Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Moved as this is not a AfD but a move suggestion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear hunting

Rename from Polar bear hunting to Polar Bear hunting

Rename - The "B" in "Bear" should be capitalized as per the main article Polar Bear. Headphonos 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandisk Sansa e260

I propose to have this article deleted. There is already an exisiting article of the SanDisk Sansa and the Sansa e260 is actually the 4GB version of it. Enough said. --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP, redundant. MER-C 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly useless. Edeans 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gan fon 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Already covered in said article. z ε n  08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SanDisk Sansa --Euzebia Zuk 10:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SanDisk Sansa. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect this stub as above Jeepday 16:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not comply with NPOV and is not notable.Telly addict 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the responses to this AfD, I went ahead and made it into a redirect.--Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the redirect Veesicle has made. —siro χ o 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Thanks a lot! I'm glad we don't need to merge it! --Jw21 (PenaltyKillah) 09:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to merge. The information was already in the main article. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 11:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There were a number of suggestions to merge to Masamune, however, there is already mention in that article of the naming of the video game swords and it wouldn't be appropriate to expand that section significantly with the material from the deleted article. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masamune (video game weapon)

All this is, is a list of random unassociated weapons in computer games which have been named Masamune. I have no idea why the previous AFD resulted in Keep, that several video games looked to Masamune as a inspiration for weapons names does not an article make. It was previously split from Masamune for being too long, but this was incorrect, it should have been cut down, which it now has. - hahnch e n 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I came here because I was interested in the article. I guess that shows that the article is relevant to some users? — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.231.110.205 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment — why not just merge a few major/notable details and delete/redirect (depending on how much info kept)? Either way, this article has no right to be kept. — Deckill er 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're already there - Masamune#Masamune_in_popular_culture - hahnch e n 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing can and should be done with this information. — Deckill er 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge details as relevant to their video games. The weapons are a portion of the game and are notable directly within each game, but that's it. Since there are more than one so-named weapon, no redirect. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the swordsmith Masamune in an appropriate section, e.g., Masamune in popular culture or video games. ◄Zahakiel ► 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zahakiel ffm ^yes? 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge looks like the most constructive move to make. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate fancruft. MER-C 02:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is already a section in the Masamune article. Do you think the Masamune article should be expanded to include the in-universe commentary on disparate video game weapons as this article has? At most the video game swords should be a footnote list, which they are right now. - hahnch e n 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. MER-C 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem important enough to have an entire article dedicated to it. Gan fon 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge, also I don't like how was giving a subheading other than what it's actual name is. It throws in the editors bias/pov. As such I'm changing it to simply what the article is called. Mathmo ^Talk 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is AFD, it's all about POV. If you can somehow enlighten me to how the 2 titles used are fundamentally different, then I'll change it. But I am trying to make a point. - hahnchen 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that point is to attract the large portion of people who will vote delete purely based on the fact delete is used in the article title. Mathmo ^Talk 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Masamune. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Euzebia Zuk 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per suggestion. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems that most of the suggestions so far are to merge. If that is the case, then I recommend redirecting, not deleting, due to the GDFL policies. I'd ask for the closing admin to note that. — Deckill er 12:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a good article but if kept would need some very minor cleanup.Telly addict 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge doesn't need its own article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable gamecruft; having a weapon named "Masamune" in a game is no more notable than having a character named "John" in a game. - Chardish 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unless the character is notably named after a famous John such as John Locke (Lost). Pomte 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "John" and "Masamune" due to uniqueness, a more comparable comparision would be if called not "John" but "The Great John Barrington the Third" (if such a person existed and was featured in many video games). Mathmo ^Talk 09:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep, this is a verifiable part of the swordsmith's legacy. It should not be removed entirely from Wikipedia. —siro χ o 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fictional, indiscriminate, and original research (unless some third party documentation exists)-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge back to Masamune under the "in popular culture" section as a notable tribute to him. So instead of Final Fantasy weapons, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and any other such articles each talking about the Masamune weapon's origin, they would simply have a wikilink. Pomte 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as a disambiguation page. Video game weapons belong in the article on the video game. A disambiguation page is the best Wikipedia tool to get readers to the right information. If any material is in the present article but not in the article on the video game, that information can be transferred to the article on the game. Do not merge into Masamune. Keep the historical article sharply focused on the historical person. Fg2 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the video game information is pretty much explained either in Final Fantasy weapons (which will be cut down and overhauled anyway, but that's beside the point) and the plot summary on the Chrono Trigger featured article. — Deckill er 09:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Masamune or the video game articles, but Keep the information around. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Masamune_(Square_Enix). The Masamune in the Chrono Trigger series is just as a weapon, but in many of the Final Fantasy games, it is a plot device. Deleting the article in its entirety would then lose the description of this plot device, unless the information is merged into the appropriate places... - Patch

Merge ~~and redirect~~ - merge back to Masamune leaving a redirect in place. Mdcollins1984 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Merge and delete page - nobody will search for Masamune (video game weapon) will they? Therefore no reason for leaving a redirect in place.Mdcollins1984 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "merge and delete" pages, because it violates the GFDL. You always must merge and redirect pages to preserve edit history and emphasize merge. — Deckill er 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Masamune per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and Much Ado About Dicdef. Butseriouslyfolks 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge - this article exemplifies a bizarre notion native to Wikipedia editors that cultural references themselves are substantive fictions. Minute elements from videogames are given this grandiose and speculative treatment as if their continual appearance signified anything more than tired cliche. Such a stance is just flawed, deeply flawed and baseless. Sorry. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge as little as possible. These things should only be noted in the Masamune article to the extent that they help the reader understand Masamune, rather than the various video games. Keep the article on topic! Dekimasu が... 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Andresen

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:BIO. Maybe a promo for his upcoming book Nv8200p talk 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason why this man would pass WP:BIO. Maybe if his book sells well once hes published, the page should be recreated. --Wildnox (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, so tagged. I don't see anything that would qualify as an assertion of notability. Aplomado ^talk 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC One logos

Contested prod which gave no vaild reason to keep the article. The article violates WP:FAIR and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY as the article only contains a gallery of fair use images of the BBC One logo, which were taken from the main BBC One article. The large number of images have no text alongside them to meet fair use policy or notability guidelines. The article is also redundant to the BBC television idents article, which provides a textual analysis of the logos used on BBC One. tgheretford (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with nomination. --Wildnox (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination by tgheretford. S .D. ¿п? § 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Copyvio. MER-C 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Preserve the history of the logo on Wikipedia. 70.240.114.118 01:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ~~Move to Commons~~ Redirect - An article on Wikipedia is not just a group of images. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC) edit: BBC television idents is basically what the article -should- be. :-)[reply]
Delete What a ridiclous article to have. I'am sure they could put all this under the main BBC article. Its just a blatant waste of space. delete. Retiono Virginian 11:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main BBC One article. MacGuy^{(contact me)} 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It seems sense to either merge this with the BBC One article and have a small section on it or maybe a gallery of the logos at the bottom of the article. Wrcmills 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (edit conflict) just to note, the "logos" (they are actually idents to give the correct term) were originally on the BBC One article, but were moved eventually to the BBC One section of the BBC television idents article. --tgheretford (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are websites which already have this content, and is merely repetition of this. As stated above some images have no detail so you cant learn anything from the article --PrincessBrat 15:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to BBC television idents. QmunkE 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a useful source of history for the BBC. Tellyaddict 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This page shows BBC One logos and should be part of the BBC One article. Some Person 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is just a copy of how the BBC One section of BBC television idents looked before the massive clean up. No need to redirect the page either, a straightforward delete will suffice here. Wikiwoohoo 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:FAIR and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Sangak 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. - Davidjk ^{(msg edits)} 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be part of the BBC One article and a bit of an abuse of the fair use system, we are trying to build a free encyclopedia and a whole article made up of fair use material is a bit "not good". It might be an idea to redirect to BBC Television idents and keep the main BBC articles free from fair use images, but that's not what this AfD is about. -- Heligo land 00:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main BBC One article, per above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was a for-profit company, we'd be calling it spam. Kla'quot 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings Collectors Models

This one might get disputed a bit but the article reads like advertisement. As these two Google searches indicate [1] [2] neither the artist nor the publisher have much notability. There's no sign of reliable third-party sources about these figurines. Pascal.Tesson 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom that it seems like an advert. If fact, it reads a lot like the "about us" section on a company website. Soltak | Talk 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Simply self-promotion, with no evidence of notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability asserted either. There have been hundreds of LotR action figures, sculptures, and models and these do not seem to assert why these are different other than a limited number of countries in which they were released. If there were a broader LotR merchandising article or the like, perhaps this subject is better suited there. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soltak. Gan fon 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, these are claimed to be "collectors models" thus surely there must have been reviews on them in collector's magazines? This is at least a claim to notability. Mathmo ^Talk 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Keep if notability is asserted. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant to wikipedia, wikipedia is meant to be a place of reference not about lord of the rings stuff.Telly addict 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These models are inherently notable as unique and significant elements of the LOTR-universe figurine collection. In addition, they are mentioned in several fan guides, including one with an introduction by Christopher Tolkien. If we delete this article, we will have to delete all articles about figurines. Just kidding, Delete. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Call me stupid but you really had me there for a second... Pascal.Tesson 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd pause if this were an article about fantasy models or figurines in general or maybe even pertaining to a certain subgenre. But an entire advert-like article devoted to one particular line of models? As above, some of this could exist in a LotR merchandise article or the like, but not in its current form. Bitnine 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising article. Also, bravo Dmz5. - Davidjk ^{(msg edits)} 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement-it looks like an ad, smells like an ad so it must be.--John Lake 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Walks and talks like an ad Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is an advert of not, it fails the notability test. Delete. WMMartin 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebo Uyanwah

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. I don't think the league is even notable or may even exist Nv8200p talk 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, google hits show the baby exists, but it clearly isn't notable. 11kowrom 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, partial hoax. So tagged. Searching Draft Express shows that he is not, in fact, the number 2 draft pick, or indeed a projected pick at all. --N Shar 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google hasn't even heard of him, and I would think that something that notable would at least give -one- hit. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per N Shar as the only claim to notability, being a top NBA draft prospect, appears to be a hoax. Scottmsg 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , no sources, no references no verifiable content Alf photoman 11:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability asserted. Fails WP:BIO. Seems like a hoax. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much to say really, it's just generally not relevant.Telly addict 17:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proved by reliable sources: fails WP:BIO. Sangak 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, hoax, WP:COI (check the baby image caption and contributor this is me my baby picture) --John Lake 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like it might be an autobio, judging from the image caption pointed out by John Lake Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rysin Online

Article has some assertions of notability, namely the Scottish papers. However, they appear to be local papers and the coverage is minimal. Google hits for "Rysin Online" and RysinOnline are scarce, and there were no hits on the news database LexisNexis. Thus fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Icemuon 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the site's homepage: "With 8098 unique visits to the site and 26287 unique page views, Rysin Online is on course for an even better year." [3] - Seems notable for such a young kid to have made such hullabaloo, to me; however, I'll have to sit on the fence with this one. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam. Edeans 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are reliable. Westenra 06:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Telly addict 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author has made contributions (almost?) solely to files and pages pertaining to this subject. WP:CORP and spam Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article and the related material added to Anaglyph image is self-promotion. If the software lives up to its genius claims, then an article will be well-deserved. Until that time, this article should be deleted. TheMindsEye 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information on this article is correct and was featured in these papers, I am in no way involved with Rysin Online (as i think they are reffering to above), but most people round the Ayrshire Area are aware of it. DasPlan100 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't dispute that the papers are accurate, but the coverage is more along the lines of "a local teenager has released a popular software package" (and that's based merely on self-reported download statistics) rather than a non-trivial account of his company and its impact itself. If this company were notable, we would see more in-depth coverage outside of the local papers. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have tried to make an article on Rysin Online before it was featured in these local papers (although I knew nothing of this coverage) Fanta206 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you know of other sources about this company? This article continues to be created and deleted (I just checked the logs now) because no non-trivial sources have yet been provided. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I saw the site on several sites such as WaveStreaming, Stream Solutions, Talk ShoutCast (all of these sites are SHOUTcast related, Rysin Online's link is on all of their pages. each and every page on each site). When I saw the site, there was an article on "AboutUs" for the site, all of the content from that has now been removed by me and moved to the wikia article. (it will be in the history). That AboutUs Page linked to this wikia page. I have seen the site else where too, but that's as far as i'm going to go. Fanta206
    - I see a link to the Rysin Online site is on the footer of each of those sites, but that is not what is meant by a source. We need non-trivial, independent, and credible information about the company, such as from a detailed news article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I just knew about the site through that info that was on the AboutUs page :-) (Fanta206) 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Musavi

The article was proposed for deletion. I'd rather see an AfD since there is some, albeit weak, claim of notability. I also want to make sure that Iranian Wikipedians have time to sound off on this deletion. Pascal.Tesson 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being the relative of a notable person does not automatically confer notability. MER-C 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep need expansion from, say, Ayatollah_Ruhollah_Musavi_Khomeini#Family_and_early_years. Westenra 06:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains no content, and notability is not established.--Sefringle 07:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all that can reasonably be said about him is in his son's article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those advocating same. Beyond the fact that he was an Ayatollah and a Seyyed, there's nothing independently notable about the man (although I'm restricted to English-language sources in saying this). The facts are covered succinctly in a paragraph in his exceedingly notable son's article. In response to Westenra, if enough information on the man gets added to his son's article, there'll be a good case for splitting him off and giving him his own article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and cited i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 11:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worthy of an article. Perhaps redirect here. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, no sources, and sub-stub Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Record Label Records

Record label whose only claim to notability seems to be that its creators got 15 minutes of fame for staging a hostage beheading hoax. Articles on both creators have been deleted (the Robert Martin article now concerns an unrelated person). See also FIuorescent grey and Fluorescent Grey, articles on a band by one of the creators. Drat (Talk) 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - their fame is unrelated to the record label. --Eyrian 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn notable fails WP:CORP.--John Lake 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. But I will restore the content to anyone who wants to merge this (to an article that exists to merge it to) W.marsh 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Max

Minor fictional character. No notability. No list to merge with. Content is just a plot summary and picture. 650l2520 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He is a character in a movie, but I think it would do better if a List of characters from the Lion King series was created. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can be recreated as part of a list of Lion King characters per WP:FICT should someone care to create one. Otto4711 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. No assertion of real world significance. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MER-C. Edeans 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge as per bibliomaniac --Jack Jones 11 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge as per bibliomaniac Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is a character in a movie? There is a character in Pretty Woman called "man getting out of elevator." Does he warrant an article? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sort of arguement is flawed; that if an article for subject x doesn't exists, why should an article on subject y? Every subject has its own notability, or lack thereof, regardless of something that's related in some minor way. SuperDT 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree with you. I am pointing out the flawed nature of the original keep vote, which is just a variation on "it exists, keep it." This does not advance an argument for notability. Similarly, "we have X, therefore we can have Y" is just as flawed as "we don't have x, therefore we can't have y."-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I misread your comment. SuperDT 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list for Lion King characters of some sort. SuperDT 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and per MER-C. WMMartin 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. This was not the only film to have an "Uncle Max", and I doubt it would be a search term in any event. Agent 86 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pi-nella

Possibe hoax. I can't find any information on this anywhere. adavidw 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability (the company isn't even mentioned) (CSD A7), reads like an advertisement (CSD G11), possible hoax. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Esoteric product with no notablitiy. Also reads like an Advert. z ε n  08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; may want to then consider redirect to Lou Piniella, even though it might not be that plausible as a typo. --Nlu (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep providing the article is rewritten (I started on this) and information about the company and the underlying university research is provided. Information about the actual marketing of the product would be welcome too. LHOON 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete currently fails WP:N it gets some weak ghits but most are not in english, so fail to support its notability for en.wikipedia.org it may be appropriate in another language or at a later time in English. Jeepday 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all delete comments Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like advertising to me. Not notable, anyway - it's just another packaged fruit, for goodness' sake ! WMMartin 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one should note that this is Seshunkk's first article, and that he has added more information the last few days, a few steps on the long way to a good article. So please no inconsiderate deletion so he can learn and improve, and not be put off and leave wikipedia. (I stand to my position of weak keep). LHOON 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with LHOON that every consideration should be made to support new editors. The problem is that WP:BITE does not cancel Wikipedia policy and WP:V#Burden_of_evidence clearly puts the burden on the editor. As there is no Copyvio issues the editor could take it to User:Seshunkk/sandbox and work on it, and I would support this. Keeping in mind that the article has to meet Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if/when it re-emerges as an article. Jeepday 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo A. Soriano

This gentleman does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. Salad Days 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly violates WP:BIO. Icemuon 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references. Bishops are usually notable. --Eastmain 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Bishop are normally notable, but I am not sure of this one. There should be more to say, considering he is also an MD--degrees, schools, etc. I deprodded because the reason given on the prod was a religious slur, though undoubtedly intended as a joke.DGG 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO requires: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person The current references do not appear to have him as their primary subject. Also they are internal denominational publications. One would hope that, if he is notable, the regular press would have covered him. EdJohnston 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a reelected bishop of a major international church denomination, holds a four year senior position on one of the governing organisations (GCFA) within the United Methodist Church, and as a spokesperson for the orginisation has been named in many PR from the church[4]. Also bear in mind that reports of his local exploits are not likely to appear in Google due to language differences. John Vandenberg 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg. Westenra 06:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable --Abu-Bakr69 11:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg, seems notable enough. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's a high-ranking bishop in a major denomination.-- danntm ^T _C 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use some reformating cleanup, but the guy is notable. TonyTheTiger 22:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Contrary to the statements above unless Google returns hits regardless of language published language (unless you filter) for instance Romano Prodi Ghits (Results 1 - 10 of about 1,880,000 for "Romano Prodi") while Leo a Soriano Ghits (Results 1 - 10 of about 55 for "Leo A. Soriano") He does not pass WP:BIO in any language. While ghits in themselves do not indicative of notability it is an indicator, and other then primary source references and mirrors of Wikipedia no indicators of notability have been provided. Jeepday

