhaustively long coverage there. It is not usually desirable to include all minute detail about a school, fire department or police department, such as the names of the individuals supervising various departments, or the number of trash cans emptied each day by the garbage collectors, since these details change frequently and Wikipedia would soon be stuck with a stale copy if the individual who created the microscopically detailed articles moved on to other interests. Better to keep the description to brief descriptive and historical details which are less volatile, and link to a website of the department for up to date info. In contrast, the police/fire departments of world-class cities and national police agencies are often notable for coverage of their activities and for their cultural notability in fictional works, such as the FBI, Scotland Yard, and the Los Angeles Police Department. See the (historical) proposed guideline WP:LOCAL which expresses the views of a number of Wikipedia editors on this issue. Edison 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. This comment applies to everything listed here and discussed elsewhere on the page. Many police departments are notable and those with a history and references should be kept. Vegaswikian 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Majorly (hot!) 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gatlinburg Public Services

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

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Nom - fails notability. Parts of this might be merged with the Gatlinburg article, but not most of it. Rklawton 18:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. Majorly (hot!) 21:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallatin County Sheriff's Office

[edit]
Gallatin County Sheriff's Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Nom - not notable; also fails WP:NOT. Rklawton 18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. janejellyroll 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that most police departments are written about often enough that multiple independent sources can be found, although this may require a search of the newspapers (which may not have the full text of all back issues online) in the area served by the police department. In this case http://bozemandailychronicle.com/police_reports/ has some free coverage of the Gallatin County Sheriff's Office, but access to the newspaper's full-text E-Chronicle is not free. --Eastmain 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - I can find multiple, independent, verifiable, reliable sources about me, but I don't rate a bio because I'm still not notable. Why is this sheriff's office any different? Rklawton 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. By Wikipedia's definition of the term, you are notable. That doesn't mean that you're famous or a celebrity, but it does mean that there is enough reliable information out there for someone to put together an article about you. That fact doesn't mean that someone will put together an article worth keeping about you, merely that the possibility exists. On that basis, this sheriff's department is as notable as an early 19th-century U.S. senator from Vermont who few people alive today have ever heard of. --Eastmain 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not so - see WP:BIO for specifics. WP:RS and WP:V and even multiple sources are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. See WP:NOT - specifically, Wikipedia is not a directory. The fact that we can demonstrate something exists is not sufficient to qualify that something for an article. Rklawton 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gallatin County, Montana. Information on an important service such as a county's law enforcement department is significant in that community, and should be covered in that community. A separate article is not needed however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into parent articles, per my comments on the first listing of the group, and per views expressed at (historical) proposed guideline WP:LOCAL. Edison 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. Majorly (hot!) 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Tennessee Police Department

[edit]
Bristol Tennessee Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Nom - fails notability entirely. See also WP:NOT. Rklawton 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. Majorly (hot!) 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gatlinburg Fire Department

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

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Nom - fails notability entirely. See also WP:NOT. }} Rklawton 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gatlinburg, Tennessee where this is already covered. Public services in a town might well be of interest to people reading about the town, but it is too local in scope to justify a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into parent articles, per my comments on the first listing of the group, and per views expressed at (historical) proposed guideline WP:LOCAL. Edison 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe author of this article is my adoptee. I have previously saved an article written by my adoptee from deletion by rewritting it. I didn't want to do this too much because I wanted my adoptee to have freedom to decide what to write. I have concrete ideas to improve this particular article. Furthermore, I have significantly beefed up articles (originally written by someone else, not me) saving them from deletion. This includes Tiger Airways Australia, Nitrium, and a small police department article. Of the 11 articles listed, I think this one has the most potential (though the author may disagree). Please kindly allow me to work on this article next week (this week: too busy). You can retag it for deletion in 3-4 weeks if you don't like it.VK35 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the only point of relevance I see to your observations above is that this article has "potential". Could you explain that potential? Rklawton 19:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • plan to add stuff on history and how the department is different (and notable) from other small town fire departments. Furthermore, I'll do a search to find out if there's any more useful information to add. Even in the article's present form, it's better written than this article, which hasn't been tagged for deletion [[63]] or [[64]] or [[65]]VK35 22:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. Majorly (hot!) 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon Forge Public Services

[edit]
Pigeon Forge Public Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Nom - fails notability entirely. See also WP:NOT. }} Rklawton 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to cuisine of Singapore. To echo nadav, I've only tagged it for the merge, since I've no idea what would be relevant for the target article. - Bobet 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bread in the cuisine of Singapore

[edit]
Bread in the cuisine of Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is basically a personal essay that violates WP:OR. Perhaps the references in the bottom somehow relate to the article text, but if they do, it is still obviously WP:SYN. It would require a total and complete rewrite of this article for it to be acceptable, and the relevant material is in Cuisine of Singapore anyway. nadav 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services. Majorly (hot!) 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsport Police Department

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

Other articles created by this editor and nominated for deletion include:

Nom - fails notability. See also WP:NOT. Rklawton 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Grunfeld Defence. Walton Need some help? 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grünfeld 4.Bf4