Google is not god!! Those smart buggers can not index pages that do no exist, and have difficulty mapping PageRank to languages they do not understand (e.g. Google is known to not perform well in Russian and Chinese languages; local search companies still have the edge on them). Your Italian fellow is lucky that he lives in a country that speaks a language that is understood by Google (refer to Google Translate and SYSTRAN); Filipino and Tagalog are not (yet)[5]. Philippines is a developing country, so much of its news isnt available online, and Google doesnt index offline material (well except for books and journals). Assuming that Google indexes every page is silly; once you accept that, it follows that pages with less utility are not indexed. John Vandenberg 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. Change vote, per discussion below from John Vanderberg. - grubber 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've amended the article to include a number of new factoids with sources. Leo Soriano is one of three UMC bishops that represent the Philippines, and for a while he was one of only two elected; the third position was vacant. We are talking about the 12th largest country here (by population), and he is one of three people who represents a major church for that population. John Vandenberg 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here... The article talks about what position he has, but not really about anything he has done. You seem to know more about this than I, so I'll ask ya: Do you believe his actions and post make him a notable person? - grubber 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have voted keep becausse I believe he is worthy of note, and if he doesnt meet WP:BIO, we should be looking at why; I suggest that the reason is due to locality, and the fact the modern press (online news and blogs) dont care about people of this ilk. To make sure there is no doubt, I have no association with this man, the UMC, any other religious body or the Philippines. I am merely concerned that a major Bishop of a notable Church is being considered for deletion when a stub for a Bishop of Chicago would not be. In my opinion, the post and the mans actions should be considered synonymous (unless their term is cut short due to controversy); he is elected to those positions by his peers and parishioners, because of his actions. The problem in this case appears to be that the actions that put him there dont appear to be readily accessible outside of the UMC publications (some of them are not directly affiliated). So do we assume that he did nothing?? Or do we WP:IAR and leave it to be expanded over time. His Resident Bishophood puts him as one of three most senior in his Church in his country and his other positions appear to put him amounst the upper management of the international UMC. I cant see how Wikipedia benefits by having this article removed. John Vandenberg 06:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's easier to justify he would qualify as notable on the Filipino or Tagalog wikipedias. You could argue that since English is an official language of the Philippines that he could be notable here as well. I changed my vote to err on the side of caution. Something of a tossup in my mind. - grubber 06:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on that, I can see http://tl.wikipedia.org is Tagalog, but Filipino language doesnt have one. Hmm, it was approved by ISO in 2004, after http://tl.wikipedia.org which appears to have been around since late 2003 Archived January 31, 2004, at the Wayback Machine. John Vandenberg 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see the notablility. Can this be explained? Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the bishop looks notable to me too yuckfoo 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bishops are notable per definition. --Soman 10:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources Explanation

An article with only primary source references does not imply any intentional desire to create an un-encyclopedic entry or that the sources are inaccurate. It does say the encyclopedic content of the article would be greatly improved by the addition of reference.

The three core content policies of Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, In general primary sources are created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied, and so provide a good foundation for beginning to building an article. But primary sources are by definition often orginal research and due to conflict of interest concerns may not be written from a neutral point of view.

The addition of Secondary sources which are usually based on primary sources and other secondary sources by a third party who is not connected to the source, provides for a more neutral point of view and being based on the combined research of others would not be orginal research. Here you see that the addition of secondary sources assists the editor to write (and readers to verify) an article that meets all three core content policies of Wikipedia.

Additionally, an article must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for it to remain on Wikipedia. One of the Rationale for requiring a level of notability is that a in order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. Everyday Multiple articles are proposed and considered for deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy an article that is not clearly notable is not likely to survive the deletion process. Keeping in mind that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ignore your {{primarysources}} tag, but you have baited me, so I contest it. John Vandenberg 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider Newscope[6] to be a primary, secondary or third-party source? [7]
Do you consider UMC "United Methodist News Service" to be a primary, secondary, or third party source? [8]
Do you consider "Asedillo is a freelance writer and United Methodist deaconess who resides in Baltimore" to be a primary, secondary, or third party source? [9]

In my opinion; anything related to "Microsoft" that is published by "Microsoft" is a primary source document, even if it is not directly published by Microsoft but there is a connection it raises issues Microsoft Offers Cash for Wikipedia Edit — 'Microsoft landed in the Wikipedia doghouse after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles.' the same would apply to "United Methodist" Jeepday 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Newscope is not published by UMC, and UMC does not have the reputation for shilling. Please check each of those sources and assess whether they are a primary source or not. Also, in light of the other references that are now on the article, is {{primarysources}} still necessary? John Vandenberg 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and Paste from http://www.umph.org/resources/publications/newscope/newscope_default.html Welcome to Newscope! - This is a concise, late-deadline weekly update on news of interest to United Methodist leaders. We provide up-to-the-minute reports on United Methodist Church news and other happenings of interest to United Methodists. Published by The United Methodist Publishing House, our four-page print publication is available by first-class mail ($28.00/year), periodical-class mail ($22.00/year) or, for fastest delivery, e-mail ($16/year). Jeepday 23:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe that The United Methodist Publishing House is the same as the organisation the runs the Uniting Methodist Church ? Could you elaborate. I'll happily eat my hat you you can prove that they are the same body, or have strong ties. Otherwise, the common element in the name would also mean that The New York Times would also need to be considered a primary source for any matter relating to New York. John Vandenberg 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While non-christians might not get it, bishops are usually notable as politicians are. The article itself has numerous assertions of notability, so that is not really the issue. As for verifiability, well the internet is western-centric when it comes to news, so just because he doesn't have that many "Google hits" mean he isn't in the news. What needs to be done is to find more appropriate references using local newspapers/tv news/etc. Shrumster 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue for me is that there's not much about what he's actually done, rather just what positions he's held. If the article talked about how he was instrumental in doing such and such or founded the thingy, then I dont think there would be much of an issue. As it is, it's a somewhat passive article. - grubber 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note that the page Azure Solutions was also speedy deleted per WP:CORP as a result of this AfD as these two pages only referered to each other. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connexn Technologies

No establishment of notability per WP:CORP. Also a WP:RS failure. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, and it reads like a biography. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. on camera 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per db-corp. Not seeing assertion of notability anywhere. JuJube 23:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:CORP; where's assertion of notablility? Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flipshu

Possibly non-notable adavidw 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "possibly non-notable"?! Very non-notable, as Google search will show. Fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Edeans 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. riana_dzasta 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable artist. Sfacets 05:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --JavazXT 11:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of clinics in japan

WP:NOT#DIR. Also, none of the hospitals listed are in Wikipedia. Saligron 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and encourage contributors to see about listing at Wikitravel or something along those lines (I know transwiki isn't an option, which is why I'm not advocating it). I can see the purpose of having such a listing, but it's not encyclopedic as such. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hospitalcruft? The fact that none of the clinics listed have articles at Wikipedia pretty much negates any usefulness this list would have. The suggestion that the "English-speaking community in Japan may benefit from this listing" is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a directory. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Which reminds me... MER-C 02:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a complete waste of space. Doesn't seem useful, not to mention it's lack of sources and research. Looks like it was basically slapped together in a few minutes. Gan fon 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has virtually no content. And none of the content it does have is worthwhile. Mathmo ^Talk 10:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is hardly a directory as it provides no contact information whatsoever to any of the clinics it lists. I can see this being potentially a useful list, but it needs to have at least SOME blue links in it before I'll vote keep. Jcuk 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a directory as it provides no contact information whatsoever... Which make is a worthless directory, but still a directory. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and indiscriminate info Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has no place on Wikipedia - and I'm one of the "English-speaking community in Japan" that this list is supposed to benefit! (I go to the hospital in Okinawa that's on this list.) — CJewell (talk to me) 18:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely worthless now (and I speak as a potential user and past customer of two of the listed clinics), and a mere directory if filled out. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frostfur

non-notable Wooyi 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or just redirect to Warriors (book series). Not independently notable. —Cel ithemis 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. No assertion of real world significance. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Slugger9066 02:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since the books themselves are highly notable and famous, I don't think that there is necessarily a good WP:N case against having an article about a character from the series. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks ?" test. WMMartin 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Warriors characters. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced per above searches. Addhoc 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Copyvio. Teke^(talk) 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Moreland & The Roly Polys

Non-notable adavidw 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio from [10]. So tagged. MER-C 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Copyvio. Teke^(talk) 02:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Moreland

Non-notable performer adavidw 01:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio from [11]. So tagged. MER-C 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim (Star Trek)

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

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

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

In-universe, plot summary article about a non-notable character. Corresponding article on uber-Star-Trek-site Memory Alpha has scant content. Ditto for licensed Star Trek encyclopedia. EEMeltonIV 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha is mostly canon, and the Star Trek encyclopedia is canon-only. This character is notable because of his accomplishments in non-canon literature. TenaciousT 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, he should not be here. Please see WP:FICT. --Dennisthe2 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Jesus EEMeltonIV Who died and made you Wiki God? Drearwig 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Drearwig, please observe WP:CIVIL. Personal attacks are out of line. Any user may nominate any article for deletion if they have a valid rationale.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero real world significance. Merely a plot summary. Unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. MER-C 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...is the superior... Otto4711 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE - I vote to save, for the following reasons:

The character has a significant role in the TOS episode "Space Seed," which was the foundation for TWOK.
Many film scholars have stated that TWOK is an allegory for Moby Dick, with Khan being Ahab. This being the case, Joachim is very much Khan's Starbuck; loyal, but questioning Khan's actins and motives. He is more than a mere "button-pusher." He is Khan's right-hand man.
In non-canon Star Trek books, Joachim is a major character, especially in the Eugenics Wars and books about life on Ceti Alpha V. Yes, it's non-canon but many readers of these Star Trek books would come to this Wikipedia page to read a biography of the character.
The point was made that if Michael Eddington doesn't have his own page, Joachim shouldn't either. Well, I think Eddington should have his own page! He deserves it just as much as Joachim.
The rumors that Joachim plays a major role in Star Trek XI. As time goes on, people will want to know who this guy is and this article will help refresh their memories.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TenaciousT (talk • contribs)

- Please note that rumors he might be in a movie are crystal-ballery. Claims regarding another article fall under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, in other words, are not a valid rationale either way.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note that this guy does appear in both Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, plus a gazillion books. Certain media franchises, such as Star Trek, Star Wars and The Simpsons, extend notability to even relatively minor characters and subjects therein. The article author hasn't provided WP:Verifiable sources to establish WP:Notability and therefore will probably lose this debate. Unfortunate, since for this character they certainly exist. Also, this editor doesn't seem to really understand "Wikipedia culture" and that won't help. - Shaundakulbara 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add WP:Verifiable Sources & Keep -- if not: Delete - This article is a notable one that should be included, in my opinion, but all articles need to have verified sources. (For some reason the phrase "Verify or Die!" comes to mind. :-) ) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. 80% of this article is a recounting of the plot of TWOK. Some of the rest is speculation or uninteresting fleshing out, for a character with relatively small screen time. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:FICT, and note that my mind can be changed. Please, find reliable and verifiable information for notability, and adhere the WP:FICT link as well. Note, he was indeed a secondary character - and they tend to lean toward unnotability. --Dennisthe2 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I'm going to go for a precedent set by Alien (film), and suggest that we Merge this and relevant articles into one article, with appropriate redirects. --Dennisthe2 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are less notable Trek characters with their own articles, and Joachim is a major character in ST II (which, as a primary source, should satisfy WP:V, along with Space Seed. 23skidoo 06:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? If other non-notable stuff exists, feel free to get rid of it, or ask me to do it. MER-C 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a treasure trove of non-notability, the List of garage rock bands will keep you busy! -Shaundakulbara 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ILIKEIT, and note that the existence of other data on Wikipedia that is otherwise not for Wikipedia does not mean that it should exist. --Dennisthe2 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a major character. If he wasn't in it, the film would be the same. He changes nothing, and only provides dialogue to show Khan's thinking. Totnesmartin 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 23skidoo--IRelayer 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and indepented sources as already voted on the original discussion. In the film STWK, the main source for the current article, Joachim's part is actaully listed as not credited. (Personally I actually saw the film two days ago and did not even remember Joachim's name and was completely surprised that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim referred to him.) BTW, Starbuck (Moby-Dick) is, of course no page but a redirect to Moby-Dick. Tikiwont 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm also with respect to added sources, since the main point is NN. Tikiwont 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this character no life outside Khan's activities, except at the end of the film. Not notable enough for an article. Comment What are these "gazillions of books" that he's in? Why aren't they in the article, and is he more than a spare part in them? Totnesmartin 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an easy answer for the question you pose (why aren't the books that he's in cited in the article?). It is because I wrote the bulk of this article Thursday 2/1 and it was marked for deletion not even a day later. I knew it wasn't perfect and had a lot of work to be done, but I decided to put it up in an imperfect state and let the Wikipedia community help the article evolve and grow. It never had a chance to do that. There's volumes written about this guy but I don't see anyone spending effort and time fixing this article when it looks like it's just going to be deleted, just days after it was put up. I'm not taking it personally at all that this was tagged, but I do think it goes against the Wikipedia sense of community to afd something before other people have a chance to let the article evolve. TenaciousT 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some things get AfD'd for starting as stubs. I once had an article (Sulk) deleted without even a debate because of that. However, if you wrote it a month ago you've had plenty of time to add to it. Totnesmartin 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wrote it on Feb 1 - two days ago. TenaciousT 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, British and American dating systems... apologies. In two days you have fair grounds to gripe. I would too. Totnesmartin 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

supplemental having read the extra material, I'm not impressed. His film and TV role still isn't big enough to keep the article - it's not how much you describe him, it's how important he is - and he isn't really. He's also mentioned as a book character, but what he does in the books isn't stated. Is he a major character in anything? That is, does he change anything? Would the book have a different ending, or even have been written, if there were no Joachim? These questions need to be addressed. Totnesmartin 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Memory Alpha. Unreferenced article that violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as merely a plot summery of the character's action with no context or sourced analysis. --Farix (Talk) 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence in the article that this extremely minor character satisfies the requirements of WP:FICT. Delete. Or should I say, "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee... For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee..." --Charlene 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I frequent Memory Alpha for my Star Trek fix, but I just watched The Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan so I thought I'd pipe in. The character is very notable when you take it in the context of the movie AND the TV show. If one watches the Extended Director's Cut of TWOK along with the audio commentary and bonus features, you see the intent of the creators' to make a strong Joachim character. (The actor is uncredited because his agent screwed-up. He was supposed to have top billing!) This article can be cited, verified and cleaned up, but it will take time. To paraphrase Khan, time is a luxury this article doesn't have. Having said that, I think it's a shame this article was AfD'd the same day it was created. I agree with the author, TenaciousT, that it never had a chance for peer review. Some of Wikipedia's best articles started out as uncited, unverified, POV crap but through a long process, they get better. I say we give this article a chance, or move it to Memory Alpha. Loki44 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently notable character that does not warrant its own article. Doczilla 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, OR-based, and supported only by highly dubious keep arguments.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable character from notable movie. TonyTheTiger 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Weak Keep~~. seems notable enough; if it was a stub I'd say delete, but there's substantial info there. - Grubber 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed with the amount of change this page has gone through. I think it's a real article now. I've changed my vote to strong keep. - grubber 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable character, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sandstein 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transwiki to Memory Alpha Could perhaps improve the article on MA Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even meet WP:FICT, and those guidelines are pretty loose as it is. GassyGuy 13:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE NOTE: Many verifiable references have just been added to this article to establish notability. Please judge this article by its new condition, not its old. A relist for purposes of generation new discussion might be appropriate. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just took another look. My !vote, for one, stands at "merge and redirect" (above) on account of WP:FICT. Whether the character is to appear in an impending Trek film is, at this time, what I like to refer to as crystalballery, and from what I can tell, whether some of the stories he is in really are canon is highly debateable. Above, it's noted that, outside of canon, he really is notable - but here in WP, that straddles the line on fanfiction, if not actually crossing the line. See the WP:FICT link on why fanfic is specifically excluded. The agent's mistake for the billing is debateable, but I am making my decision and excluding that - because I don't have the DVD on hand. Here's the clincher that will change my mind: if there is clear cut evidence that he will, indeed, be a notable part of any upcoming movie, and that movie has crossed the line out of being crystalballery, then he gets an article. Until then, my stance is that he should be listed in an article that catalogs secondary (and maybe tertiary) Trek characters. --Dennisthe2 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References do not overcome the problem that this is a minor character who only appeared in one episode and one film. Should not have his own article, most of which merely rehashes the plot of TWOK. By all means merge to a suitable list of minor characters, but the present article is unnecessary. WJBscribe 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking it over again, reaffirm delete for lack of notability. Verifiability does not create notability. (And the "mostly canon" remark sure didn't help. "Mostly canon" means insufficiently encyclopedic.)Doczilla 08:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re:Cannon - Whether or not something is Star Trek Canon is an issue for Paramount Pictures. Canonality (?) is a requirement for the Memory Alpha Wiki...I see no evidence that non-canon sources are not WP:V sources for Wikipedia purposes. Shaundakulbara 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework - I think the character is notable, if only for being Khan's chief henchman. The article, OTOH, reads like a loosely-tied together collection of trivia. -- StAkAr Karnak 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not clearly established. We're an encyclopedia, not Memory Alpha. WMMartin 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
readers of this AFD may be interested to note that in Cox's novels, the "Space Seed" character is the father of the character in The Wrath of Khan. The article makes no mention of this, and has an overlong in-universe biography that joins up these two characters without even a mention of the issue that some sources claim they are two different characters. (what sources claim that they are one and the same, anyone?). Morwen - Talk 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Okuda in the text commentary on the DVD version of TWOK Extended Director's Cut specifically states that the Space Seed character and the movie character are the same person and the misspelling is a production error. In the movie, Khan also says These people have sworn to live and die at my command two-hundred years before you were born implying that his henchmen were with him on Earth in the 1990's. The timeline is also established in the movie that the crew of the Botany Bay were stranded on Ceti Alpha V for 15 years, making Joachim an offspring of the crew very unlikely.TenaciousT 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Okuda's expanation is mentioned and cited in the article. They definately are the same character - that's canon. Cox's books apparently suck (tons of bad reviews on Amazon.com, and no, suckiness does not affect notability!). The article can definately mention that Cox makes Joachim Khan's dad if we can reference that (I don't have the novel). The fact that this character was given a different relationship to Khan in some non-canon sources seems like the sort of thing the article would be useful for explaining. I am cutting the summary waaaaaay back as it currently obscures Joachim's major part in the plot of Star Trek II, i.e. Joachim's refusal to cooperate with Khan's megalomania results in Kirk's victory. Shaundakulbara 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I have the Cox books here and I'm planning on going through them today. I also watched the TWOK bonus features off the DVD last night and there a lot more references I can cite from my notes. I'm looking at the article from a different angle; what would have changed if Joachim has not been in the movie?TenaciousT 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Khan's "Spock", Joachim's character seem to have several functions. He shows the loyalty of Khan's followers but also demonstrates that this loyalty is a sensible one and doesn't extend to blind obedience. Joachim's ability to pilot the Reliant with no training enables them to escape exile. Joachim's later refusal to pilot the Reliant leads to Kirks victory. He's not so minor a character that he's not Wik-worthy. I've chopped down the article into about 1/3rd of its original length by removing unneeded summary. What's left is still an awful lot to merge. I know this guy is notable enough because my bf isn't a huge Trek fan but when I asked him if he knew who Joachim is in Star Trek he said "is that Khan's henchdude?" (that is an anecdote, I am NOT basing my claims of notability on that! Jeepers.) Shaundakulbara 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, excellent work. You really cleaned it up.TenaciousT 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaundakulbara, I caught myself up on the Cox books. Where do you think I should put this stuff? I can put it under "Description" or create a new section called "Non-canon."TenaciousT 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be misconception that minor characters should NEVER have their own articles. Note the following from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): "Noonien Soong is a minor—but still notable—character in Star Trek: The Next Generation, who has sufficient depth to sustain an independent article." Shaundakulbara 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Fancruft, as it says at Wikipedia:Fancruft, "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith...As with most of the issues of notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects...It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Shaundakulbara 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It can also be used with reference to articles that are unencyclopedic and the result of an overly enthusiastic fan seeding WP with nn articles about their favourite subject, as in this case. Delete Eusebeus 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eusebeus, your message seems a deliberately impolite response to citation of guidelines about civility and good faith. People have spent time and effort on this article and are making intelligent arguments to keep it. Right or wrong, these editors deserve the same respect as any others. Thank you. --House of Scandal 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm probably biased, as a viewer of The Phoenix (apparently one of very few), but I think some deleters have oversold how "extremely minor" Joachim is. He is, as Shaunda has said, "Khan's Spock," with lines and screentime. Everyone who saw the movie remembers his death scene - even some of the people commenting on how NN he is have quoted from it! I also agree that the excessive rambling of the original article about the overall plot rather than Joachim's specific role, had the ironic effect of diluting his claim to notability by making him seem like a bystander carried along by general events. The reworked article is much better, and allows me to upgrade from the weak keep I originally planned to cast. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The comment immediately above this mirrors my own thoughts. Many of the Delete opinions were given when the article was in poor shape. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) gives an example of a "minor—but still notable—character in Star Trek...who has sufficient depth to sustain an independent article." This falls in exactly the same category and few with knowledge of the corpus of the Star Trek universe would make a contrary appraisal. Many of the early arguements against the article (crystal ballism, just a summary, etc.) no longer apply. As the good parts of this article have been very much expanded and the overly-long summary is reduced into an excellent new form, perhaps it is appropriate to give this a fresh debate? --House of Scandal 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although I'll stick with my weak delete for now, I think the only barrier to keeping the article is the lack of information from the novels. If that part can be expanded to show him playing a major role, then it should survive. This article therefore needs more time. And, btw, does canonicity really matter here? Totnesmartin 10:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canonicity is a non-issue here, it's an issue only over at Memory Alpha as they have a special relationship with Paramount Pictures. Shaundakulbara 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced using reliable publications. Addhoc 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still going with Delete even after the rewrites. The character is simply not significant enough under WP:FICT to warrant a separate article. Find an appropriate list of ST characters article and put him there but delete this. Otto4711 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - Has anyone seen a response to questions of notability, e.g. cited secondary source that explains how film or franchise would be significantly different without this character? --EEMeltonIV 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article details how Joachim's skill enables the augments to hijack the Reliant and how the loss of Joachim's loyalty at a critical juncture leads to Khan's defeat. Shaundakulbara 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Has anyone seen a response to questions of notability, e.g. cited secondary source that explains how film or franchise would be significantly different without this character?" - emphasis added. --EEMeltonIV 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly request. We don't need an essay about how The Wizard of Oz would be different without the Tin Woodman to know he is part of the story. If someone were to write such as essay about Joachim they would say his death was Khan's motive for detonating the Genesis Device, an act of murder/suicide which killed both Khan and Spock. Shaundakulbara 12:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — I'm vehemently purist in most cases relating to the canon but this article is good enough in my opinion to be kept. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character seems notable for Wikipedia. If necessary, maybe the sources could be improved to help keep this article in Wikipedia. Acalamari 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If one-off characters like Harry Mudd warrant a wiki article, than a character that has appeared in an original series episode, a film, and a book is fitting for an article as well. Seems to be a decent amount of info on the page, written well. No reason to delete. Tarc 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mudd, however, had two episodes center on him; the same cannot be said of the subject of the article up for deletion. --EEMeltonIV 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eston, my curiosity in your recent activities has brought me to this article that you have marked for deletion. I must say, I’m not surprised that you’ve managed to bring your elitist tendencies to web 2.0. Like the way you instruct your students, if they don’t fit your mold you toss them away with the trash. Even a well written article like this one isn’t worthy in your book. What will it take for you to learn that by telling people that their work isn’t worth publication you’re pushing potential Wikipedians to the fringes. Your personal page marks how many times you’ve been vandalized, I wish there was a way to track how many people you’ve single handedly turned into vandals. This is a Strong Keep and I urge my fellow alumni to vote the same. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.PiKA4EvA 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re Mudd. How is that even a logical argument? Two episodes isn't comparable to one episode and one motion picture? Tarc 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per TenaciousT's comment to nom, and because the article appears to be a casebook example of WP:OR in action. "Like Khan, Johachim was very intelligent, but lacked experience operating a starship. Presumably, Joachim's failure to find the override caused the Reliant to be severely damaged, and ultimately, cost him his life." That kind of statement can't be derived from a primary source. What's left after the original research goes is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE plot summary material, so there's no "here" here to fix. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Your comment is actually based on the "old" article, because it was briefly reverted to its old state as part of a botched attempt at fixing a move debacle. I've just changed it back to the "new" version, that cleans up the WP:OR. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative. Thanks for pointing that out to me. This article seems like a perfectly good example of how to write about fictional characters. Keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: off-screen- I have added specifics about Joachim's appearance in the novels and went into more detail about how he was represented in 2 different Star Trek games. The novels and the games now have their own headings at the end where they seem to belong. BTW, before someone claims otherwise, the fact that Joachim is treated differently in Cox's novels does not decrease his notability, it increases the amount of encyclopedic information to present and explain. Shaundakulbara 12:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CORP. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WorldVentures

Non-notable hard sell direct sales organisation that appears to have written the article themselves and are thus using Wikipedia as part of their marketing. Article contains no external references or links to it. Pretty blatant spam. Phaedrus86 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like an ad. Icemuon
Comment. If there are problems with the company or its sales practices, wouldn't it be better to discuss those sales practices in the article rather than delete it? --Eastmain 02:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Far better to delete all spam. Edeans 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP appears to have WP:COI issues as well Special:Contributions/Virgil06 single article editing history over 6 months. Jeepday 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like spam/ad Tuvok ^^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Nocita

Boxer who had 5 professional fights against nobodies [12]. Also a boxing trainer. The content of the article is verifiable because I believe boxrec.com is a fairly reliable source, but there's just nothing really to say beyond "this guy is a boxer". Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is nothing special ("article-worthy") about this guy. →Ed Gl 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Turgidson 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly referenced and sourced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 11:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources indicate passing WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to kinetic art, then redirect to hand grenade. I think that there should be somethign mentioned abotu stick grenades in the hand grenade article though so that the redirect makes sense.--Wizardman 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick bomb

Non-notable kids gadgetry, if it's popular, it probably has some other name. Looks like self-promotion by the guy from the external links. — Kieff | Talk 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its other name is "stick grenade", as documented on pages 402–403 of ISBN 0807120111, which documents 7 different types of this grenade. Further information can be found on page 56 of ISBN 1855322889, and page 115 of ISBN 1574887602, where it is documented that Allied troops nicknamed one of these types the "potato masher". Fixing this article involves nothing more than editors using sources, such as the aforementioned books, to correct the article, and renaming it to a better title. None of that involves an administrator hitting a delete button, and can be done by ordinary editors using ordinary editing tools. I strongly urge editors to do the research before nominating articles for deletion, and before contributing to AFD discussions. It took me 1 minute to put "Stielhandgranate" into Google Books. Keep. Uncle G 11:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this article is about some childrens game with popsicle sticks, not the hand grenades! (have you even read the article?) That's why I'm nominating it for deletion. If it was clearly about stick grenades I'd have just redirected. If it is some notable toy, the article should be renamed to a better title and rewritten with some sources. If not, we could just redirect it to stick grenade and forget about it. — Kieff | Talk 15:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course I've read the article! How do you think I knew to search for "Stielhandgranate"? The article tells us in its second sentence that it is about the hand grenades.
    Now consider what you've just written. The two ways to solve the problem with this article that you yourself have come up with are either (a) to edit it into a redirect or (b) to rename and to edit it using sources. Neither of those courses of action involve an administrator hitting a delete button, and both can be done by ordinary editors using the ordinary editing tools that they have at their disposal. Don't nominate things for deletion where you don't actually want an administrator to hit a delete button. That is not what Articles for deletion is for. If you are unsure about sources, {{unreferenced}} is the correct tag (and looking for sources yourself is the correct action). Excising any unverifiable material and leaving the rest, if you were (say) to find that there are no sources about the art works, is also an ordinary editorial action that doesn't involve AFD. If you want a rewrite, {{cleanup-rewrite}} is the correct tag. If you want to open discussion of a merger, as editors are already discussing with the several other articles that deal with stick grenades, then {{mergeto}} was the correct tag, and joining in the existing discussions the correct action. If you want to open a discussion of what name the article should properly have, its talk page is the place. {{afd1}} was not the correct tag for any of the actions to fix the article that you envision being taken. Uncle G 01:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 2: check this video of what a stick bomb is and how to make one. — Kieff | Talk 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stick grenades, that seems to be the more popular name.--UsaSatsui 11:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...I'm a dumbass, I just read the first paragraph. Still, my vote stands. --UsaSatsui 15:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only reason I would keep this article is if it was expanded enough to compare to Jacks. Otherwise, some of it could be merged into Popsicle, and the rest redirected to Stick grenades. Mdwyer 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kinetic art. The video of Tim Fort's long lasting train of released energy devices is priceless and inludes scads of stick bombs. I especially enjoyed how Fort animated the first motion picture on a strip of film, Fred Ott's sneeze. Edison 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant parts to Kinetic art, then redirect to Stick grenade. The anecdotal children's game stuff is unsourced and not worth keeping. Sandstein 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Popscicle stick bomb, since the present "stick bomb" title unfortunately conflates with the WWII hand grenade. The topic is notable beyond the Tim Fort art device; an element of Children's street culture, a traditional child-invented amusement analogous to the entry for Gleeking. In my own experience, this traditional toy goes back at least forty years. --Wjbeaty 08:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kinetic art and switch the redirect to Hand grenade after merge per Edison and Sandstein. Note that Stick grenade is a double-redirect, and that there were more than one sort of stick grenades, so that a redirect to Hand grenade is less myopic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Angusmclellan and User:Sandstein. Some of the material regarding kinetic art and the children's game could be kept somewhere if written properly, redirect to hand grenade.Mdcollins1984 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of the simple stick bomb has been added to Popsicle for clarity. --Zeizmic 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Ciocazan

Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Contested prod. MER-C 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly fails WP:BIO. Borderline speedy material(no context). i kan reed 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Turgidson 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible hoax, definately non-notable. Edeans 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Jeepday 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per uncontroversial consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass: The Game

Non-notable, non-existent game. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it hasn't been released yet doesn't make it non-existent. Has a ton of Google results, and also was mentioned at E3. Gan fon 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The game is under development, but not a whole lot is available for the game at this time other than a few reviews of the previews. Not only does WP:CRYSTAL apply, but WP:SOFTWARE as well - and the problem with games in development is that until it's released or has an impending release, it should be considered vaporware. Unless a firm release date comes off, my !vote stands. --Dennisthe2 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep, after reviewing discussion. Did not realize the precedent here. Is now a good time to call WP:SNOW? =^_^= --Dennisthe2 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, was announced and shown at E3. That was pretty good notability. A game doesn't even need to be released (or even have a release date!) to be in wikipedia, take a look at Duke Nukem Forever. That is an article with the potential to be a featured article, though obviously in this case it wouldn't be happening before it is released... Either way, keep. Mathmo ^Talk 10:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, just found out Duke Nukem Forever was put on AfD a couple of months ago because it didn't have a release date! So funny how far people can try to take this, it was a speed keep as it should be. No surprises there. Mathmo ^Talk 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of stuff is announced at E3 that never materializes. Valrith 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are trying to make doesn't matter, we can already clearly see that the fact that something is not currently being sold is not a good enough reason on its own for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see multiple, non-trivial third-party sources. Saying a game that hasn't been released yet isn't notable is just silly...if it vapors up, it can be deleted later, and there's a lot of notable vaporware out there anyways (such as, oh, Duke Nukem Forever). Even games with release dates sometimes never get released. For the record, I found a release date: 03/14/2007. --UsaSatsui 11:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see these sources? Certainly not in the article. And you're right that having a release date means nothing. Valrith 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Easy as [13] [14][15]. I'm not counting the web forum or the company page, but those 3 are third-party. --UsaSatsui 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those (#2 and #3) are the same article posted on separate sites. And none of them establishes notability. Valrith 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Multiple sources print the same article all the time. And according to WP:SOFTWARE, the product needs to be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)". That's what they have. What further proof of notability would you like? --UsaSatsui 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep notability asserted. Has been displayed at E3. Definitely a keep. -- Anas ^Talk? 12:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though not referenced, the sources needed for the article to pass WP:SOFTWARE existed in the article days before it was listed for AFD, under External Links. I fail to see the problem. QuagmireDog 11:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of work, yes, but I brought it up to the standards of WP:SOFTWARE a while before this AfD was even processed. It's verifiable and notable by any standard you'd care to put it to. While some might be tempted to make the argument that the game wouldn't recieve as much coverage without the Jackass brand name on the cover, the fact of the matter is that due to this brand recognition the game is going to recieve a fair amount of attention almost by default. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think we can WP:SNOW this one, guys. Or more correctly, I'd prefer if we did not. Valrith has a history with this article and seems to be determined to take it down, and I'd prefer if it were to go through the full AfD process right now. Cheers, Lankybugger 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied. Sarah 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L-i-C

non-notable band adavidw 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has already been deleted and is being recreated. I will put a speedy tag on it. IrishGuy ^talk 01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy Deleted this page without any consideration. the page falls under all of the rules wikipedia states. rockgod89 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish guy didn't delete it. I did. You say you want to work on the page to "make it fit the criteria". The mainspace isn't the place to do this. Sarah 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cb the great

"Foreign fictional book" that gets 0 relevant Google hits [16]. Either totally non-notable, or a lengthy yarn spun by none other than the page creator himself/herself (whose username is the same as the alleged author). Flyingtoaster1337 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without verification because it seems quite hoaxy. i kan reed 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aove. MER-C 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this a hoax, this sounds distinctively of something made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 10:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unverified likely hoax.-- danntm ^T _C 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied Opabinia regalis 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laethora

Non-notable metal band -- adavidw 01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete if the article is correct then it will pass WP:BAND in a few months, but wikipedia isn't a crystal ball i kan reed 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - an upcoming album is not an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the significantly improved version. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Stavoren

Either a fairy tale or an essay, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. Magichands 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete patent nonsense. i kan reed 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious WP:NFT material. MER-C 02:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a blog is perhaps a more appropriate place for this. Westenra 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the story is a well-known Dutch legend (see Het Vrouwtje van Stavoren) but the article is unacceptable in current form. - Jvhertum 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have done some cleanup of my own and am changing my vote to keep. - Jvhertum 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for cleanup. Apparently this is a genuine folktale or regional myth. It does need to have some context added, but per Jvhertum, it is real, and this text is not useless for someone who wants to improve it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have attempted to improve the article, adding a paragraph of context, a couple references, linked to the Dutch Wikipedia, and related the tale to the Ring of Polycrates from Herodotus. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those seeking to clean it up should seek reliable, cited sources, which the "article" in its current form is most certainly not. - Chardish 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this appears to be a real legend and not nonsense, the article should not be speedily deleted. If it's not improved by the end of the AfD process, then Delete. --Charlene 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for, found, and added significant references including Cornell University, and the BBC. While the Ghits are low for the article they are notable and wide spread.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs)
Keep This appears to be a well know folk tale, and with the new references it meets WP:RS and WP:N. Edison 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements. Thank you for your efforts, Your Holiness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, check the Dutch article linked; even if you can't read Dutch, this folk legend is well-known enough to warrant a statue. >Radiant< 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice cleanup work! This is a much better article, and I now agree we should keep it. Magichands 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge of Reverse Engineering

I prod'd the article because the only "reference" refering to an actual verifiable article does not mention the subject of this article, thus it had verifiability concerns. Overall, a non-notable web-based organization (would not pass WP:WEB. Prod was removed without explanation i kan reed 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to verify notability on Ghits, did find a number of hits with the phrase as part of a sentence but nothing found supporting the articles assertions. Jeepday 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search gave ~700 results, and many of those were for the simple phrase "the challenge of reverse engineering". Does not appear to be notable. - grubber 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Patrick Flanagan. (A.k.a. I redirect it, someone who cares merges the material from the history.) - brenneman 01:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neurophone (2nd nomination)

No valid sources, subject is not notable, article has not been improved since the last AfD, the primary editor appears to have left Wikipedia. This device falls into the same category as perpetual motion devices, except less likely to work, and without the same knowledge of scientific principles as those employ. Also, there have been famous attempts at creating perpetual motion devices. Tenebrous 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a device is likely to work has no bearing on the "delete-ability" of its article (cold fusion, anyone?). The key questions are: does the article cite sources; is it verifiable? (NPOV can be introduced via cleanup once citations and verifiability are given.) I see a link to the relevant patent which means someone did patent such a device. "LIFE Magazine, Sept 14, 1962" is also cited as a source so the existance of this device (working or not) can be verified from reliable independent sources. I can't see the relevance of the 1991 research paper section to the rest of the article, but it too is backed up by a reference to Science magazine. Hence keep because the article has at least two sources cited. Flyingtoaster1337 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine articles aren't generally reliable sources. The Science article has nothing to do with the device, it's only a stab at proving that the principles behind it are sound. That someone has patented something is in itself meaningless. People have patented lossless compression algorithms that compress all data to a given size, but it doesn't mean those exist either. Tenebrous 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the device also fails under notability. The creator of the device is notorious as a crank, but more notoriously crank-y for other things, and he does not have an article on Wikipedia either. Tenebrous 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Magazine articles aren't generally reliable sources..." - says who?