[edit]
Grünfeld 4.Bf4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is currently unreferenced (WP:ATT), its history indicates it was created as an attempt at link spam, and there is no content besides instructions on this particular opening (WP:NOT#IINFO 4). It lacks any assertion of notability, and I see nothing significant worth merging to Grünfeld Defence as the content is itself just a description of the opening in a highly instructional manner, instead of encyclopedic. Besides, as this was the result of someone's link spam, I would prefer if there is any coverage of it, that it be started fresh. And while I'm sure it could be referenced somewhere, there are many hundreds of named chess openings and sub-variants. Coverage of them in indiscriminate fashion isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Note I would not particular object to transwiki'ing this to Wikibooks if that is desired. FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: BTW, I should note that List of chess openings has 20 variants named just for the Grunfeld. Only 3 (including this one) have articles. Neither of the others have adequate references, and only one (the exchange variation) has even the slightest attempt at coverage beyond a listing of the movies. FrozenPurpleCube 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: I also have no great objection to a redirect. I do, however, object to merging this unsourced content which has no real assertion of notability in and of itself. Just delete it, don't merge to any other page, and if you really think it's worthwhile, redirect afterwards. But don't just copy it. That's bad practice. FrozenPurpleCube 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've already covered that issue. I see nothing worth merging to Grünfeld Defence. This is a listing of moves in an instructional manner, nothing more. If there is some significance to this variant, then it might as well be directly from whatever source establishes that significance rather than moving unreferenced content elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user has already recently nominated two chess opening articles for AfD. (here and here). Both were kept. The nom continues to argue against general consensus that chess opening articles are not generally notable, citing his opinion that they are "how-to" articles in contravention of WP:NOT. The first of those AfDs contains the relevant discussion, also to be seen at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess. However, there is also general consensus that some opening stubs could be merged into their parent article with no loss of information. The nominated article is one of those, and a merged article on the Grünfeld Defence is ready for activation, which will result in the nominated article becoming a Redirect to it. I have little idea quite why the nom thinks that deleting relevant information, rather than merging it into the relevant article, is in line with Wikipedia guidelines.EliminatorJR Talk 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you read the first discussion, there were several people who remarked that they considered articles such as this one deletion candidates. Sadly, dealing with them got lost in the trainwreck of a mass nomination (my fault, should have started smaller), though the closing admin did suggest renominating several articles. The second one lead to only two comments, by yourself and the other person. That is not, actually consensus. It's minimal participation at best. Thus I seek a wider consensus from more people. You'll have to pardon me for trying to get what I see as a real issue addressed, I am trying my best not to be disruptive, despite numerous personal attacks against me. And seriously, can you say there's anything worthwhile merging in this article? What's important about this, or any of the 20 other variations? Is there some reason to include this and not the others? Not that I can tell. Don't get so caught up in your feelings for me that you forget that it's the content that matters, not me. Work on Grünfeld Defence if you want, but I see nothing to bother with here. It's not even sourced. So you're going to have to look for a source anyway, to both verify it and to establish its notability. If you just merge it then you've done thing to fix it. That's why I say delete it. But perhaps if you weren't so suspicious of me you might have seen that option for yourself instead of accusing me yet again here. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am accusing you of anything (which I don't think I am) it's that your lack of knowledge of the subject is leading you to throw AfDs at the wrong subjects. For instance, two of the items in your first AfD, D59 (chess opening) and C93 (chess opening) would have stood far more chance of succeeding if they hadn't been bundled in with a group of obviously notable articles. (I note that both of those articles have been redirected to their main openings since - a decision don't disagree with at all). However I don't understand the rationale for this AfD. You know, since you've been reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess that this article is about to get merged and redirected, so why nominate it for deletion? EliminatorJR Talk 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you didn't want to come across as accusing me, perhaps you would have considered commenting on the substance of the article instead of your thoughts on me. Your comment starts off about me. If you'd wanted to talk about the article, perhaps you might have considered starting off with "I think this should be merged because.." and leaving out the antagonism on your part. Take an honest look at it, it's unsourced. It's nothing but a list of moves. Exactly what is the point of merging? Thus my suggestion of deletion instead of trying to merge. If you want to improve Grünfeld defense at least come up with a reason to include information on this variant there. Which isn't in this article. So look for that, source it, add it to Grunfeld if appropriate. But don't merge this blindly just because it exists. That'd be a bad idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One quick comment about this one versus the other 20 or so variations of the Grunfeld - after a pretty standard first three moves by White, masters have generally chosen one of three major 4th moves, and this is one of them. So it is a major branch, unlike some of them which were on move 10-12. Bubba73 (talk), 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that can be found in this article, can it? So just delete it, and if you can source that, see about adding it into the other article.
And did the person merging use those sources, or just cobble the page together, leaving those sources on there, without checking whether or not they contained information supporting any of the added information? FrozenPurpleCube 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used extra sources to add information, which can be seen in the new article. EliminatorJR Talk 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at that new content, it seems you're drawing a conclusion there. You'll want to cite it so you don't appear to be making OR. FrozenPurpleCube 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it slightly to remove the weasel words. Its popularity graph is in the pages linked by the refs. EliminatorJR Talk 23:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. Since it is now merged into Grünfeld Defence, a redirect is appropriate. (The merge work has been ongoing the last several days, as the AFD nominator was well aware.) The page could also be deleted as it is an unlikely search term. I've forgotten if there's a special deletion procedure for redirects, but I'm sure someone here will know. If so, we could also wait until we have several redirect pages left over from merged chess opening stub articles and have them deleted in a bunch rather than individually. Quale 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Grũnfeld per Quale. Redirects are usually preferable to redlinks when dealing with defunct articles since they point the reader to where they now can find the info. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can make a redirect to that page after deletion, I have no especially great objection to that. I do, however, think that unsourced content that is simply an instruction manual shouldn't be merged. If there is any reason to discuss this variant on the Grunfeld page, then that needs to be found and sourced anyway, so it might as well be started fresh with reliable sources, not just some attempt at linkspam. FrozenPurpleCube 06:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you misunderstand how a redirect is accomplished. It would simply replace the current contents of the page (see WP:R). There's no need to delete the page to redirect, and no point in it either. There's no need to go through AFD if a merge is the goal. Either be WP:BOLD or use Template:Mergeto and Template:Mergefrom if you think the merge might be controversial. (In this case I'm sure it wouldn't have been, as there has been strong support for these sorts of mergers on WT:CHESS for several months, long enough even for some of the discussions to be archived.) For any complaints about the Grünfeld Defence page, the appropriate venue is Talk:Grünfeld Defence. Quale 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And maybe you don't understand what I'm saying. I disagree with having a redirect with the article history intact because this is ultimately the result of linkspam. It's pretty simple. There's no need to merge, as the content is currently unsourced at best, and nothing more than an instruction manual anyway. Therefore, I think it's better to delete this content, which means that if there is anything worthwhile to say about this variant in the main article, it'll be fresh and appropriately sourced, and not the result of someone's attempt to exploit Wikipedia. So, it's simple enough to just delete it. If there's any use in a redirect, you can do it afterwards, but don't leave the trash around. And your claims of strong support are not supported by real actions. Heck, many of the linkspams in these articles remain intact despite being around for months or years. So forgive me for being dubious about this problem being fixed. FrozenPurpleCube 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merge is a fait accompli—it's already done, and AFD is not the appropriate place to discuss merges anyway. The information is already in Grünfeld Defence, so it doesn't much matter to me whether Grünfeld 4.Bf4 becomes a redirect or is deleted, although a redirect would seem most expedient. Normally page history is not a concern unless it contains libel or certain legally protected information related to invasion of privacy. I don't see anything in [66] that is a cause for concern. Quale 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge's are often brought up as a solution on AFD's, and um, it's pretty easy to undo the merge. See the guide to deletion which clearly says "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy." I see no strong case here. I didn't and still don't support the merge of unsourced content. Failure to rectify this has not made Grunfeld better, it's just moved the problem there. Not an improvement. Instead of making the article better, it's become a Frankenstein of pieced together parts some of which are dubious. It would have been much better to delete the pages it was merged together from and work fresh. FrozenPurpleCube 08:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that all the similar articles on AFD were merged would be a strong indicator that the same will happen with this one, so I don't think merging them now in order to get the Grũnfeld article in shape quickly was a particularily reckless undertaking. As for sourcing, the opening sentence "In chess, D82 is the ECO code for the Grünfeld 4.Bf4" gives a source by itself, in particular the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings volume D, chapter 82 which has some three to four pages of analysis together with game fragments, which will confirm the outline of the main lines of this variation. The thing which ECO does not really source is the solid reputation of D82, but the books on the Grûnfeld, e.g. by Pachman ("Indian Defenses") will verify that this is the case for moves such as 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.Qb3, in contrast to the aggressive line is the Exchange Variation 4.cxd5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said you objected to the merging of unsourced content. I just told you that ECO sources the main outline of the variations, and I did that to meet your objection. I told you as well that a chess book like Indian Defenses by Pachman will source the line on the variation being regarded as "safe", and though that book is not listed as a source, (it was not used when the article was created) each of the four books listed under Grünfeld Defense will tell you the same thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then it should be easy to look at those actual references. Then whatever's worth including can be included and directly cited. Though honestly, if all they've got to say is a recounting of the moves and advice on playing them, I'm not sure that establishes in itself a reason to include it. I know you mean well, but I'm just not sure you're looking at this with an unbiased perspective. FrozenPurpleCube 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, AFD is not an appropriate forum for a content dispute. I wish I knew you mean well, but WP:AGF is not WP:Infinite patience with unending silliness. Quale 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a content dispute. The page is a problem, merging it elsewhere with a redirect won't solve it. It's a real pity that nobody outside the insular chess community has even remarked here. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Closing Admin The nominator has now put {fact} tags all over the merged article, some of which are patently spurious per User:Sjakkalle above. The nominator's comment about undoing merges above, coupled with now making unnecessary work for editors based on a viewpoint which is obviously not shared in the community means that it is becoming harder and harder for myself and the rest of the chess article editors to assume good faith. The fact that the nominator knew that this article was part of an ongoing Merge and Redirect exercise on WikiProject Chess makes it even closer to a bad faith nomination. While the nominator does occasionally make good points (and they are ofted acted upon), we are trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic by reducing the number of unsourced sub-variant stubs and it's a difficult enough piece of work as it is, without a single editor disrupting it with his own interpretation of WP:NOT. EliminatorJR Talk 10:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • response for closing admin Thank you, but I was not part of any ongoing merge and redirect exercise, if there was anything going on, I've moved myself out of it due to the hostile reaction I've received when I've said anything. And sorry, but it doesn't seem to me that you are trying to reduce the number of problems in these pages. Instead, you're just perpetuating the problem. Heck, has anybody else noticed that besides myself, the only participants here are members of WP:CHESS? Sorry, but I just can't see this discussion continuing if it's dominated by those with a vested interest in the problem. FrozenPurpleCube 12:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without invoking WP:EXPERT, perhaps that's because most editors with little or no knowledge of the game (and hence likely to be involved in WP:CHESS) are put off by the technical nature, perhaps considering they would not be able to differentiate between notable and non-notable chess opening articles. EliminatorJR Talk 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think it's because people see this, realize it's an ugly mess, and don't wish to involve themselves. However, silence is not actually a good way to develop consensus. Nor is this heap of noise. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any requirement that one only remark once in an AFD, and I've replied politely and considerately to those remarks I felt it was appropriate to address directly. Do you have some problem with the content of them? Have I been rude or offensive? I don't feel so, but if you could show me where, besides the act of replies I've made, you have a problem, it might help address the issue. Of course, in the future, it'd help if you didn't make comments like your original one to this AFD which didn't discuss the issues with the content of this page, but rather with well, me. That just sets things up on the wrong path. FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Like the "that's nice" comment above? My original comment wasn't an attack on you, but an attempt to give some background to the AfD for editors who might not be familiar with the situation. If you wish to construe it as such, that's your prerogative. You don't appear to be aware how frustrating your edits can be - let's face it, you complained that there were too many unsourced chess opening stubs, and when we try to reduce them by merging into one article (the Grunfeld Defence article has removed four stubs), you still attempt to attack the articles. EliminatorJR Talk 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, praytell is wrong with saying "that's nice" ? Is there some insult to saying something is nice that I'm not aware of? At most, it's sarcasm, and um, sarcasm isn't a personal attack or accusation. It may be a little abrasive, I suppose, but that's really pushing it. And um, I'm not attacking the article. This isn't an attack by me and it's not constructive for you to treat it like one. It's expressing the concern that there are problems with WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NOT#IINFO, all of which have not been addressed, but instead ignored in preference to your attacks upon me. If you were truly interested in convincing me to not nominate pages for deletion, you need to try to convince me better than just merging them. Deal with my concerns. Make the pages better. Don't just gather all the mistakes in one place as if that fixed anything. It doesn't. FrozenPurpleCube 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are again misrepresenting the opposition against deleting when tou write that concerns have not addressed. Shall we go through them: WP:V was addressed, because I told you that this opening is covered in Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, volume D chapter 82. The opening is also covered in Modern Chess Openings, when I checked this one too had a reference calling the Bf4 variation "safe". Second, WP:N is quite subjective, but with all the literature written about the Grũnfeld (no less than four books are provided as reference in the main article), I find your assertion of lack of notability hard to swallow when so many have bothered to write about it. Moreover, deletion is not the only cure for dealing with non-notable subjects, merging is often a better solution. You should note that none of the so-called "biased" WP:CHESS editors have opined to keep this article outright. As for WP:NOT#IINFO, that is one interpretation of "indiscriminate", but we have actually been discriminate in only covering openings which have a solid foundation in chess literature. Furthermore, the reason you gave for calling it NOTIINFO is wrong; you write in the nomination "there is no content besides instructions on this particular opening". Yet the article has the lines "named after an Austrian chess player Ernst Grünfeld" (doesn't instruct anything), "D82 is the ECO code for the Grünfeld 4.Bf4" (nothing instructional, in fact it sources the article) and "This is considered a safe continuation for White" (which is not instructional, just tells about how chess theorists view the opening). Hence your statement that we have not tried meeting your concerns is a proof by assertion, and while that kind of argumentation can be very tiresome to argue against, and will always let you get in the last word if you keep it up, it is not a valid way of reasoning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, I already said I'm sure you could properly reference it in the nomination, I'll copy it again "And while I'm sure it could be referenced somewhere, there are many hundreds of named chess openings and sub-variants. Coverage of them in indiscriminate fashion isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia." . So, why cover this variant, and not any of the others that are variants of the Grunfeld? Or heck, think of the hundreds, if not thousands, of other openings to be found in the ECO and MCO. Covering them indiscriminately is a problem. It's like covering every line of scripture in the Bible. Some discretion is required. That has not been demonstrated. And I'm sorry, but you have misrepresented me by taking my remarks out of context as what I actually said was also followed up by "and I see nothing significant worth merging to Grünfeld Defence as the content is itself just a description of the opening in a highly instructional manner" and I continue to ask, exactly what's significant about saying it's named after this person that can't logically be covered in the main article? Nothing that I can see. Sorry, but that's a very flimsy shield to say keeping one should be the information in this article. It's not especially meaningful at all. BTW, just because some putative chess theorists believe something is "safe" doesn't make it any less instructional. Not when none of them have been named, nor significance given to their opinions. Thus no context is given to the statement. It's always better to tie things to actual people, when that's not done, it's not encyclopedic at all. It's instructional, because there's no attempt to inform people as to which theorists think it's safe. Your attempts to convince me I'm wrong by saying my perceptions are incorrect are not persuasive, they're the wrong tack to take. This is because I don't consider you unbiased, you're a chess player, you've contributed to many of these problematic articles. In a sense, you're responsible for the problem. So I expect you to find it hard to perceive that there is one. I hold no malice against you, but I simply don't see you as fairly examining the situation. So as I said, the substance of this article is recounting the moves. Find something beyond that. If you can't, then I continue to oppose keeping the information in this article. Keeping the page versus merging is irrelevant. The information is itself the core of the problem. It shouldn't be included unless there's something meaningful to it. That hasn't been shown, FrozenPurpleCube 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you haven't been reading it recently? I see several comments by users such as Mangoe, Arkyan,Bossi, >Radiant<, and Rocksong do express sentiments that I interpret as concerns that pages need to be more than just openings. Did you not see "There's an AfD up at this time for an article about a single move in one opening. Articles on the various openings seem like a good idea; articles on the variations within them do not." or "What can be said about QGD; Slav, 4.Nc3? It's a variation on a variation of a move. No sourcing, no history, no referenced analysis - probably should be no article. My two cents, of course!" or "Significant moves w/ extensive history and information are relevant enough per WP:PAPER (in my opinion, of course), but variations and such should be nixed as independent articles and instead worked into the main article from which they are derived. If too much information is acquired for a variation, then perhaps it may merit its own article; but I do not see such as being a particularly common event." Perhaps you may wish to inquire with those users to explain their statements, because obviously I'm reading them quite differently than you are. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet the QGD Slav Nc3 article referenced above is one of those that is a perfect article for a merge into the main QGD article, a process that you are hindering with AfDs like this. Also, while I'm here, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about WP:NPA. Let's get this straight. No-one has personally attacked you. If I say "you are an idiot" with no backup of that statement, then that's obviously a personal attack. However, if I say "your edit pattern is hindering an attempt to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic" then that isn't, it's an opinion based on editing patterns. EliminatorJR Talk 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you don't believe you are making personal attacks, but that doesn't mean you aren't commenting on the contributor, not the content. As for my hindering the process, since you are clearly involved in this situation, and have indicated that in the past your judgment is suspect, I don't feel you are truly biased and neutral enough to consider my actions fairly. Frankly, I think your, and several other editors focus on me is hindering the process far more than anything I'm doing. It certainly doesn't indicate a willingness to deal with the actual issue involved. If you do believe I am causing an excessive problem, why don't you seek comment elsewhere, and see if you can get support from others as to your issues. There are several forums where you can address that, including WP:WQA and WP:RFC/USER. While I respect your concerns, in that I know several people are upset, I think you're using that to deflect the responsibilities of all parties involved this case. I certainly know many people are reacting poorly to my concerns. This doesn't convince me my concerns are mistaken, their poor reactions have only convinced me that they aren't honestly listening. So, while I'm sure there is plenty of mud going around, I think you need to see that it's coming from all sides. I've offered suggestions on how to address the issue, what suggestions do you have to offer me? How can I convince you that I am genuinely interested in fixing this problem, and that I do not intend to be disruptive? I'll tell you how you can start to convince me. Don't do thinks like refer to my actions as attacks or as part of a war. That's not the way to go at all. FrozenPurpleCube 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question was aboutchess moves being "indiscriminate information", and no one agreed with you about that. If you check the old Chess project talk pages, I believe that you will find that I brought up the issue of the stubs of variations before you did. Bubba73 (talk), 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel several of them actually made remarks that are in congruence with what I've been saying all along, thank you. Since you don't agree, I'll just ask all of them to share their views. Perhaps they can correct your misapprehension. FrozenPurpleCube 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that there will be some folks commenting on this who aren't members of WP:CHESS and who don't regularly contribute to chesss articles. This AFD is still relatively young, and it isn't surprising that chess editors noticed it early—they watch the chess articles fairly closely, and furthermore the Grünfeld Defence and related articles were being actively worked on at the time. If no one else chooses to weigh in here I would suggest that it is because your views have little support, as suggested by the results of earlier similar AFDs you began. I don't intend to become you and comment 20 times on this AFD. I've said my piece, you can have as many last words as you like. Quale 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see some of these outsiders. And please, remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. The fact that you have a personal animosity towards me renders any criticism of me by you moot. I'm sorry, but you obviously don't respect me, so even if you mean well, it's going to come across as a personal attack. FrozenPurpleCube 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there is no material on this page that is not on the main Grünfeld page here per Elim's contribution, a simple and speedy delete and redirect to that section seems obvious. Any issues with the material there can be taken up there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I am not a member of WP:CHESS, nor of the insular chess community (whatever that is). Just an outsider. ;-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion expressed on the village pump has been brought up (along with others) in the course of this discussion and a request was made to clarify said opinion here in this debate. In a nutshell, my understanding is that chess moves are no more or less subject to standard policy/guidelines than any other topic. If it lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish N, it has no business in its own article. This article in question is nothing more than a descriptive entry of the move without said sources, and as such should be deleted. As to whether or not it shoudl be merged into the parent article, one only need take a look at the role it plays there. It can be summarized thusly: "This is a variation move. It is considered safe. This is how you do it." Still no evidence of notability. In fact, if anything it reads as mere game-guide material - instructions on how to execute the move and in what situation it is good. While WP:NOT#IINFO is usually cited in the form of "Wikipedia is not a game guide" in deletion debates against video game guides, it still applies here. This is clearly "how-to" material and should be deleted, not merged. A redirect after deletion is appropriate. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that this applies to this article (and a few like it) or to all articles about chess openings? Bubba73 (talk), 03:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to all of them. I view it as a pretty simple litmus test, and that's the point I had tried to communicate on the Village Pump. If there is legitimate history, reliable sources to establish notability and something more to say about the move rather than "This is a variation of X, this is how it is done." Does it meet the minimum requirements? Then keep it. DOes it not? Then don't. Simple. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person that proposed the deletion of this article contended that the chess articles should not include chess moves, because chess moves are "indiscriminant information". Then he stated that part of his problem with chess moves (in general) was that they were expressed in the universally-accepted algebraic chess notation. The question I asked on V.P. was that if any and all chess moves are "indiscriminant information" that should be removed, and was not about this particular article. Bubba73 (talk), 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not what I'm saying, but represents a severe and continued misunderstanding on your part. I don't know how you got the idea that I don't think chess moves should not be in any articles whatsoever under any circumstances. What I do think is that articles which are simply lists of chess moves with maybe a bare inkling of strategy or importance fall under the section of WP:NOT#IINFO that covers instruction manuals and howtos. I also think it'd be helpful in those cases where an encyclopedic article can be developed to include a textual description to supplement the algebraic notation. If you continue to represent my position with this gross distortion of yours, I may be forced to assume that your doing so is deliberate and willful. Please stop. FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what you really meant then you should have said that the articles were not notable or that they didn't contain any information not in the bigger articles. You objected speifically to including moves, but you said that it was OK to include trivia about the openings instead of the moves. And what is this "textual description" of moves as opposed to the standard algebraic chess notation?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, maybe you should just re-read the whole discussion over again, see if you can develop a fuller, more accurate understanding of the situation. Because honestly, that is what I've said before. And so have other people. Maybe you should contact them for further information. FrozenPurpleCube 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a bit moot, now, as the small section on this variation in the merged article has been expanded with background information, and sourced. However the argument about whether opening articles are "how-to"s is a wider one which is probably not best served at AfD.EliminatorJR Talk 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to take up the discussion up elsewhere, feel free to let folks know where. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My name got taken in vain too, and I too am not a WP:CHESS member. However, this is again another one-move article. It seems to have arisen out of the copying of a directory of chess moves into Wikipedia. Others can decide whether it should be treated at all in the main article on the opening, but it doesn't seem to me to call for any entry in the namespace. Mangoe 03:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sjakkalle. >Radiant< 08:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim foodstalls in Singapore