"The Science article has nothing to do with the device..." - I acknowledged that in my previous comment, when I said, "I can't see the relevance of the 1991 research paper section to the rest of the article". In other words, the section based on that report doesn't fit in with the description preceding it.

"Further, the device also fails under notability..." - repeating the same unsubstantiated claim multiple times will not get you anywhere. Besides the prior mention in LIFE magazine which you seem so eager to dismiss, there's this 1996 article in The Anchorage Press, written by its editor-in-chief. It describes the device as not having been tested by conventional science. We have here at least two non-biased, mainstream sources which mention the neurophone in detail. There are lots of patents for weird things that aren't operable or implementable, sure, but I'm also sure that not many of these failures get as much mention as a magazine write-up and a dedicated newspaper article. Those that do would be notable, no?

All in all your reply serves to confuse your reason for nomination even further. If the device is really non-notable, why do you add that "its creator is notorious as a crank"? If someone is notorious, it implies they are notable, not that they aren't (see the Wiktionary definition if you're unsure). By the way, it's not true that the device's inventor has no article. Flyingtoaster1337 06:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to see that Mr. Flanagan has an article on wikipedia, but clearly I was mistaken there. I still do not accept either of those sources as being good enough to base an article on; The Anchorage Press is unheard-of even in Alaska and does not carry a reputation for good journalism. I see that WP:RS has been lengthened since last I read it, but I still see no reason why minor articles in either of these publications should be treated as works upholding the scholarly standards of what purports to be an encyclopedia. Is it really so confusing to you that the person responsible for creating this can be more well known than the device itself? And I would not consider him notable in a wider sense, either; perhaps a tiny fraction of the United States population has heard of him, and very few others in the world. Further, I see that this device is mentioned in Mr. Flanagan's biography, and given there a few sensibly short lines. Given that the information in this article is duplicated elsewhere, save what is wholly speculative, why do you feel that this article must be retained? Especially when the only other article that references it is---guess what?---Patrick Flanagan. Tenebrous 13:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am disappointed to see that Mr. Flanagan has an article..." WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't decide what gets deleted or kept around this site. Just as "I like it" is not a valid reason for keeping an article, "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deleting one.

"I still don't see why minor articles in either of these publications..." - can you tell us where the division of minor/non-minor articles comes from? Last I read WP:N the distinction was not there. All that's required is that the source be independent of the originator(s) of the device/idea.

"perhaps a tiny fraction of the United States population has heard of him, and very few others in the world..." - I guess you came up with that conclusion after a survey of the U.S. populace?

"why do you feel that this article must be retained?" - I don't. I'm not very kind to fringe science articles, but I'm not very kind to fluffy deletion rationales - ones that require tortured interpretations of WP:RS, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT - either. Flyingtoaster1337 11:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think a good Wikipedia article on a pseudoscientific concept is important. If Wikipedia doesn't have an article then the only sources are all the web sites touting it as a device that others are trying to repress. It seems to have enough references, and saying that LIFE magazine is not reliable is disingenuous. Perpetual motion has an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or , just possibly, merge into the article for the inventor--That article is so full of unsourced statements and wild claims that this material will actually move it a small distance in the general direction of verifiability. What evidence is there for the notability of the invention--not the boy who invented it, but the invention itself?. Most patents are for devices never actually realized, and do not show notability by themselves. There is zero evidence that any products were actually produced--the Life photograph shows him holding what might be a model, but does not say what it is. If something never existed, the claim can be notable either as an idea or a hoax or a presumed fraud, but the object cannot be N as there is no object. WP is not a crystal ball.

The Science paper though cited is totally irrelevant, as it was not about the device, and even the article here makes no such claim. The website phisciences is a personal website. The website neurophone.com is a non-independent website. Worldtrans is the very model of an unreliable site, including dreams as well as ideas, to quote themselves. The Life reporter should have been ashamed of himself, but that does count as a source that is often reliable; however, what was notable to him was the youth of the inventor, not the object. Ditto for the older of the newspaper stories. Calling this nonsense RS would show technicality trumping common sense. To meet the technicalities, I assert that local newspaper stories on scientific topics except by well-regarded science correspondents are inherently unreliable. If it is kept, the article certainly needs NPOV. Unfortunately, from the edit history, this was recognized earlier, but every effort to remove the personal sites etc or to call them what they were failed. NN self-delusion. if major news sources wrote about it , then it would be a N self-delusion.

cold fusion, a much more notable example of nonsense, had very much wider publicity and was notable on that account.

perpetual motion has been talked about in numerous sources for centuries. It is much more widely known, and thus N. DGG 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patrick Flanagan - maybe the redirect will avoid yet another discussion on this topic. -- Bpmullins | Talk 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Patrick Flanagan - Cannot see much notability independent of its inventor. Edeans 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Patrick Flanagan this is a short article and the in the inventor article is short, put them together. Jeepday 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto the article on the inventor. As for it being impossible, or nonsense, or pseudoscience, I disagree. There is no evidence that it produces sound in the subject, but the Science article says that external ultrasonic audio signals can pruduce such souond sensations in the profoundly deaf, and early telephone research showed that electrical currents at audible frequencies could be heard, by mechanisms that are not clearly understood. High frequency electrical signals could produce mechanical vibrations at the same frequencies, which could be then heard by the same mechanisms as in the science article. Edison 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, merge to Patrick Flanagan. Would be better incorporated there as length of article unlikely to grow independent of the inventor. Mdcollins1984 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, in order to end this argument over its notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Merge to Patrick Flanagan. People are unlikely to come looking for the device, but the inventor seems to be notable as a crank. He hasn't died yet, so he just might be immortal . . . -- Butseriouslyfolks 07:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete because Cupboard aquarium baseball said so. Note that although it was not included in this AfD, the article List of common Persian surnames has been speedy deleted also based on this AfD. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Persian given names

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Persian given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honestly, anyone can name anyone anything and a list based merely on a language is rather arbitrary. I can name my son "Cupboard aquarium baseball". Shrumster 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except in Japan, where "cupboard", "aquarium" and "baseball" aren't on the Jinmeiyo kanji list! ;) Seriously, I would totally support something like that in the Western world, to stop people naming their kids ridiculous things... --Candy-Panda 12:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edeans 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 07:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian given names

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Hungarian given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honestly, anyone can name anyone anything and a list based merely on a language is rather arbitrary. I can name my son "Cupboard aquarium baseball". Shrumster 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Make a category if anything. - grubber 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most common Russian names

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so it has been transwikied to Wiktionary (see wikt:Appendix:Russian given names) and may now be deleted. See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, etc. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honestly, anyone can name anyone anything and a list based merely on a language is rather arbitrary. I can name my son "Cupboard aquarium baseball". In addition, the addition of "common" to the title muddles the scope and reach of this list. Who determines what's common and what's not? Ivan probably is, Balabaduversky might not...but I don't speak Russian, so where's the line? Shrumster 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 17:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are no reliable sources for the assertion that these are common names. If a Russian magazine or vital statistics department announced the most common baby names in Russia, and if the list were published somewhere reliable, an article could be created referencing that (as I suspect has been done with the most popular American baby names). But there are no references in this article to reliable sources. (Note: This is not a "list of Russian names" but a list of "common Russian names". It's therefore a bit different than the other AfDs because it seems to refer to a specific subset of names only, so in my opinion the "cupboard aquarium baseball" argument doesn't really apply.) --Charlene 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Make a category for the name pages themselves if anything (like Category:German given names). - grubber 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7. - Daniel.Bryant 05:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tillery

I created this page, and I want to delete it because it is pointless, somewhat immature, and could become a future target of vandals. Jtllry 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-bio Wooyi 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete pointless, indeed Turgidson 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - basically, nobody cares. So tagged. MER-C 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete W.marsh 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volvo_XC50

The car appears to have been scrubbed, and/or replaced with the XC60. Unless there's something that I'm not seeing online, I say delete. Bduddy 02:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - mild WP:CRYSTAL inflection z ε n  08:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. --MaNeMeBasat 14:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, and how the hell is this a speedy delete? I'm also turning up over tens of thousands of google hits on the name, including [17] [18] [19] [20]. This isn't speediable, and if canceled should be redirected to whatever article describes its development and cancelation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to pass Crystal Ball, since the info there does not seem to be speculation and is fairly concrete. I did a brief search, and the vehicle does not seem to be canceled. Though I would say that it needs to be sourced. -Freekee 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, or redirect to Volvo XC60 in due course; current online sources are saying the XC60 will come to market instead of the XC50, but I think we'd be crystal balling a little bit if we redirected just now before everything is clarified. Thousands of online references though; so speedy delete gets a "?!?" from this user. --DeLarge 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- James086 ^Talk 06:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancythompson

Non-notable, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC Malla nox 02:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 09:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete - almost a speedy. Tawker 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Country Day School

Fails both WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS3. Article was originally a redirect and now only contains non-notable elementary/middle school info. Is Wikipedia really the place for articles on non-notable day schools? Bobo is soft 02:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I agree it should be deleted, I don't think a proposed guideline should be listed as a reason. It should be struck through or deleted from the nomination reason. John Reaves (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWikipedia does not have a process for a proposed guideline to become an official guideline except by citing it here to show it is used and useful, and claiming that there is consensus on the article talk page that it is ready to be a guideline. So it is appropriate to quote proposed guidelines here if you want them to be official ones. If you don't, then go to the talk for the guideline and say so, or slap a "disputed" tag on it. Edison 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SCHOOLS3. Edison 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SCHOOLS3 is a proposal I entirely support, but here, no reliable nontrivial secondary sourcing is provided, meaning subject also fails an existing guideline, namely WP:N. Seraphimblade 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seraphimblade without prejudice to re-creation. If an article about a school consists primarily of quotations from the student handbook, it probably does not belong in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability; possible partial copyvio; inadequate references. WMMartin 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Much the stronger argument, as well as numbers, to the Keep commentors. The idea of nominating this one article to try to set a precedent for other, perhaps stronger, articles also seems a bit fishy. Herostratus 06:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Jamaica

Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, to plagarise from the initial debate, "I am not entirely sure whose bad idea this was. We do not need a list of every non notable hosptial in the entire world. Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

Yes, I know there's 160 of these lists in existance and a mass deletion was attempted before which failed due to procedural reasons but only one article is nominated here to set a precedent. MER-C 02:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this approach worked nicely for towers. Time to start on these. DGG 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment, no vote~~ Keep - I see you chose a particularly weak article (none of the hospitals are wikilinked). Although I may favor the deletion of some of these articles, I am ambivalent about your deliberate exclusion of the rest from this AfD (although I thank you for being honest and noting it). Why not bundle this nomination with the other articles? Black Falcon 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was tried last time and it didn't work. MER-C 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that itself not a pretty clear indication that there is no consensus for deletion? I have no problem with you nominating this individual list for deletion, but I think it might be inappropriate if you use this as precedent for other lists. If the same criticisms apply, nominate them all at once--especially since you know about them. If the same criticisms don't apply, then any claim of "precedent" in the future is inapplicable. Black Falcon 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is better dealt with as a category, with only the notable/major ones getting articles. Shrumster 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a particularly poor example of these hospital lists (possibly why it was chosen as a test case?), but the same principles apply. Many hospitals have wikipedia articles, and the number of them that do will no doubt slowly increase with time. A complete list, with both red and blue links, is the best way to keep track of which have yet to be created - a category cannot do that. This is no worse than many of the other similar list categories. DGG's reason for favouring delete actually casts doubts as to the efficacity of deletion: "This approach worked nicely on towers". What happened with towers was that individual articles on towers were turned into just such lists as these. These should similarly be kept as lists, so that any hospitals which may be deemed not worthy of having their own articles have somewhere where any information on them cound be merged. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this may be a poor example of an article, but the principle idea behind it is sound. Hospitals are reasonably capable of being notable. Grouping them by geographic region is also a reasonable method of sorting. I am not surprised this article is in poor condition, Jamaica is probably far behind in priority to most Wikipedia users. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm with DGG and MER-C on this one. Edeans 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is useful as a development list, a valid use for a list. As per notability, some are notable, some may not be, that is not reason for deletion of the entire list. —siro χ o 21:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments of MER-C and DGG seem predicated on the assumption that hospitals themselves, like radio towers, are not notable. I'm not sure I agree with that assumption.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see how a hospital CAN be not notable Jcuk 22:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because what differentiates one hospital from another enough to make them encyclopaedic? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't advocate the "we have X, why not Y" argument, but a precedent of sorts is the somewhat ridiculous decision to keep school articles. There are far fewer hospitals than schools, hospitals are large, very prominent within their communities and surrounding areas, etc etc. I am not strenuously arguing for intrinsic notability, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question of differentiation between hospitals: History, location, services offered, events that happened at the hospital are a least some of the criteria I would apply. Probably more, but I just figured it was worth answering. FrozenPurpleCube 07:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 07:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon, don't agree with the reasoning whatsoever behind the nominator using this as a test case to set some kind of "precedent" by preying on the weak. Mathmo ^Talk 08:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike masts, which usually evoke feelings of antipathy, hospitals, by virtue of their nature, services, and their quality of care are usually of great interest to the public, and so are often subject of public information and/or news articles. Their building structures are usually well known beyond their catchment locality. I would draw the line at "clinics" (definitions may vary). The underlying subjects are notable, and the lists are capable of so being too if they impart useful additional information so I would vote Keep However, the system of these lists is a hotch-potch. The Jamaica list would benefit from being sorted by geography or by specialty, like some of the others. Ohconfucius 08:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted it according to counties and parishes. Black Falcon 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A country's health service is a very notable and encyclopedic part of their social services, and lists like this are a good aid in covering the topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, different hospitals are not "loosely associated topics" so MER-C can't base his deletion request on "WP:NOT#DIR". Besides, Jamaica seems a quite discriminate selection. -- User:Docu

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stine Richard

Subject of article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 10:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf photoman 12:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated - Article has been updated with proper reference to Newpaper Articles and Websites. WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO JeremiahJude 13:50, 4 February 2007
Delete. Nice professional website, but has not charted or won any major awards. Being aired on BrunFM is not "placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". 217 unique Ghits, most of which in fact hit upon "Stine, Richard". In short, little known artist. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickolas Colaianni

Lacks notability. Nice story, but there are thousands like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs)

Delete - likely conflict of interest, creator was MVCOL (talk · contribs). Article used to be his user page. MER-C 03:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a reference to a yet to be published article is totally against WP:V Alf photoman 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Looks like an homage to one of the poster's ancestors. Edeans 20:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of unpublished work - Delete as original research. Ohconfucius 08:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. POV fork.. Herostratus 06:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini's Islamic leadership

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

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

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

POV fork of Ruhollah Khomeini. Khodavand 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ruhollah Khomeini was becoming simply too long & un-manageable. Therefore, I split it.--Patchouli 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a blatant POV fork. Anyone can go through the history of the Khomeini article and see that this information was removed from the main article for a number of reasons: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. This article on "Khomeini's Islamic leadership" is essentially an attack page and violates WP:NPOV. Khodavand 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork -- an encyclopedic article on a person's leadership should not only note the negative. If possible, merge the encyclopedic content back into the main article (or simply revert to the pre-fork version taking into account any changes since then). Black Falcon 04:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created on Aug. 29, 2006, so the revert is not a practical option. Just merge whatever is relevant, NPOV, and sourced into Ruhollah Khomeini, then delete this new article. Black Falcon 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many politicians have sub-articles.--Patchouli 05:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per Black Falcon. Whilst it's true that many polticians have sub-pages, as Khodavand demonstrated, there is a distinct POV motive in this particular fork. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to main --Euzebia Zuk 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per Khodavand.--Sa.vakilian 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I split the articles, I removed the stuff from the original article. Later, it was put back in Ruhollah Khomeini. Iran-editing Wikipedian and new accounts like User:Euzebia Zuk should not gather here to promote violations of Wikipedia:Article size. Please be reasonable.

Ruhollah Khomeini is already 51 kilobytes long.  Based on Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb, it should be split, not be longer.  The fork is legitimate; of course, like all articles it embodies viewpoints with sources.  If there is a specific error, then it should be pointed out on the article's talk page.

--Patchouli 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete An article fork can/should be created to cover Khomeini's political career or time as leader of Iran, but the current article's scope is POV. Joshdboz 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KazakhPol 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:KazakhPol has previously tried to make the article look like one without references by attacking it. There are a lot of arguments without arguments about the not liking the facts in the article--Patchouli 03:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and merge keep the verifable and non-pov parts of the article and merge it back to the article until consensus for a split is achieved. make this a redirect. --Striver - talk 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a POV fork. --Mardavich 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a obvious POV fork and merge anything non-POV and reliable/verifable in this article to the main one. Khorshid 01:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: This article has a lot of POV, but it also contains a lot of important information. I would agree that it is a POV fork too. I propose merging this into the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini article, but under a new section called "Criticism". This article is almost entirely about negative aspects of Khomeini's Islamic leadership, and lacks the positive aspects of his leadership. If it was put in a Criticism section, as is the case with many biographical articles, it would show that these views are those of critics and are not universally accepted. I do not think this should be deleted or just merged into the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini article in manner that very little information is salvaged. Agha Nader 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Delete for same reason as the other user who says this is an "attack" page. Criticism of the Khomeini ideology is legitimate, but stating his "views on non-Muslims" (if this is true) makes no sense unless these views had something to do with the state policy on non-Muslims. Later in the same section it says that Khomeini had no problems with Jews and Christians. It contradicts itself horribly. A better (and more legitimate) argument can be made for spreading hostility against Bahais. Khomeini, whatever we may think of him, is also viewed as a spiritual leader and holy man by a few million Shia Muslims in places like Iran and Lebanon, so I think his article should be careful in not going over the edge with condemnations. Malakaville 05:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Definitely an anti-Khomeini POV fork. Appears to be part of a disturbing pattern of POV articles and edits... The Behnam 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Teke^(talk) 04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Oscar Miro-Quesada Solevo

Biography about a shaman who started the Pachakuti mesa movement. While that does sound impressive, I can't seem to find any coverage of this fellow in reliable sources or anything to verify the claims that his teachings have been featured in "CNN, Univision, A&E and Discovery channels". Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BIO. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Turns out it's a copyright violation of [21]. Marked as db-copyvio. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The End.

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End. neutral. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just an album track from a (comparitively) moderate-selling album. At 1 minute 52 seconds, it will never be a single. Totnesmartin 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 20:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question The End is also a song by The Doors, what happened to that one? Wooyi 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See The End for various songs of the same name. This one has a period at the end of it. Pomte 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' not a single, nn song, not independently charted. SkierRMH 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. ~Switch ^t 07:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per all above comments Belmont, MI
Delete Song without an assertion of notability. GassyGuy 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable non-single. Rehevkor 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BONE

Prodded because though it claims to be a character in a comic ("Shuttlecock Polly and the Bone"), I can find no evidence the comic exists, much less that it's notable. (Character name itself is too generic for a search to be of any use). Prod removed w/no edit comment. Changes made since prod make the page look like WP:Nonsense --Jamoche 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see at the bottom of the article that an editor has offered to upload a cartoon to "prove" that it is real. If that is the only way to meet WP:V then meeting WP:N is hopeless. janejellyroll 11:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:FICT; Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the cartoon this character is from, so we don't need an article about an individual character from it. --Metropolitan90 20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BONE™ appears to be a poorly written hoax, and in any event is non notable. DELETE™. Edeans 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. "The Bone" may be difficult to search, but "Shuttlecock Polly" is not, and it turned up no hits. Hoax. -Freekee 04:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bjorness

This article is entirely unreferenced; a means by which to obtain references is not readily apparent. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable surname, disambiguation page unnecessary. MER-C 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. More namecruft. Edeans 20:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh International Tutorial

Some unnotable school. Will only ever be a stub; and no-one will ever look it up. Totaly pointless. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references, and no evidence of notability. WMMartin 14:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 05:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - sufficient news coverage. Addhoc 12:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 news hits? Of which six are from the same source, and all about trivial events (school sports, fairs and the like) of only local interest? I remain to be convinced. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 11:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Services Applications Deployment

NN neologism/made up in business school one day jargon. 11 Google hits. -- IslaySolomon | talk 11:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particluarly not one of made-up jargon. Service Application Deployment would be a more grammatically correct term anyway, but that doesn't belong in Wikipedia either. CiaranG 13:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 05:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- absurd. Turgidson 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Westenra 06:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Mariah Carey. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illusions: The Butterfly Within (Mariah Carey album)

The title of Carey's next album has not been announced, and any information about the album that has been verified by reliable sources is already in the main Mariah Carey article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 12:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Possible article. MER-C 05:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mariah Carey. The source appears to verify the title, great. That's not nearly enough to warrant a separate article. ShadowHalo 09:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Mariah Carey as per ShadowHalo. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect until more information is relased, such as confirmation of album title, this isn't fitting for a wikipedia article Alankc 00:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The provided link isn't convincing. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 11:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novacom

Non-notable fictional company. Candy-Panda 12:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete definitly a superfluous super-stub, no reason at all why such a small amount of information can't be included in the parent article. SGGH 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said above, there is no reason on earth why a 2 sentence stub on a subject with virtually no room for expansion wouldn't be more appropriate as part of the parent article. janejellyroll 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no justification for such article. Turgidson 05:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was it's been rumored that this was deleted. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Fifth Crow Franchise Installment

Completely unsourced and acknowledged as a rumor in the article itself. WP:CRYSTAL. Also, fails WP:V janejellyroll 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Turgidson 05:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 20:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystalballism. JuJube 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill All Your Friends (song)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no apparent non-trivial third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Malla nox 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Edeans 20:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Famous Last Words under the explanation that it was a B-Side on the single release.--Jude 06:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly should be merged? The only thing that's referenced is the fact that it was on the track listing, and the track listing is already on Famous Last Words (song). ShadowHalo 02:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant merge/redirect. In other words keep the information that isn't in the article ( which you've stated is in the article ) and redirect the name to Famous Last Words--Jude 06:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song is not notable in any respect GassyGuy 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as with all the others. Ab e g92contribs☃ 02:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable etc. Rehevkor 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, third party, non-trivial, reliably published sources are included. Addhoc 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge i guess. icelandic hur ric ane #12 _(talk) 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - B-sides rarely fit the criteria. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 01:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Way Home is Through You

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable b-side. ShadowHalo 10:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Malla nox 14:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Famous Last Words under an explanation that it was a B-side on the single.--Jude 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. It's already listed as a track on the FLW page, that's all it needs. Rehevkor 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Help Us (song)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable b-side. ShadowHalo 10:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Malla nox 14:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is spam. I found several separated articles about that group, song by song. --MaNeMeBasat 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Welcome to the Black Parade with a note that it was a B-side on the single. Revamping of the Welcome to the Black Parade article would provide room to list any facts about this song that are necessary.--Jude 06:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Rehevkor 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge only the mention that the track wasn't on the clean version [22], as that's the only part that clearly isn't original research. Editors are free to grab content out of prior versions of the page to further merge into The Black Parade, but WP:NOR and the necessity of verification by reliable sources still applies.--Kchase T 11:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood (My Chemical Romance song)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, many albums have hidden tracks. Malla nox 14:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 20:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, merge it. Let's not lose any useful information. Ab e g92contribs☃ 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as User:Abeg92 stated.--Jude 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Black Parade. -DMurphy 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Black Parade. And by merge, I mean mention that it didn't appear in the clean version since the only that's the only thing here that's not WP:OR. ShadowHalo 06:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Black Parade. Mcr616 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Assuming it's not original research. Rehevkor 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disenchanted

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consists almost entirely of original research, no apparent third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 10:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Malla nox 14:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This song may be released as a single soon, and it's too much of an important song to fans to delete. It was a huge deal in the feud with The Used. I'll work on references tonight.--Jude 06:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can always come back if it's released as a single. Being part of a non-notable "feud" isn't really an assertion of notability. GassyGuy 13:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May be released as single; easier to just keep the page. Mcr616 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now. If it is released it'll be easier to re-create the page than re-delete if it's not. Rehevkor 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenagers (song)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. I removed big chunks that were seemingly original research or guesswork. Malla nox 14:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Rehevkor 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep (song)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. Malla nox 14:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Rehevkor 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mama (My Chemical Romance song)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, any notability appears to be original research or hearsay. Malla nox 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 02:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Rehevkor 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer (song)

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable most of the information presented is what could have happened. Malla nox 14:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 20:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Getting a haircut is not like having cancer.. Rehevkor 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only third-party coverage seems to be from an NME review of the album, which just doesn't seem sufficient for a whole article on the song. ShadowHalo 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Wolves

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, unsourced. Malla nox 14:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Edeans 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Rehevkor 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sharpest Lives

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Malla nox 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no apparent third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Rehevkor 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Love You

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One review just isn't enough third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 09:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several tracks? Does any track of the album need separate article? Even album is nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 21:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Rehevkor 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently, it's going to be released as a single. Mcr616 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is How I Disappear

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be comprised of original research, no apparent third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 10:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Malla nox 14:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Edeans 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a song from a album, no significant coverage about the song itself.-- danntm ^T _C 02:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing particularly notable about this song GassyGuy 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No worthwhile information. Rehevkor 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead!

Procedural nomination, in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. The result of that AFD was to relist all Therefore I am relisting all 15 songs that were up for deletion on that AFD. I am clearly neutral as this is a Procedural nomination. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Nn. --MaNeMeBasat 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Edeans 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even interesting. -Freekee 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. -DMurphy 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Rehevkor 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clonk Planet

Retroactive objection to proposed deletion; original reason was "No reliable source for notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE." Undeletion requester has been asked to add sources. ~~Nomination is pro forma; nominator has no opinion on the article.~~ ➥the Epopt 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the references added to the article, the nominator has formed an opinion, which is keep: the article is now worthy. Nominator declines to withdraw the nomination, however; this discussion should run its course so as to formally strike down the original PROD. ➥the Epopt 14:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (copied form the discussion page)

Concerning notability, there were several game magazine reviews in German magazines. The game owner has provided some scans: http://www.clonk.de/press/PCGames2003.pdf http://www.clonk.de/press/Shareplay2004.pdf http://www.clonk.de/press/SuperPCSpiele2005.pdf

The game was also presented at the Games convention in 2005 (iirc), and got a short show in German television during that event. Googling for Clonk will also lead you to some game reviews of shareware sites and fansites created for the game.

Although the game is available in several languages, the vast majority of players is from Germany. Other notable distributions are in Finland, France and Russia (which is probably the reason why the former two also have a Wikipedia-entry in their native language).

Since I am a coworker in the game developement of Clonk, my view on notability is probably biased. However, I think there's enough facts to fulfill the guidelines of WP:SOFTWARE. The localized Wikipedia-articles about Clonk have also been written and are maintained by "regular" fans. Sven Eberhardt 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs better sources, but I'm sure they can be found. And move it to Clonk while we're at it. --UsaSatsui 11:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New sources show notability, but article needs plenty of cleanup. Andre (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced - the new sources confirm existence - but aren't they just press release mentions in online magazines? Addhoc 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent Grey

Band with no significant claim to notability.--Drat (Talk) 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources and no notability. Gan fon 04:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 05:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Edeans 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Gogo Dodo. MER-C 07:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadeesh_m

I propose to have this article deleted. This is more like a user page and is created as an article. It has some personal details of a person. codetiger 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per MER-C; Also strong COI violation since it was started by unregistered user Jagadeesh7m, whose only other edit is to Syntel, the company for which he works. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Juggalo. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchetman

This page is within a hair’s breadth of patent nonsense. I can’t even comprehend what in the world it is trying to say. If anyone else understands it and can salvage it, I will withdraw my nomination. ●DanMS 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Juggalo. MER-C 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Juggalo; it's a legitimate logo, but I don't think that gives it notability on its own. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Juggalo as above, assuming content is verifiable. The subject is described as being a logo or symbol used by fans of the band Insane Clown Posse. --Metropolitan90 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The image may be important to the people, but the name for it is not notable. -Freekee 04:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychopathic Records where exists as official logo. This would not exclude someone to include a verifiable reference to the symbol into Juggalo. Tikiwont 13:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk All Over You

The song appears never to have been released as a single, and is thus going to have difficulty where notability is concerned. The band and even the album the song is from are eminently notable, but the song isn't. This is an article which was previously Prod'ed, but the tag was removed with no additional assertion of notability (although the same series of edits cleared up some confusion about what song the article was actually about). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A NN song from a notable album, still isn't appropriate to have an individual article. No assertion of notabilily. I enjoy the speculative commentary though . . ."The song is about a man either having control over a woman or it is used insted of a sexual term. janejellyroll 19:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Jersey Devil 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no apparent third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 09:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence of notability here GassyGuy 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "Merge" if there was anything THERE to merge. There isn't, so Delete. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Mailer Diablo 13:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative governance

Tagged for speedy deletion with the justification "original research". Article's pretty much useless as written; though the phrase gets a respectable number of google hits, it doesn't seem to have a well-defined meaning any more than any other adjective-noun combination. Opabinia regalis 04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR. Edeans 21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Shaundakulbara 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, buzzword, so broad as to be meaningless. No sense in bothering to maintain and fix up an article on this, whatever "this" is. — coelacan talk — 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep but source with WP:RS. No bais agianst re-nomination if sources are not found.. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Star United

Non-notable music group, no sources besides the official website. Candy-Panda 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - According to allmusic[23], they were nominated for a Grammy and have had four songs topping the charts. mikm_t 06:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Terence Ong 10:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Sourced Right now the whole thing could be viewed as a potential hoax. Assuming it's true, there's got to be a great deal of sources out there to back up the information givin, and expand the context of the article. Google comes up with a great deal of hits, I'm sure there's some good sources there. Gan fon 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chinese American. Redirects are cheap. No harm in making one. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese American

Though not exactly recently coined, fails WP:NEO. Sources which use the term (1,470 GHits, 42 GBooks hits) do not define it or explain how it is different from Chinese American. Don't see why this page is needed in addition to Chinese American. cab 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Turgidson 06:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese American. hateless 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese American per User:Hateless. There are 70-100 million Cantonese worldwide, so it's plausible that someone might search for the term "Cantonese American". Black Falcon 07:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There isn't enough distinction between Cantonese and other sub-sub-groups to warrant its own article - plus, popular culture never makes this distinction. z ε n  08:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This is a neologism. But a redirect wouldn't hurt. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:OR. I see no definitive refutation of the claim of original research in the article. I don't see what material there would be to merge, as the entire section on biology would have to go, the name of the species has to go and all that is left at this point is the name of the planet and the characters from the planet. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibiosan

Nomination for deletion This article is primarily an original research synthesis (which is anyway based on primary source material of a comedic nature which is unreliable for the serious-mindedness of this analysis) - fails WP:OR. An earlier version of the article briefly made it onto the main page DYK section before being removed for lacking reliable sources.

Please see the earlier version here with my comment about this on the main page error report page here.

Since then the article has been updated - the original version's own assertion that as Futurama is a comedy, it is an unreliable primary source and may not be regarded as an effort at creating stable or canonical definitions has been removed, though the long list of serious-minded research conclusions about the biology of this fictional comedy species derived from the primary source remains. Further references have been added but these amount to further original research efforts to justify the long list of serious-minded guesses - the new references are mainly links to actual biology texts that do not mention this species at all. They are simply used to support a fan's speculation. Then there's a link to a one-line speculation in a review on Startrek.com that the "Grand Midwife "seems like a cross between Yoda and T'Pau""(?), a link to an almost-no-content random fansite page[24], and also, it is strangely implied that as one of the Futurama writers may have a PhD in Inorganic Chemistry, this supports the original research?

Furthermore, the problem of the name of the article persists from the original version - the article itself indicates that it is not based on reliable sources:"Although the name "Amphibios 9" is shown clearly in "Kif Gets Knocked Up A Notch", "Amphibiosans" are never referred to as such in the series. The name has, however, been picked up by fans and is used in such capacities as fan fiction and role-playing game statistics. Note that in Futurama, the inhabitants of Earth are called "Earthians"."