[edit]
Muslim foodstalls in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is composed entirely of original research and is on a topic that is probably not notable, so I don't think reliable sources could be found. Even if they could be found, the article would still have to be rewritten from scratch. I should mention that it is part of the Wikipedia:NUS Scholars Programme series of articles. nadav 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As far as I can tell it is pure OR. In anycase I am not entirely sure that this is a suitable topic for a encyclopedia article, unless it is well documented by reputable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's getting from bad to worse... this time they really have no cited sources - unlike in history of cremation in Singapore and Northlight School - which could allow me to say "keep" in good conscience.
  • Delete as original research. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-26 00:27Z
  • Delete as it is not notable and is just original research.--Mendors 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather a narrow topic but an interesting insight into multi-cultural harmony. I do not understand these calls of "OR" and "unsourced". The source is public information which anyone in Singapore can easily check for themselves. I do not ask for references - no SGpedian has changed the facts so I assume they are all true. -- RHaworth 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised at you. This article seems to be the very reason WP:V was written. It explicitly says that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Explain to me how this article is consistent with that policy. If, however, it's the policy you disagree with, then you came to the wrong forum. nadav 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC) And no SGpedian has bothered to vote keep either. nadav 21:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR--Sefringle 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting of Desperate Housewives

[edit]
Broadcasting of Desperate Housewives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - as we have deleted similar articles for The Simpsons, Smallville, Medium and a number of other series. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Otto4711 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Miller (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:BIO AMBerry (talk | contribs) 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disability rights in Prince Edward Island