Bwithh 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete Futurama fan here, but there are too many articles on minimal parts from the show. Should be on a futurama wiki. Also, as said above a lot of it is original research. --Will Mak 050389 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ, give me a chance. I hadn't even listed this on the afd page or written a line yet when you !voted. The afd nomination template screws up 70-80% of the time I use it if I don't lay it down as a stub first before I start writing a proper nomination. I won't list the afd nom on the main afd page until its ready. Bwithh 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have upset you, I thought that was your nomination. Vote edited. --Will Mak 050389 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry if I overreacted. It's been a long day. Bwithh 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Amphibios 9. I agree that the naming problem is huge with this article and it definitely needs some pruning but I think some of it could be merged with the article on the planet and leave the whole as a reasonably OK article. Stardust8212 05:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: I'm also a Futurama fan, but I don't think that Amphibios 9 and Amphibiosans are seperately notable enough to both deserve pages. -- Scorpion 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Half the references are to a single Futurama episode or a review of that episode, with others being to zoological information about amphibians and reptiles. Attempting to synthesise such information seems like a clear example of original research.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questons & Comments: There is a "Category:Futurama races". Are these all being proposed for deletion? Is the main problem with this article's name, and if so, would renaming it "Kif's race?" or "Amphibios 9 inhabitants" solve this problem? Why would past versions of this article be relevant here? Targeting articles ten times worse than this would be a full-time job. Hit your "random page" button a few times and look at the crap that pops up. It looks like alot of time has been spent on this article. How about giving the author a break and addressing more blatant problems? Shaundakulbara 09:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The main issue here is original research - the name of the article is but one element of the problem with the article content. WP:OR is a core content policy. The previous version of the article is relevant for the related comments which still apply to this version. I created Wikipedia:Random page patrol and Category:Wikipedian_random_page_patrollers - I encourage all to join. Fans do often put a lot of work into their fan culture artefacts and writings - this doesn't make these encyclopedically notable. I already gave the creator a break by not opting to afd immediately after the article was pulled from the main page, but waiting for a few days instead. There are a ton of Wikipedia articles with "blatant problems" - this one appeared on the main page, so it was rather more "blatant" than average and caught my attention. Bwithh 09:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author has apparently left Wikipedia in disgust over matters having nothing to do with this article. He's had 45 DYK's in 2 months and wrote all of these articles. They’re not fancruft either. Because of that track record that was hoping he will return. And now, out of all the crap on Wikipedia that sits there unchallenged, this admittedly stupid but at least well-written article gets dragged to AfD. There are guidelines regarding when to ignore all other guidelines when it serves the greater good. Going tough on this article is not serving a greater good. It’s just mean. -Shaundakulbara 10:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was it crufty, I said it was original research. He may have written a lot of DYK articles (kudos to him - though its hardly the same as writing featured articles or even as hard as writing ones classifiable as good articles), but this one's below par. WP:IAR (which is a poorly thought out policy anyway, in my opinion) is designed to serve the encyclopedia's mission, not to protect people's feelings. I've held off nominating this article for several days now. What am I supposed to do? Never nominate it in case it means the author will never come back to Wikipedia? I wasn't even aware this was written by the same user involved in the other dispute or that he'd "left in disgust" when I nominated it anyway. Bwithh 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bwithh, I respectfully suggest that it would benefit Wikipedia if editors would first make sure their own articles are up-to-par in regards to references and such before assuming the role of pundit. Shaundakulbara 10:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your recent "surveillance run" through my list of articles on my user page, which was apparently a response to my expressing my opinion in an unrelated discussion[25]. I'm baffled why I was singled out for this monitoring/discrediting effort, as my role in that discussion was quite limited before you started your little exercise. I was waiting to see if it would cross over into full-blown wiki-stalking or not. If you bothered to look at the histories of the few articles you tagged as having reference problems (actually you overlooked the external links provided in the articles for a couple of them - and Princess Pearl is out of my hands. I keep that up to mark the first time that I rescued a badly written stub from speedy delete - I rewrote it as a coherent stub with a notability claim and pretty much left it to the fans after that (I've never seen the show)), you will see that those articles come from much earlier in my wikiexperience when I was experimenting with creating stubs and basic articles and was content to just to drop in a few external links). I keep them on my user page for nostalgic purposes. The kind of article content I create now are more like JMWAVE and Latin American School of Medicine and Julius Soubise which reflect my experience gained since those early days. For the record, I've never attempted original research synthesis - even in my novice days. It's useful to have someone to remind one that one's early attempts at articles could do with some brushing up (I'd rather forgotten about them) - but may I respectfully remind you to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and to avoid the comprehensive "checking out" of editors you disagree with in policy discussions - it can give a bad impression. If you feel that editors without a perfect editing history should be barred from nominating articles for afd or participating in article discussions, I encourage you to voice your ideas in the appropriate policy channels. Apologies to the rest of the afd participants for this disruption of the discussion. Bwithh 11:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One posts links on one's user page with the assumption that other editors might take a look at what's there. A single instance me of browsing a few articles and tagging those lacking references does not equal WP:Stalking and that is a very serious matter to be accused of. I respectfully ask you to refrain from making such an accusation spuriously as that constitutes a personal attack. If you feel you are being stalked, please contact Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and an administrator will intervene. Thank you. Shaundakulbara 11:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you'd read what I written properly, I said I was waiting to see if the unusual level of attention you seem to be giving to my articles - apparently in response to an opinion you disagree with in the context of an unrelated WP:DRV discussion which you seem to be taking rather personally (a discussion which I was not even a main participant in!) - was going to cross over into wikistalking. This is neither spurious nor a personal attack, but a hope that you wouldn't continue to go in that direction. I'm glad that you agree that this would be a bad idea. Bwithh 11:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion - I am the author of this article and I am more than happy to accept whatever consensus is arrived at in this discussion. While I wrote articles for Wikipedia I designed them to withstand scrutiny. If I erred in creating this article in the first place then it should be deleted. I only have a problem with admins and other editors who bypass the process when it suits them. I play by the rules and all I asked for was for others to do the same. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HouseOfScandal (talk • contribs) 12:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete At first glance the article has references, but on examination they turn out to be a Futurama comic book, which would be ok if it contains the statement that it is supposed to reference. In addition there are the editors' original research from viewing the TV show, and blogs and fan fiction, which are not reliable sources. The reliable sources, biology books, are not about the subject of the article. The series is notable, and has multiple independent reliable sources to show that. The individual episodes probably do not, and the individual characters such as this probably do not. The mass of related articles appear to be a case of loyal fans of a fictional work showing their appreciation of the work by spewing articles about every minute aspect of it all over Wikipedia, however non-notable they are by the applicable standards. I like Sherlock Holmes stories, but I do not find it necessary to write an article about every person he encountered, every place he went, and everything he touched in the stories. Edison 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article actually uses only written sources, mostly scripts. The blog and fan fiction mention is a tiny element of this article and could be removed in a snap if we rename it. Let's please try not to judge this article differently because it is based on scripts of a comedy show. I'm not convinced discussing certain elements of a script is original research. Any article involves selecting info to present versus info that isn't relevant. There are no theories here nor personal observations other than saying what species traits the green guy showed in certain episodes. Pointing out stuff like Amphibosians have nipples like mammals but are invertebrates because they have no bones doesn't cross the line into original research. And please remember that there is lots of esoteric minutae on Wikipedia...while it can go too far Wikipedia really is the place for it. Cephalopod size is its own article. The Cheetah Girls tours is its own article, as is Young Marx. I'm not convinced this is original research nor that it's too specialized since other Futurama races have articles as well. No one answered me when I asked if those should be proposed for deletion too. How about this article on the Mor-Taxans? Thanks all. Shaundakulbara 06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crufty OR, and inadequate evidence of notability. WMMartin 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As for the other Futurama races: bring them on ! WMMartin 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic Fancruft. Eusebeus 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with/to Amphibios 9. It would be irrational and illogical to simply delete the information contained in this article. I haven't looked at all the race/planet Futurama articles on wikipedia, but I'd imagine if there's that big of an objection, they could all be merged into one article, maybe? Ok, now I have looked at all planet/alien Futurama articles and they could be merged into one article of all planets and their inhabitants of Futurama. The only significant one of the bunch is decapodian. Chickenmonkey 11:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see policy WP:OR for why it wouldn't be irrational or illogical for almost all the information in the article. Bwithh 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. My thought that it would be irrational and illogical to simply delete the information of this article was not because of compliance to WP:OR (although I'm not so sure it truly is in violation of that policy). Why I believe it to be irrational and illogical is because of all the other fictional material that is articled on Wikipedia. Nearly everything in this article can be verified by looking at the script of one episode and a few pictures. That's why I think it could just as easily be condensed and merged with one or more of the other Futurama articles. Chickenmonkey 21:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Just because similar fictional material exists on Wikipedia is not a solid argument for keep per WP:Pokémon test. And if that material has similar problems, they are also subject to action under WP:OR. Most of the article (including the title) cannot be sourced to primary source material (which itself has been described as unreliable by the article in the version which appeared on DYK) without original research leaps of faith Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. It is my understanding, through reading WP:MOSWAF and similar guideline articles, that citing an episode is acceptable as a primary source. The episode of "Kif Gets Knocked Up A Notch" contains much of the information in this article. There are faults, which include analysis that seemingly came from the editor(s) of this article (which should/could be reworded), and as I said, it could be merged with Amphibios 9 (or more Futurama articles about races/planets) which would take care of the title issue. If the information not needed in this article and the information that shouldn't be in this article were removed and it were rewritten, I believe it could be merged easily. Chickenmonkey 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect and delete pics. Indeed, a article for the planet and another one the species isn`t usefull. Also, there are too many images, I would leave only one with the planet, the larval stage, Kif Kroker of course and upload one with the president of DOOP.--ometzit<col> 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches. Addhoc 12:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amphibios 9, per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, a spectacularly bad idea for an article. WP:NEO, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, contains pejorative language about Mark Kermode, plenty of other problems. Abject nonsense on a stick. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wittertainment

Non-notable neologism. Unverified fancruft. 0 ghits [26]. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Embarrassingly, this article has been read out live on nationwide UK radio [27] Listen from the 15min mark. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stay. It is not a dictionary entry per se but catching a modern trend. To delete the article would be an act of cultural vandalism. - J Manterik, 06:53 3 February 2007. — 80.43.87.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Whereas leaving it would be an act of literal vandalism. I would suggest reading some of our policies and guidelines. In particular "Verifiability", "No Original Research" and "What Wikipedia is not". -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Protologism. ShadowHalo 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense, and I speak as a fan of the Good Doctor (which is what brought me here, hearing this nonsense read out on the podcast of his show segment). --Calton | Talk 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should left as it is. Both Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode are aware. When this was read out on the air both of them were pleased with the phrase. It etymology has been verified. -- User:ANON 15:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.66.150 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 February 2007[reply]

I heard the program (sorry, programme), and "disbelief" and "amused at nonsense" would be more accurate descriptions of Mayo and Kermode's views. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is a comic article. The fact that it was read out on Radio 5 is an embarrassment to Wikipedia's ambitions to be taken seriously. And I speak as another fan of the good dr. Dogville 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. At best, this is a neologism with no clear definition from a single radio program. --Metropolitan90 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism - it's an obvious hoax that has been used as a vehicle to propagate itself. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - despite claims made above, this page is neither a hoax nor vandalism. The term was self-referenced and validated on BBC Radio 5 Live (Feb 2 2007). Heycos 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something can be confirmed to exist doesn't mean an article about it is automatically not a hoax or vandalism. The tone of this article makes it quite clear that this is intended as sophomoric vandalism, and not to document the subject in an encyclopedic way (which isn't really possible to begin with, given that this is simply a protologism).-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not only is it a hoax, it also violates WP:BLP. Unless of course you can find reliable sources to verify that Mark Kermode is indeed a "barrel-chested former Queen's gardener". -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was "barrel-chested former Queen's Guardsman". --Calton | Talk 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this is unverified nonsense without context.-- danntm ^T _C 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Legitimate word-coining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.222.177 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 February 2007

Comment To sum up the relevant sections of WP:NOR, WP:NOT#DICT, WP:V, WP:NEO and WP:NOTE in one sentence: "Wikipedia is not for coining words". -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Merope. MER-C 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoktorWare

User removed speedy tag three times, so taking this to AFD. This is a software package for doctors’ offices. Looks like advertising. No notability asserted. ●DanMS 06:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't change the fact that it is corporate vanity. Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 06:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. The tag has been removed once again and I have replaced it. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge but merge/delete is simply not a valid course of action, we need to preserve the article history. An AfD is not needed to do a merge anyway, it could have just been merged/redirected without the AfD since there seems to be a strong consensus. W.marsh 19:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alumni of Aquinas College, Perth

There's not so many here that they cannot be included in the main article. Having a separate list article also sets a bad precedent for other schools. On its own, its hardly encyclopaedic. —Moondyne 06:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete as nominator. —Moondyne 06:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per nom. Crufty. MER-C 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- —Moondyne 08:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete for sure. --Ali K 08:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with college page --John Krugger 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree. Unfortunately, all of Aquinas College's daughter articles are essentially cruft - note the articles about the Houses, grounds, buildings, and sport at the school. A well-meaning editor is sort of trying to turn a corner of Wikipedia into an online student handbook for the school.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is a very fair comment. I'd just like to note that the editor in question is certainly hard-working, has excellent attention to detail, and is trying hard to do a good job. It's always difficult to distinguish the relative importance of a subject when you're very close to it; I am confident he will take this tidying-up effort in good faith. WMMartin 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - it's far too long to merge into the school article, which would become completely unbalanced. (There are those who ask for such things to be removed from school articles and others who ask for them to be moved back.) It contains various notable persons comprehensive refs - what's wrong with it? roundhouse 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully agree, the vast majority of people on this list are not notable, and only a handful have wikipedia articles. The ones who don't shouldn't. The truly notable people who are supported by references can be included on the school's page.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are schools with separate lists, eg Eton College and Harrow School, and others with vast internal lists (eg Marlborough College). On further reflection and investigation I agree with Dmz5 in this case; the blue linked ones should be merged into the article and the rest discarded or articles created for them (if justified). roundhouse 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main article and all its subsidiary articles seem to strive to give the impression that this school is in the same league as Eton and Harrow, which is debatable, but an encyclopedia is not the place to advance the position...-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, when I say Merge in an RfA discussion context I don't necessarily mean merge every detail in the source article. Rather, the merge should typically entail some editing which culls out information which is unreasonable to include in the target. The target must be balanced as where lots of detail is OK in a child article, that same level of detail would be overkill in the parent. How much detail? Well that's part of the ebb and flow of normal Wikipedia article editing. —Moondyne 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is too big to merge back into main, and would just look plain stupid. Smbarnzy 08:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Moondyne. Eton and Harrow get separate lists because they're vastly notable schools with centuries of alumni. This is not the case here. WMMartin 14:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DMZ5. This debate should not be used as precedent to delete all and every school alumni list, though. JROBBO 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JROBBO and DMZ5 DanielT5 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Amos' 2007 studio album

There is no information there that tells us anything substantial about the upcoming record. It's not even crystal balling, it's an indiscriminate collection of vague statements about what the album might be like, that readers must interpret. Some quotes are barely related to the purported subject. -Freekee 06:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure speculation. To say "unsourced crystal balling" doesn't do justice to the "article". MER-C 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no relevant content. This is already superfulous, since when Tori comes out with the album it should have its own 'named' article. z ε n  08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just vague fan speculation. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as I would like a new Tori Amos album, this is still speculation until the album is officially announced.-- danntm ^T _C 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystalballism. JuJube 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need for this to have its own article since there's so little information about the album itself, and the article about her already has sufficient coverage of it. ShadowHalo 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a compilation of quotes is worthy of a whole article. There's no substance here. Consulate76 13:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Aquinians Hockey Club

Non-notable sporting club. Contents could readily be summarised and moved into the parent article Aquinas College, Perth.

A previous AfD discussion here related to a nomination of a number of sub-articles where the result the was 'merge and delete'. This particular article was missed by that decision however as it had been speedy deleted before the discussion conclusion due to a copyvio from http://www.reds.com.au/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=244. The article has since been recreated with apparently original content —Moondyne 06:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- —Moondyne 08:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete No need for it on its own, if it has to exist, be it at Aquinas College, Perth. --Ali K 08:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference in Aquinas College, Perth suffices. Edeans 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree. Unfortunately, all of Aquinas College's daughter articles are essentially cruft - note the articles about the Houses, grounds, buildings, and sport at the school. A well-meaning editor is sort of trying to turn a corner of Wikipedia into an online student handbook for the school.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sufficient summary detail is in the parent already. Much more would be cruft.
Delete per Edeans. WMMartin 15:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete, all the (non-listy) information can be put in the main article if needed. Trebor 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge if necessary for consensus) per the above - notably Dmz5. Eusebeus 23:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy

This page has been speedy deleted with an eye to an ArbComm case that wasn't closed, overturned at Deletion Review, and kept at AFD. While the AFD was open, the ArbComm case closed, placing this article under a remedy encouraging but not requiring speedy deletion. It has since been speedy deleted again, and gone to deletion review again. With no consensus to endorse the speedy deletion, it is overturned and brought back to AFD per the undeletion policy. So here we are, unfortunately. As part of the deletion review close, the article has been both retitled and cut down about 50%. So while you are encouraged to read the most recent deletion review, and any other desired discussion, many of the concerns are at least partly addressed and the article should be read as it is now before opining again. I don't want any admin to wheel war over this, and I don't want to see it on deletion review a third time, so please come to a clear consensus. Ideas from the deletion review include 1) deleting it, 2) keeping it 3) merging it to History of Simon Fraser University, 4) merging it elsehere, and I'm sure you all will have more. Count my listing as a technical nomination. GRBerry 07:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This article has attracted sock-puppets to prior discussions, including the deletion review just closed. GRBerry 07:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note to closing admin Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification on undeleted Marsden-Donnelly harassment case. At this time, no clarification has issued, but that may change by the time you close this. GRBerry 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment by relister: Personally, I think that merging to History of Simon Fraser University won't work, as that is a one edit stub that will be overwhelmed by this content, and is unlikely to be watched closely enough to prevent the content from violating WP:BLP at some point in the future. I encourage opiners who believe that prior opinions should be endorsed to make it crystal clear which prior opinons they are endorsing; the possible merge solution was unavailable as a close in deletion review because it was unclear whether some "per above" opinions were in favor of or opposed to that solution. GRBerry 07:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant event, and one for which many sources are available. CJCurrie 07:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep as the outcome involved the resignation of the president of a top university. In other words, a significant outcome outside the case itself. Normally I would suggest a merge back into Rachel Marsden but the ArbCom situation suggests that would not be helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is overwhelming evidence of sustained nationwide coverage of the controversy, including a set of articles from more than halfway across the country two and a half years after the story broke (Ottawa Citizen). Articles whose primary subject is this case include multiple full-length articles in each of the Globe and Mail and Macleans, and at least two Google Scholar results. Kla'quot 08:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons listed:
1. If we apply WP:N, the case shatters the required threshold of multiple reliable sources. I find upward of 30,000 words in Lexis-Nexis and Newsbank alone, over multiple months from almost all major Canadian news outlets (very few international though). The case reverberates in the Canadian press until today. Notability is also given by the institutional impact. Resignation of a president of a major university is no small thing. I cannot see how 30,000 words should be summarized in two lines in History of SFU. The case, while probably not a first-tier academic scandal, is clearly far from obscure.
2. WP:BLP requires tight sourcing of all claims and balanced writing. It does not mean sourced comments must be removed because they put individuals in a bad light, and many other academic scandals on which we have articles have an element of wrongdoing by at least one participant. All are or should be held to WP:BLP, none should be (or have been, to my knowledge) completely removed. After reading most of the articles I find that the article does not deviate in tone from the majority of articles from the major news outlets. It is not "grossly unbalanced". If the article appears biased, then it's because the facts are biased. If individual sources are found to be unreliable, this should not be a problem as most factual claims can be sourced in triplicate. (Addendum: I support GRBerry's removal of the lurid details. The article should focus on the institutional process and impact in the style of Rick Coe's analysis for the Canadian Association of University Teachers).
3. This article revolves around three individuals and one institution. The institution, SFU, and one individual, President S., are notable ex officio; one individual, LD, is seemingly non-notable outside this case; and one individual, RM, is of contested notability. This argument has been made that because of the contested notability of this last individual covering the case in the detail allowed by the richness of the sources constitutes undue weight. I cannot find a precedent for this. We cover scandals in the bio of individuals if the scandal revolves around one person and biographical information is available (see e.g. Mary McCarthy (CIA)) or in a stand-alone article on the case (see e.g. Duke lacrosse case), or as in the Ward Churchill case, spread over multiple articles. If RM is non-notable outside this case and biographical information is hard to come by, there should be no bio entry on her for risk of providing false information. But this should not affect this article which meets all of our standards per WP:N and no arguments other that "there should not be two articles on RM" have been made in support of the claim that it fails our policies. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes the notability threshold (and I'm reluctant to grant that to "news" events.) If WP:BLP is an ongoing concern, apply an appropriate level of protection to the article, but do not delete it. BLP applies to unsourced or false information, not true and well-sourced information which makes someone look bad. This information is already a significant part of public record and consciousness, and our failure to include it will do little or nothing to "protect" those involved. Seraphimblade 09:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this title (great idea, BTW), do not merge. I coudl rehash it all again, but I think T&E put it as well as anyone could. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> This will be kept here because it meets the notability requirements, only to be deleted because of WP:BLP concerns later and per the ArbCom remedies, brought up at deletion review and brought back here.... My opinion is there should be a cooling-off period with implementation of a Brian Peppers solution, per my reasoning at the DRV and because there is no deadline. The scandal does meet the notability guidelines, but it was relatively minor. And that's the primary continuing interest in this: a scandal involving the obnoxious Rachel Marsden. And that's why people are interested in this, not because of its effect on university administrative procedures. No one is champing at the bit to write University of Michigan speech code controversy, even though that was a big story in its day and we could no doubt find hundreds of sources on it. It could be a good article (and no doubt will be one day); but no one criticizes Wikipedia because it isn't covered here. It is important that we cover Monicagate currently; this is optional and can wait. JChap2007 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TIND seems to be about breaking news stories. I don't see how this applies here. You seem to be arguing in favor of WP:LETSLEEPINGDOGSLIE.. ~ trialsanderrors 07:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Let sleeping dogs lie" is not policy, just a good idea here. JChap2007 13:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability (nationwide attention from major media outlets), verifiability and impact on the university and beyond. ~~However, it needs some clean-up to make it less POV.~~ EDIT: It has been cleaned up quite a bit since my last visit to the page. In general, it's getting there so clean-up requirements are not as a big an issue now as it was before. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please go to it now, in the spirit of {{sofixit}}. The hatchet I wielded last night was primarily aimed at biographical details, and may not have been perfectly aimed even there. Improving an article during an AFD discussion is always a good idea. The article is only semi-protected, not fully protected. GRBerry 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that "keep and cleanup" should not be a permissible opinion in this discussion. BLP issues should be addressed during this five-day procedural reprieve and not expected to be solved afterwards. And it also shouldn't be addressed in this handwaving "there are problems in the article somewhere" manner, we had enough of that during the DRV. If there are objectionable passages they should be brought up here to make sure they're fixed prior to closure of this AfD. That's not to say that I don't think GRB did an aadmirable job cutting through the clutter (double negative). ~ trialsanderrors 20:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Keep this is notable and verifiable from the news coverage. And such instances are how school policies get reformed. Now we have to go BLP on this article.-- danntm ^T _C 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the history of the article, the version of Nov. 30 seems more explanatory and less confusing and cryptic. The erase button of the redactor may have been plied excessively to avoid including well sourced material about this incident. Edison 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- can't follow the details closely enough, but there is more than enough media attention to this (apparently notable) affair to allow the article to become well-sourced and NPOV. Sdedeo (tips) 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per trialsanderrors. I can't believe this is still ongoing. Resolute 02:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's notable, etc. However, let's watch it to make sure it doesn't become a platform for personal attacks against Rachel Marsden (for whom I hold no light) based on her political point of view. --Leifern 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Become? JChap2007 05:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a significant event with notability clearly demonstrated by nationwide media coverage. Disagree with any sort of merge option due to ArbCom ruling. bbx 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant event. Trialsanderrors conclusively proves its inclusion-worthiness above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This case has multiple non-trivial published works about it establishing notability, more so than most articles of this type. There's no reason to merge as the sources demonstrate merit as an individual subject. --Oakshade 05:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the references clearly demonstrate notability. Everyking 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJCurrie and Everyking. GreenJoe 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a significant event as per trialsanderrors. Sdalmonte 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete simply because everything in this article is copied from [28], [29] and possibly other places. The site reads "© 2006 California State Assembly". This deletion is without prejudice against an article being written in a Wikipedia editors own words though. W.marsh 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd E. Levine

The following was spotted on the talk page of this debate:

“

Almost the entire text of this page is virtually identical with that of Levine's official website. It therefore constitutes little more than PR. While some of the isolated facts may be true, the blatant copying precludes it from being a neutral, encyclopedic article. Anyone wishing to write a legitimate, multi-sourced and balanced article on Levine would have to start fresh, so it makes sense to delete this puff piece.

”

This is a procedural nomination for 66.27.73.102 (talk · contribs), so I have no opinion yet. MER-C 07:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - elected member of parliament of the most populous US state. Needs a rewrite, though. MER-C 08:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep tending to delete due to lack of sources and references Alf photoman 11:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does not require a complete rewrite, and elected officials for California are definitely notable, as with any other state. Like I've said in other discussions like this, avoiding systemic bias doesn't mean we delete people who are notable because equally notable people are affected by our bias. Add sources, though. -Amark moo! 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State assemblymen are not inherently notable, no other indication of notability. Reads like it was written by a staffer or campaign volunteer. Edeans 21:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on. Highways are inherently notable according to our current practice. -Amark moo! 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as Copyvio or Delete if it truly is identical to the assemblyman's webpage. I have had to do this with a number of PA State Reps who feel that copying thier self-serving bios is legit. If someone actually thinks this person is worthwhile, they will write something in their own words. Montco 03:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, put on cleanup or stubify. Passes WP:BIO, to wit, "Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Edeans, please be aware of the actual guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G11 and possible G12. A very close paraphrase of the assemblyman's webpages means that this may be a copyvio, and is certainly blatant advertising. If someone cares to write an article on Levine using neutral, third-party sources, that would be great, but this has to go and there is nothing worth salvaging. The creation summary ("Added content letting people know who Assemblymember Lloyd Levine is and what issues he's championed during his time in the California State Assembly") and the fact it was created by an SPA seem to me to be redolent of WP:COI and WP:ADS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, procedural non-admin closure. AfD is not the place to request a merger or redirect - simply discuss on the article talk page. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 launch

This article should be merged/redirected into the Xbox 360 article. A launch is a big deal: but it's something better suited for a video game wiki. We don't have launchs of other electronics/computers here, do we? (if we do, they should be merged as well in my opinion) Video games should be no exception, period. RobJ1981 07:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The extant article is almost excessively researched, but most if not all references seem to be from periodical articles or blogs, meaning the article is an agglomerate news column. If it doesn't warrant placement in a published book, it doesn't belong here. z ε n  08:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete Some of the more basic information should be merged into the main Xbox article, however, as pointed out by Zen., most of the article is simply a news feed. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete as per nom --John Krugger 11:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as the nominator said themselves "a launch is a big deal". Add onto that this is one of the biggest launches of last year, you get an article that has had massive news coverage and is highly notabile. There is a already a section on the Xbox page, with a link to Xbox 360 launch as the main article. Mathmo ^Talk 11:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. — Deckill er 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. --MaNeMeBasat 14:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; if information is merged, the article cannot be deleted; it has to be redirected to preserve the history. Please view the GFDL. — Deckill er 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main problem is that Wii launch and Xbox 360 launch are both at AFDs with different results, while PlayStation 3 launch is exempted. All three articles should have been grouped in a single AFD, otherwise there will be conflicts (this will be merged, and people will try to merge the Wii launch article having this as precedent, while others will try to recreate the Xbox 360 launch article because the Wii launch was kept). I suggest closing this and reopening the AFD with the three grouped as one. -- ReyBrujo 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close AFD is not the place to merge or redirect articles. --Farix (Talk) 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a decent article that documents a notable event in video game history; the beginning of the seventh- generation of video game consoles.SuperDT 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep a launch is appropriate when its a really major product that has been extensively documented.DGG 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All video game consoles (with the exception of a few) are major products, but none have launch articles (that I know of): except the 3 newest. The newest consoles should be no exception. They are much better suited for a video game wiki. Wikipedia shouldn't be a fan's guide to mass information on console launchs (or other launches for that matter: computers, DVD, Windows versions, etc). RobJ1981 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally the three newest would have articles about it, while older ones were launched in the early days of wikipedia (or even, long long before wikipedia existed). Thus this is just one reason why claiming "older consoles don't have and article for launch and thus this one shouldn't either" is not an argument at all. Mathmo ^Talk 08:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a valid section of the parent Xbox 360 article, which is already extremely long. A merge is the logical solution, but since that article is already so long, this provides a valid reason to keep this article. (addendum:) Secondary reason, no valid reasons for deletion have yet been given. —siro χ o 09:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far too much information to put into the main article. --- RockMFR 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii launch. --- RockMFR 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reason as above Porterjoh 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is very mediocre, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. AFD is not the cleanup crew. -Ryanbomber 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see absolutely nothing wrong with this well-sourced article about an important topic. The suggested merge target is long enough already. — brighterorange (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful, and way to big to merge.--Signor 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough info available to warrant standalone article. Everyking 06:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki dixit

Neo- or Protologism. No sources. Seems to be solely original research. Prod was removed without comment. -- Merope 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn neologism, 395 ghits. MER-C 08:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:NEO, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ronbo76 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:NEO. Besides, all Colbert wants is to get his coined words into Wikipeida. PT O 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:NEO with no relevant sources that refer to the subject of the article. - Chardish 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, JuJube, calling this stuff junk is an insult to the junk. Delete, then salt the earth and the moon... based on WP:NEO. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Banyan Tree 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homo orca-sapiens

Pure hoax. (Disputed prod.) -- RHaworth 08:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Grutness...wha? 09:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mathmo ^Talk 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've heard of this idea, but that's all it was when I heard it: an idea that humans may have derived from water-breathers instead of tree-dwellers. They certainly didn't call them by this name, or by any name at all. Even if this isn't a hoax, it's got scads of unverifiable OR in it. --UsaSatsui 12:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is theory, as the article suggests, surely that does not necessarily demand thatt it must be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.245.72 (talk • contribs) 07:43, February 3, 2007
  - You are probably referring to Aquatic ape theory. This article is clearly NOT about it. (Okay, N Shar was faster.) - Mike Rosoft 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we have articles on theories here. However, they still have the same requirements as any other article: Notability and Verifiability. Read those two links for how to establish those guidelines, but here's the Cliff Notes version: Find sources not connected to the original researcher that have written about the subject that establish it's notability, and cite them. You may want to read about the original research and conflict of interest guidelines too. And remember to sign your posts, please. --UsaSatsui 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverified theory; I'd ordinarily suggest a merge with the Evolution article... but I doubt its data would survive there for very long. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Hoax. So tagged. The only slightly legitimate related hypothesis is the aquatic ape hypothesis -- this one is pure nonsense. No sources provided. --N Shar 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utter nonsense. --Fire Star 火星 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced orca-sized nonsense. SkierRMH 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a work of fiction - orca sapiens is a creative writing exercise.GB 11:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. Possibly archive in BJAODN. - Mike Rosoft 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Home Factory

Non-notable book; article appears to have been created by the author himself. Was tagged prod; creator removed that tag without providing any new evidence of notability.

Delete.Bearcat 09:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability whatsoever --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 10:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book was published by a print-on-demand. Zero notability. janejellyroll 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is vanity article (includes photo of author with height!). Mathmo ^Talk 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zero non-wiki ghits. MER-C 11:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely as above. Katherine Tredwell 19:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination reason. Retiono Virginian 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Please note that the book's author is now making legal threats on the article talk page. Bearcat 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 06:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Score (magazine)

Procedural nominaton from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 28#Score (magazine) overturn. Abstain as procedural. Daniel.Bryant 09:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Daniel.Bryant 09:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm voting keep on the basis this article has been constantly deleted without ever being given a chance to improve. Now it has been sent straight to AfD after it passed the deletion review to allow it to exist. I believe it should be given a chance to exist and improve to a state where it could properly survive an AfD, I feel this is a justified feeling as it appears to be a magazine that has spun of numerous other magazines. Thus indicating that it is likely to be rather notabile, certainly at least one or more of those ones that have been spun off I suspect could even survive on their own thus surely the parent one ought to likewise survive. I'll wait and see. Mathmo ^Talk 10:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much as we have guidelines for pornographic stars, so we should probably follow similar guidelines for paraphernalia as well. I am not convinced that this article on a non-notable magazine could ever be brought up to code following WP:RS and WP:OR.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Non-notable? Dozens of porn stars have been featured in this magazine, many of these for the first time in any magazine ever. --84.137.55.143 10:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, just because a lot of porn stars' articles link to this article doesn't mean the magazine is notable. There needs to be some kind of assertion in the Score article, backed up by third-party sources.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The magazine does an (annual?) "Boob Cruise" where it gets a bunch of readers to go on a Caribbean cruise with the models for a week or two, that does make it slightly more notable than the average magazine in my opinion. Whether the cruise can be verified from third party sources is a different matter though, if it can I'll change to keep. One Night In Hackney 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable band. Only source not from the band's web site is simply a catalog entry for their only album. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshpit (french band)

Does not seem to satisfy WP:BAND Alex Bakharev 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have improved some parts of the article, so please see if it makes wikipedia submissions Keiron22 23:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands, the article does not meet WP:BAND. It states that the band is currently touring; how large is the tour? Providing a reliable source would also be very helpful. ShadowHalo 06:49, 5

February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the toruring part to more veriable claim. Keiron22 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, third party, reliably published sources are included. Addhoc 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, end of story. Sandstein 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Isabella of France. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle of England

There was no such person to have died in 1313. Edward II married Isabella of France in 1308. Roleplayer 10:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Though this article appears to be about Isabella of France, I think Isabella of England would be a better redirect. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, there are a handful of hits on this. Source? The dates are so wrong it's wildly misleading. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now - above book search appears to indicate more than one person. Addhoc 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mian

I couldn't find anything applicable on Google when I entered the subject's name (alone and in conjunction with his supposed books). There was likewise nothing for the "Newcott-Calderbury" award, of which it is said he has won three times. The author of the article has a clear WP:COI issue as the subject's father, but most pressing is the total lack of sources to meet WP:V and WP:N. janejellyroll 10:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless problems with WP:V and WP:N can be solved by end of this AfD Alf photoman 11:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "Newcott-Calderbery" seems to be a deliberate portmanteau of the Newbery Medal and the Caldecott Medal, so hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newcott-Calderbery contest reference. Mike Mian 10:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, not a hoax (I must have searched on the spelling given in the nom). Here, my guess is confirmed:

"On October 26th, 2006, the Pleasanton Library held its 31st annual Newcott Caldebery Award ceremony. The name of the Library's summertime book writing contest is taken from the prestigious national Newbery and Caldecott children's book awards."[30]

This award is local to Pleasanton, California, thus not notable. I'm sure your son is a joy and delight and you're very proud, but an award given by one public library is not sufficient for our criteria for biographies. --Dhartung | Talk 17:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete worth keeping this "award" in mind for possible future attempts to use this award. All holders of the actual award are of course N., both authors and books. DGG 06:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete it is a very minor award and i thought Wikipedia was all about the long tail. forgive my mistake. i assume DGG is saying "award" in the same way as an Oscar is "The Best Picture Award", as i'm sure a self proclaimed memeber of the intelligensia has more eclectic tastes. FYI the book judges are published authors not merely librarians. Dhartung, wrong again i'm afraid, it is open to any child, however entrants typically come from the northern californian east-bay, where libraries host and publicize the contest, you may have noticed that the 2007 award is being hosted in Livermore, CA my link, and your reference is Pleasanton, CA. You'll have to forgive the USA educational system for the misuse of "its" for what should have been "the". Mike Mian 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Nations

The predecessor to Starcraft. Prodded by me, removed on the basis that as the predecessor of Starcraft it is notable. I think not. Perhaps it could be included in the StarCraft article, but I'd rather just see it deleted. Most of the 247 google hits aren't in English (not that that matters), and some do not even deal with the game. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactley Wikipedia provides the best and pretty much only details on this game I got my information from WarCraft 2 which had concept art a trailer details and quite simply it would be a huge loss if we deleted this article how else will someone find out information on this game? Jamhaw 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]
Merge to main article on Starcraft. Walton monarchist89 18:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the only thing on the internet with much details on it.Jamhaw 16:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. Although a merging could be appropriate, I have been unable to find any proper references for this at all being true. While not accusing it of being a hoax, inclusion in Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A canceled game with no reliable sources on the Internet unquestionably fails WP:GAMES. I would say "merge", but a badly-written article with no sources does not warrant merging. - Chardish 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've barely heard of this, but this is unsourced and unenlightening. Many games go through different iterations before they are finished, witness the future/past mash-up that is Quake. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one hell of a long AfD! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template added by yours truly, to attract some attention. This needs closing. Now, sleep for me! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zrbtt

Unsourced page discussing a neologism from The Cosby Show that appears to be NN beyond the TV show, if it ever was during the show. (additional comment added later) I would support merging and redirecting per Jeepday's suggestion below. 23skidoo 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Blowing a raspberry I don't watch TV and it is a term that is familiar to me. It does not get a lot of google hits as Zrbtt, but (Results 11 - 20 of about 11,900 for Zerbert) Jeepday 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 11:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even used enough to put in Wictionary or to merge or redirect. If there's an article about this episode of The Cosby Show then maybe in can be merged there, but otherwise I say pbttttt. Citicat 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have merged Zrbtt to Blowing a raspberry, a simple erase and redirect is all that is need. Jeepday 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blowing a raspberry.--Kubigula (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Mann

Delete. Not notable per WP:BIO. He's only written some non-notable articles that do not merit a bio. Mnemopis 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you take a look at [[31]] there are many you could state as not notable per WP:BIO. However, many of these people are playing important roles in the growth of podcasting. Scott.cropper 17:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC) — User:Scott.cropper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I also disagree. Within the contemporary trend of "Lifehacking", Merlin Mann is a major player. Applying the 100 year test, someone with an interest in the evolution of personal productivity schemes would find such an entry relevant and notable due to the stark contrast of Merlin's methods to more prevalent high-tech implementations. Furthermore, if we strictly apply the notability criteria the wikipedia will have no content on contemporary figures that aren't pop stars or politicians. This is a grey zone, and I am of the opinion that this particular entry should stay. Jay Ploss, 11:26, 1 February 2007 (EST) — User:66.36.156.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 11:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to Scott.cropper, please see this and this. J Milburn 11:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 43 Folders is a Top 100 blog. It's often six or half-a-dozen whether a blogger article should be about the blogger-person or the blog (or the podcast, few exist independently of some sort of blog). There are numerous GNA results for 43folders, 43 folders, a bit less for Merlin Mann (discounting overlap). Mann is closely associated with the Hipster PDA, which has gotten plenty of WP:N coverage independently (e.g., but also for a popular e-mail productivity process.[32] I think it makes sense to have the main article at his name due to the varying back-references. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a Forbes profile as a "Web Celeb 25", an interview of Mann (and 2 others) by David Allen [33], a couple paragraphs in the NYT Mag. His podcast was a TIME pick[34]. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially in light of his recent podcasting efforts. He's a frequent host of MacBreak and MacBreak Weekly, which are notable as part of the TWiT network, one of the first major podcasting networks. - Flooey 05:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a huge contributor to the fields of productivity (via 43folders.org), podcasting (TWiT programs), and web entertainment (That Phone Guy). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustADude (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, he is on several famous podcasts, has a popular blog, was in the Forbes Web Celeb 25, etc.
Keep, though the article is lacking in some detail, it was valuable for me when I was trying to find out some details about this person.