[edit]
Disability rights in Prince Edward Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article consists of totally original research. Author was blocked for showing "ownership" of article and trying to revoke GFDL license to text contributed to Wikipedia see for instance User_talk:Sdpate#Copyright. While I'd normally be adverse to follow the wishes of someone who tried to revoke his license of text to us, this article is too much of an original work to stand on the encyclopedia. Also, there's no evidence that disability rights on Prince Edward Island are any different than the rest of Canada Nardman1 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the deletion of this page. It seems to have been used as an attempt to sway voters to take a position during an upcoming election on Prince Edward Island. While I have no problem having a page on disability rights on Prince Edward Island - this page was extremely problematic because it was thoroughly a "one issue" page and had no real purpose, in my opinion, other than to lead people to believe that a government had done bad things to disabled people on PEI. While this is not true - an effort to make it factual and fair would be far too much work for very little benefit. Faircomment 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; legitimate topic, bad guidance so far. However, if we can get some other people to edit, the history of d. rights in PEI since 1873 could be a great article. -- Zanimum 20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; The article has some promise as a general history article. Also, why does it have to be about PEI? What I am thinking is that the article can either become more of a article on history disability rights in Canada in general, and have sub sections pertaining to each province, or a history of disability rights in PEI. -- 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, each province moves at it's own pace, features its own cast of characters, etc. We could move it and skin it too a shorter length, but there's a distinct story in each province, that would be lost by just focusing in on the national picture. -- Zanimum 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because (a) it's original research from someone who is pursuing a political agenda and (b) there is no evidence that disability rights in PEI are any different to the rest of Canada. It is asserted by the author of this article that Zamium has a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir. Charles Tupper.
The COI bit is complete bull. The only reason I've edited this article and Pat Binns was too clean it up before a media report. Aside from the CBC-TV reporter I talked to on the phone, and CBC Radio person I talked to via email, I do solemnly swear that I have not knowing talked to someone whose permanent residence is on Prince Edward Island, since I vacationed there in 1995 as a child. I'm not saying I haven't unwittingly talked to a PEIer, or talked to former PEIers, but I haven't knowingly talked to a then current resident. On my Facebook, of which I believe my profile is public to anyone, I have claimed liberal political views since I joined. My favourite prime minister, full disclosure, is Conservative Sir Charles Tupper, but solely because of his great, great sideburns. That, and the fact he's the only Canadian PM to have town named after him, so far as I know.
Of greater importance, I even warned the anon IP belonging to a member of the PC Youth (User talk:74.210.4.228), to let them know their most recent edits were still out of line. -- Zanimum 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect. -- RHaworth 08:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eire (Republic Of Ireland)

[edit]
Eire (Republic Of Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite its title, this is a list of rugby slang terms. I think that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is the appropriate policy, creator removed prod with the comment, "I do not belive this page to be a dictionary. It is more about the origin of certain coloquial terms that are not in the OED. In reply to the title has no relevence please look at the subtitles preceeding - crowd linguistics - rugby!" FisherQueen (Talk) 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title is infact a sub title to crowd linguistics and rugby! You do not seem to acknowledge this fact and please may you write why you think this page is unsatissfactory rather than quote from wikipedias rules as i will find it much more useful! Headsworth 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding whether or not this article meets Wikipedia policy is how we will decide whether it is deleted or not. The title isn't a subtitle; it's the only title that the article has. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not under the impression that it would come under Eire alone as if you look in the list it is under Crowd Linguistics under Rugby! Eire was created as i wanted others to add thier own research and "experiences" from the other great rugby nations as there are so few! This is clear in my opinion and if it is not i appologies! This is not a finished piece people need to add to it and build on it "Rome Was Not Built In A Day". As for vandalism i consider that a ridiculous comment to make what i was trying to do was valid and is valid. thanks i hope you will reconsider as there is nothing like this on wikipedia and there is no reason why it should'nt be! Headsworth 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Headsworth, I see that you created this from the redlink at Wikipedia:Requested articles/sports#Crowd Linguistics. It wasn't your fault that it was misnamed, it was the fault of the person who made that request. Nevertheless, while we appreciate your efforts to fulfill that request, editors here are arguing that the topic is not needed. In many cases it is permissible to create a stub article for a notable topic that may grow in time, but in this case we probably don't need a local slang directory pertaining to a specific sport. --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do Not Delete

This article, is in my opinion valid. I argue that this is more of a debate about sticking to the rule book and being petty, rather than anything else. Please bear in mind the famous saying "Rules are for the obedience of idiots and the guidance of wise men" whilst following this.

May I ask, who are we to question the backgrounds and moral integrity of others, what sort of world do we live in, if people are so petty and have so much free time on their hands, that they have to come on the internet and metaphorically cry about a "rule book"?! This is a website for Christ's sake, don't turn it into a dictatorship!

This is nothing but a petty argument, fuelled by the lost souls that still live with their mothers at the age of 45 and have nothing beter to do than argue on the internet. I say, let us be free and express our wills and that the objectees maybe go out and get some friends. I see nothing wrong with this article and those that do, well, I think it's clear that we all feel sorry for them.

I ask that we do not become idiots, but that we show our acceptance and that we infact that we imbrace this perception of the word "yarn".FredMcD 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Republic of Ireland. Assuming good faith, the author appears to have made an effort to create a page they thought would appear under Crowd Linguistics under Rugby. The text serves no useful purpose and the page title should clearly point to nation's page. bikeable (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect per the above. Not only is this article unverifiable neologism, it's also badly mis-named. The comments about my mother are also not productive. --Haemo 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ireland should do it 0v3r533r 23:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete This article is i agree in the wrong section however it should be renamed into a seperate area.

Yarn is a word used by many as the 1000 members of yarn appriciation society show on facebook.It needs to be redirected not deleted, it is not vandalism it is mearly been missdirected Humeoid 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW EDITS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PAGEHeadsworth 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also once Crowd Linguistics is accpeted as a sub for rugby what effect will that have? Headsworth 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does one change the title? Headsworth 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait until the deletion discussion closes; right now, the consensus seems to be leaning toward not renaming the article but deleting it. If the article is kept, we can rename it then.-FisherQueen (Talk) 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Do Not Delete this is a valid use of the word and although certain members here do not agree i see it as necessary that a place like wikipedia, which is an encylopedia, a place for a vast amount of infomation. Harbours such cutting edge and important items.

Although i myself have only recently been introduced to yarn through a trip to see liecestor play in dublin. I feel it is an important that this content remains upon wikipedia.

I WOULD LIKE TO STATE I HAVE NOT ASKED PEOPLE TO ADD TO THIS PAGE I HAVE ONLY JUST BECOME AWARE OF THE FACEBOOK GROUP!Headsworth 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-26 00:23Z

Thomas Britton Harris IV

[edit]
Thomas Britton Harris IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bio of a leading institutional investor. Written in a spammy, sycophantic tone by author/s with a likely COI. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Walton Need some help? 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Fiasco & DJ WunderKidd: A Real MC

[edit]
Lupe Fiasco & DJ WunderKidd: A Real MC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a mixtape by a non-notable DJ. I've yet to find any verifiable evidence that this release is an official release by Lupe Fiasco, therefore it's not notable. One Night In Hackney303 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Potter

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

not notable JH (talk page) 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JH. Johnlp 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 copyright violations. Garion96 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boenning & Scattergood, Inc.

[edit]
Boenning & Scattergood, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

And also Boenning & Scattergood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) .

There is suspicion that the same man set up both these Wikipedia pages and also the external site. Delete both Wikipedia pages as "NN investment company, spam"?

Anthony Appleyard 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to decibel. - Bobet 09:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBi

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

Topic is too short to have its own article. There is already a section on the issue in the article decibel. Mr. PIM 21:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Ultimate Baseball Online. I only tagged it for the merge, since I've no idea which parts would be considered relevant in the target article. - Bobet 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Baseball Online 2006

[edit]
Ultimate Baseball Online 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

You have to love the references section - every one a press release from the company. Free software, no evidence of importance or significance. RuneScape it is not. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again, eh? Keep, merge with Ultimate Baseball Online 2007 into Ultimate Baseball Online. Notable as the first Massively Multiplayer Online Sports Game (latest entry into the MMOSG triumvirate, after Massively Multiplayer Online Social Games and Massively Multiplayer Online Strategy Games]]). There are enough industry sources available ([69], [70], [71], [72], [73]) to provide well-rounded coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Cleanup and Merge with Ultimate Baseball Online 2007 into Ultimate Baseball Online Appears to meet notability standards, however it reads like an advert and the same content is in 2 articles. It would be best to merge both 2006 and 2007 into the main Ultimate Baseball Online article, however it should also be cleaned up so that it doesn't read like an advert. Life, Liberty, Property 04:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ultimate Baseball Online. No reason for it to exist away from its parent. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Page was blanked to an (almost) redirect. Reverted to previous until this is closed. As to the status of the AfD, I'm recommending a Merge with the parent article as above, only insofar as to show the development of the series. The development portion of the parent article maybe should be spun off into its own article, but thats another story all together, I suppose. Mystache 02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nabla 12:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcote High School

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

I removed the speedy delete notice since there is no consensus for high schools to be speedied. This is a procedural AfD on which I therefore abstain. TerriersFan 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lack of notability isn't the only reason for deleting an article. Lack of available suitable sources would be another possibility (no comment on this article though).Garrie 08:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - By their nature all institutions, such as schools, have a history. An article on Wikipedia is the place to record that history. I agree the article as it stands is weak, but that means it should be improved, not deleted. That this article was nominated on the grounds of notability shows a gross misunderstanding of notability as it applies to Wikipedia. A topic is not non-notable because it seems unimportant to an editor. John Dalton 00:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it thereI think the guy that wants it deleted actually goes to that school and for some personal reason has something againts the article being there. I think that other pupils at the school and possibly staff would object to this article being deleted and would probably expand on the article if they knew that it existed. All schools should have some kind of article, it would be interesting for current and former students to look back on Mindys12345 01:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A certificate of commendation for bravery was awarded by the New South Wales Parliament to teacher Greg Moon, with the commendation stating "Mr Moon was leading an expedition of 10 students along the Dufars river when assistant instructor Gemima Robey slipped and fell into the water at a dangerous bend. With no thought for his own safety, Mr Moon rescued Ms Robey from the river and immediately attempted to resuscitate her. Throughout this, Greg continued to manage the students who were under his care and becoming increasingly distressed."[4

This makes great info. Only a grump would want this deleted. Great effort. Great Article.....................................................Mindys12345 01:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are innumerable articles about schools similar to this one; if this article is deleted, then all others must also go in fairness. Of course, that is impossible, so I must say Keep, unless there is a very good reason to delete this one and not the others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A.Ou (talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Whoops. A.0u 06:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears appropriately sourced and notable per WP:V and WP:N. I think the formulation, while certainly not a prescription, is that primary schools are not notable unless exceptional circumstances apply, while high schools are more likely to be notable (i.e. state prizes/competitions and such things), etc. Many high schools would not be notable, I've voted keep on some and delete on others. Note this is just my understanding of it though. Orderinchaos 11:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite what Mindys12345 says, it is nothing personal that I want the article deleted. I am a student of the school, and I honestly do not think the school is notable. It does not have a notable history or alumni. I simply do not think the school has any really worthwhile information. Lach Graham 10:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lach Graham: In the nicest possible way I need to point out that you misunderstand notability as it applies to Wikipeidia. Notability is supposed to be an objective measure. Whether an individual editor thinks something is worthwhile does not come into it. "I simply do not think the school has any really worthwhile information" is everything that notability is not! You might find it useful to read Notability is not subjective, from the Notability page. John Dalton 23:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elia Spallanzani

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

An amusing hoax, but there are no reliable sources, and it's unlikely any will be found. This has already been deleted from the Italian Wikipedia. Cúchullain t/c 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Doug Thompson (US political blogger), then delete as csd-r1. If the blogger ever gets notable enough for an article, leave me a note and I'll undelete the relevant history on this article. Until then, you can't merge things into nonexistent articles. - Bobet 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Harleigh

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

No reliable sources to verify the information, barely a claim of notability. Cúchullain t/c 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Mr Harleigh was widely quoted before being found to not exist. Try a google search [75]. A google search does not make anything notable, but his main 'quote' had a lot of traction on the web. There was even an email distribution from 'him' at one point. Jmcnamera 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or Merge and Redirect to Doug Thompson if he (the real person) is notable. How can an imaginary internet sockpuppet, who only appeared for a time on a blog forum that hardly anyone ever heard of, be more notable than the "hand" that operates the sockpuppet. Not that there are no notable "real" puppets: Kermit the Frog and Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog are far more well known than their operators. An inactive imaginary internet blogging sockpuppet of the past is no where near that level of notability. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Doug Thompson sounds like a good idea too. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that the same Doug Thompson as the blogger? The Thompson we have an article on is a retired Canadian politician. If they're not the same then a merge and redirect is of course inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply: Woops - didn't realize there was another Doug Thompson out there politically active in Canada. If it is decided that our Doug Thompson is notable enough to have an article himself , then we'll have to make a disambiguation page and make sure that George Harleigh redirects to the correct one - perhaps Doug Thompson (US political blogger) or something to that effect. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it refers to the US blogger, not the Canadian politician. To T-dot's mention of real puppets, 'George Harleigh' received quite a bit of press for over a year - it was not just on one site. If you google him now, the first block of hits are comments about his being a fake, but past that you start seeing quite a few places that still refer to him as real and quote him. Jmcnamera 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was rename to Kings of the Reunited Kingdom (Middle Earth). The article name should make it clear this is fiction. Sam Blacketer 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of the Reunited Kingdom

[edit]
Kings of the Reunited Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article simply duplicates information found elsewhere. Also, since Aragorn is the only one we know anything about -- his son Eldarion is little more than a name -- it already contains all the available information on the subject and can be nothing more than a stub. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Leaders International

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

A non notable youth organisation. A contested prod. Most Google hits seem to be school sites. Mattinbgn/ talk 21:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable - google hits turn up dozens of groups by the same name, including multiple websites. All appear unrelated to this org; nothing in Google news; nothing in a research database (lexus nexus) search. - Freechild 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Freechild - google hits do not confirm notability. Article does not assist with asserting notability and has a non-linked spam address within the body (which is repeated as the only source at the conclusion of the article).--VS talk 00:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julie (given name)

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

My vote is Keep, but I think this discussion needs to continue here. For reasoning and pertinent information regarding this issue see: Talk:Julie (given name) - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 21:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, names are not ordinary words and there could possibly be more that can be done with this (history of the name for example). Nardman1 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Statistics aren't definitions. while 'Otherstuffexists' is NOT an acceptable argument, the presence of large quantities of other articles of a similar nature with varying levels of statistics, histories and so on suggests that there's more content than wiktionary should be responsible for, thus defaulting back to WP. ThuranX 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riven Phoenix

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

There are no credible third-party news sources (e.g. ABC, Los Angeles Times), and thus notability cannot be asserted about the subject, in reference to WP:N. - Pandacomics 21:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Freedman

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

Only one source, pretty minor and not primarily about the person. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destructoid

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

In January, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destructoid voted to "keep and clean up". We kept it, it has not been cleaned up. Self-referenced, spammy and has always been that way. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Defence II

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

sounds like original research based on Total Defence#Economic Defence, Google shows nothing but the wiki entry for the search term. Lars T. 23:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_25&oldid=1116721733"