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Stink (Gilmore Girls)

A long, rambling play-by-play of the minutae of an episode of a television show, riddled with gramatical errors and misspellings, which would require a complete re-write to be useful. I cannot imagine a reasonable person expecting this kind of poorly written quasi-stream-of-consiousness drivel to have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia, and strongly believe that this kind of "article" reflects poorly upon Wikipedia. Salad Days 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice towards recreation. I'm generally in favor of episode articles, but this needs enough cleanup that deleting it and starting over is probably best. BryanG^(talk) 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Just stub the thing for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gilmore Girls episodes per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." (Emphasis mine.) Fully agree with the "poorly written quasi-stream-of-consiousness drivel" assessment. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and cleanup. (and as such I'm taking a quick look at it now to see what I can do to improve it before going ot bed) Mathmo ^Talk 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 16:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per previous AfD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The related AfD's result was delete[35], not keep. Salad Days 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls) and WP:EPISODE. - Peregrine Fisher 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Peregrine Fisher mentioned, the existence of these articles has already been debated, with a consensus of Keep. However, I do agree that the rambling "plot summary" nature of the article needs to be pared down. It should be condensed down to 500-1000 words, and more attention should be made to the non-plot elements of the episode, than just the storyline. --El on ka 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote keep, as all it needs is some expanding. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 20:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, if this article is going to be kept, it needs contraction, not expansion. --Metropolitan90 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubbify quickly - I am not generally in favor of episode articles but I won't fight their spread. However, someone who has seen this episode should delete this text and write a 2-sentence plot summary asap. The text as is won't even help anyone cut it down, it's simply too sprawling.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but simplify. AFD is supposed to be a place to discuss articles that due to their subject matter are believed inappropriate for Wikipedia; I think it's been pretty well established that articles on episodes of major TV series are appropriate given past AFDs and WP:EPISODE. Improving content is another matter. 23skidoo 06:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is reducing to a couple of sentences what we want to do with these overly long plots? It makes sense to me, and it's doable, maybe. - Peregrine Fisher 07:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. {{cleanup}} is required, however. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please candidate is for cleaining up but not erasure yuckfoo 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Delete per WP:NOT, WP:EPISODE, WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. They're all quite clear on this, can't see any rationale for keeping this as a separate article in a simplified form. Out of universe aspects would establish a rationale. Hiding Talk 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current content as a copyright violation. Plots themselves are copyrighted. Pages which are mere plot summaries violate fair use. Redirect the page to the parent show per WP:EPISODE until and unless someone finds enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have removed the plot summary from the page per copyright rules. It is still visible in the page history pending conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk)
Keep per past precedent of keeping GG episode articles. I have no idea how to get individual episode articles beyond the level of crap and/or stub, but previous discussions indicate it is possible. Subject passes WP:N criteria (reviews, etc). --- RockMFR 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you know of any reviews of this episode, please point them out. But if you mean reviews of the series, those wouldn't help here. This article isn't about the series. Pan Dan 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning of Extraordinary Machine and Hiding. WP:NOT is policy. The article violates that policy. And there is no sign that there are any reliable, independent sources that we could use to add "real-world context and sourced analysis" to the article as required by WP:NOT. No need to redirect (unlikely search term) or merge (what information is there to merge?). Responding to folks above who cite "precedent" as a reason for keeping: Wikipedia is not a court. Each subject is treated individually, on its own merits, i.e. are there enough reliable sources independent of the subject to write an article. Even WP:AFDP emphasizes that "This page is not policy." If people find arguments made at past AfD's convincing and relevant to this AfD, then repeat those arguments. But outcomes of past AfD's have nothing to do with this one. Anyway, precedent is not uniform on episode articles, see this (cited by Salad Days) or this. Pan Dan 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and restore the plot summary. Deletionist extremism and misinterpretation of policy have been at work here. Everyking 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to expand? I'd appreciate an explanation of how you believe policy is misinterpreted. I don't think accusations of deletionist extremism help anyone, either, really. Hiding Talk 11:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the plot summary it's a violation of Wikipedia policy and possibly U.S. law. Without the plot summary (i.e. as of this writing) it's completely devoid of information. If anyone rewrites the article to describe the episode from an out-of-universe perspective without a detailed plot summary, drop me a line and I'll take a second look. —An gr 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for flagrant violation of WP:NOT, no valid reason to keep has been presented (note: WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep). "Keep and cleanup" is not a valid recommendation - I believe you mean "Delete unless cleaned up". To the people who seem to think this is a discussion on whether the subject merits and article, may I refer them to the title of this process, which is Articles for deletion, not Subjects for deletion. Chris cheese whine 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one small step for deletion, one giant leap for improvement. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't the relevant criteria for episode articles. This one fails NOT and EPISODE in that it is an overly long and detailed plot summary with nothing else. I'd support keeping it if it had some analysis or other real world context, but as nothing but a plot summary, it's not encyclopedic and a potential copyright issue. I'd have no objection to merging a much shorter summary into an episode list, and I'd reconsider my vote if this article was improved to address these issues. "Per previous AFD/precedent" isn't a valid argument as wikipedia doesn't operate on precedent - consensus to keep some episode articles doesn't imply that there's consensus to keep all of them. Nor does policy say that all episode articles are inherently worth keeping - it says they should only exist if there's good reason, specifically that they are needed because there's sufficient info beyond the plot summary that it would be too much for an article on the season or the show. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonjump

This reads like original research, and google throws up nothing, as far as I could see. I am relatively sure I have come across this phrase before though, so I didn't think it would be appropriate to speedy this. J Milburn 11:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 11:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not relevant. Turgidson 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triniteers

As informative as this article is, I don't agree that it meets notability, as a single chapter fraternity of some 15-20 members at a small university. Furthermore, it's no longer even recognized by the university (here and the lack of inclusion here). To preserve its content at a more appropriate location, I've copied the material to the Trinity University wiki. Tijuana Brass 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The historical relevance as being the first social club at Trinity University should be noted. The fact that the university does not recognize the fraternity is inconsequential. The United States does not recognize Cuba, but that doesn't make it unimportant as a country. The level of membership also should not be called into play. Groups at Yale such as Skull and Bones usually have small memberships, but their entries are not up for deletion. I believe there is merit in capturing the history of this group that should not be overlooked. User:sfrancis353

None of those are particularly compelling reasons to keep the article. For starters, I'm pretty certain that the Triniteers weren't the first social club at Trinity; the school had been around much earlier than 1936 and a cursory glance through books on its history mention plenty of groups and clubs that could lay claim to the title of a "social club". In order to make that claim, you'll need to verify it. Second, the United States-Cuba bit isn't an appropriate comparison in this instance; we're not talking about a nation of millions whose existence is recognized by nearly any person who can claim a basic knowledge of geography. Third, Skull and Bones have made impressions upon politics, business and popular culture in a number of documented ways which are recognized by the American public at large (in some form or another) — thereby laying a claim of notability — while the Teers have not.

Concerning your last point, though, yes, there is merit in capturing the history of this group — which is why it is now preserved as an article on the Trinity Wiki, a place that will allow articles that may not garner the amount of importance required for inclusion here. Furthermore, I'm sure that there are sources at Trinity itself which could use the research of someone who's willing to put in the work. Tijuana Brass 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction -- First men's social/service group at Trinity University (aka fraternity). All non-academic based fraternities/sororities at Trinity University are local to that school. No national charters that aren't academic related have really been allowed to take root there. This creates a very unique atmosphere at the school and has helped define the history and character of it. The names of the groups themselves such as Triniteers, Spurs, and Bengal Lancers show the uniqueness that these groups have. One major question I have based on this deletion criteria is inclusion in wikipedia of Trinity's Kappa Kappa Delta fraternity. This also is a Trinity University only fraternity. The main reason I wrote the Triniteer article is based on the inclusion of this other small lesser known fraternity. Seeing them linked to the Trinity University site, and also seeing mention of the Triniteers on the Trinity University wikipedia site without a link made me feel that there indeed there was some relevance in capturing the history. Within the List_of_social_fraternities_and_sororities there is an entire section pointing to local groups that only have one chapter, are these more relevant even though there numbers are the same, and in many cases the schools are just as small? I understand your points and obviously the final decision is up to the powers that be, but at the same time I want to give the Triniteers a fighting chance. User:sfrancis353

Hopefully someone with more experience with Greek-related articles on the Wiki will drop by and give some input — I don't think this AfD should be closed with the input of only two editors, and you make a pretty good case. We'll see where it goes.

By the way, the KKD link was actually an external one linking to the Trinity Wiki, rather than an internal link to an article on Wikipedia. Easy mistake to make. Tijuana Brass 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 11:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not notable; there is a lot of precedent for deleting articles about individual frat chapters, for example. Furthermore, nearly every college-club-based AfD involves someone who says "if we delete this, we have to delete Skull and Bones too!" which is a spurious comparison.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete only occasional frat chapters are notable, and not necessarily in the positive sense. DGG 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, vote stacking votes not given consideration. Jersey Devil 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EWCF

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

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

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

Non-notable website that fails WP:V, WP:RS. Related article EWCF Carnage has been up for deletion a few days ago while another related article was recently deleted as well. oakster TALK 12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP as well. MER-C 12:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, non-notable. One Night In Hackney 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable site, as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ as this is on the NYSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.149.58 (talk • contribs)

Er, the link on the page to the NYSE comes back as being invalid, searches for EWCF and ECWF come up blank... Tony Fox (arf!) 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NYSE code is only there because the infobox was taken off the World Wrestling Entertainment article and modified. -- oakster TALK 18:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ page is being updated. The website it covers has over 25,000 page views and a search for EWCF on Google brings up more than half of the results on page 1 being about this very site. The EWCF is very relevant and I have not been able to update the Wiki page with all of the proper info. The NYSE was not put there by me and will be removed.... Kingsoprano718 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's fifth edit -- oakster TALK 00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not as 25,000 is enough to stay.* koberulz
~~Do Not Delete~~ this page because with all the page views it as accumulated and the history behind it as well as all the above reasons, this wiki page his worthy to stay. wildfox —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.213.241.35 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Do Not Delete* EWCF has been known as a legendary thing within a measly 8 Months. Remember when Wikipedia began where articles would be a quick description? The site has been a phenomenom like Shoop Da Whoop or WWE. That is why we should keep it Mechajalacen
Delete Non notable website, just posting its information here as an advertisement. Kris Classic 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ This is not advertisement, this is a big hit with the fans. Just let it get a few months and then your thoughts will change. Tonza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.43.73 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nomination. Non-notable. RobJ1981 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN site. To all the anon IP's, this is not a vote, it's a discussion. TJ Spyke 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ Notable Site SVR-MAN
~~Do Not Delete~~ Notable site Darkfire
~~Do Not Delete~~ Notable site because EWCF has been basically the equivilant to youtube. Shorty
- Comment The equivilant to Youtube? Wow, I am surprised a website most of us have never heard of before is worth millions of dollars. Kris Classic 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ Because EWCF is the best. Dylan79(EWCF Fourms)
- Coment A fan saying it is the best is not a good reason to keep it. Kris Classic 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ For Goodness sakes, EWCF has alot of people viewing it each day. Plus today, their was a crap load of episode information added. Teyro Law
~~Do Not Delete~~ EWCF is Notable. JT Jordan
~~Do Not Delete~~ EWCF is Notable James Jones
~~Do Not Delete~~ EWCF is Notable Ace "EWCF Fan" Indigo
~~Do Not Delete~~ EWCF is Notable Tyshawn Govan
~~Do Not Delete~~ EWCF is a site that at least has been having more page views than ECWF. Kelvin Dangelo

Note: The do not delete vote stacking posts are by 71.83.43.73 (talk · contribs) –– Lid^(Talk) 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any proof of notability? A lot of pages get many views, but that doesn't mean that they deserve or need an entry on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs).

Comment Yes they do
Comment Plus, I am *Adding information to it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.83.43.73 (talk • contribs).
- Comment You can add all the information to it that you want, it still doesn't make in notable.Kris Classic 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 14:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced per above searches. Addhoc 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any random kid could come along and make a website based on a game. No real sort of "organisation". There is no value in the content whatsoever. All the content consists of here is listings of what happens on each and every individual episode of "EWCF Carnage" - which has already been stated as unworthy content on the WWE Raw page. --SteelersFan UK06 17:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh chilli

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would just Prod it, but there APPEARS to be a number of films by this name, as well as a couple of people. Could possibly make a valid disambiguation or an article, but, in its current state, should be deleted. J Milburn 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a non-notable neologism. MER-C 12:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post neologisms. --sunstar net^talk 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a regional/dialect neologism; but agree with J Milburn that it could be a disambig page due to alternate uses. SkierRMH 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Esbeck

I don't believe this law professor's notability has been sufficiently asserted. Unless notability established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Named professor at the main state university campus in his state, has been credited with important contributions to federal law, looks notable to me. It doesn't have to explicitly say "he is notable for..." for it to be an assertion of notability. —David Eppstein 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eppstein points. Also, he is a Chair. I support WP:PROF. Tparameter 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:PROF and/or WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edeans 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A full professor in a major law school holding a named chair. That means three or more successive peer-reviews by already-qualified academics. We do not need to peer-review notability nor are we qualified. Fortunately, the faculty at universities do it for us. The only evidence relevant otherwise would be a negative peer-review.
comment--WP:PROF I remind everyone that WP:PROF is a proposal, not guideline, not even an accepted guideline, and certainly not policy; it is still being actively discussed on its talk page, and is of no authority whatsoever. Says so right at the top, read it for yourself. DGG 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree with the sentiment that the peer review he must have gone through to get to his present position must have been more thorough than anything we can do here, but I would also argue that he does clearly pass WP:PROF. Specifically, a named professorship at a major university is or should be considered to be "a notable award or honor" as in WP:PROF item 6. —David Eppstein 06:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above searches. Addhoc 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Pea ceNT 09:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lustmord

This musician doesn't seem sufficiently notable to me. Unless notability established, 'delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as the founder of the dark ambient genre[36]. He passes the following criteria of WP:MUSIC: (1) Online non-commercial biograhies include [37], [38], and [39]; (4) He toured with Clock DVA in England, Germany and the US as confirmed on his website; (5) He has been signed with Hydra Head Records, a major New Mexico record label, for the most of his career. He also has articles on the Russian Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia, and Finnish Wikipedia. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michaelas10. Certainly a well-known figure in his genre. Albums available at Amazon, CD Universe etc. Ac@osr 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as any following editors performing research on the subject will vote keep. —siro χ o 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crash bandicoot bosses

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and articles should not contain video game guides. riana_dzasta 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. So tagged. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't qualify as patent nonsense, so I've removed the tag for now. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information per nominator, and this includes POV'ish walkthroughs and guides. I don't feel any of the information found there deserves to be merged with Crash Bandicoot except possibly boss explanations. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote from the "article", "Here is the boss guide". Need I say any more? 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. JuJube 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as game guide. You need to do that just five times to finish off this evil doctor. That's five votes. Is that enough? -Freekee 04:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Merge this article to Crash Bandicoot or any of the appropriate versions of the Crash Bandicoot articles. --RebSkii 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oneirophobia

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Jvhertum 13:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki, to wikitionary. There doesn't appear to be an entry for it yet. Malla nox 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedily. Copyvio, not a dictionary, etc. --Yamla 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, although I don't feel a 4-word definition is a copyvio. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki without prejudice to someone (including the editor who wrote this definition) writing about Oneirophobia - the above book search appears to indicate there is sufficient information avaialable. Addhoc 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Daniel.Bryant 10:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Acro-brats

Procedural nomination for de-prodded, re-prodded article. Original nomination text follows.

This may not qualify for a CSD A7, but there is no way that it comes close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability (music) ... songs appearing in "bonus tracks" (i.e., not "featured") on video games is their only claim to notability, and that's not on the list of criteria ... redlinked Record Label is another indication of lack of notability ... no WP:V citations whatsoever. —72.75.126.37 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Flyingtoaster1337 09:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:N House of Scandal 09:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More to the point, it fails WP:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. --72.75.104.44 10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What are you talking about? The notability page says nothing about "bonus tracks" being differentiated, the songs are clearly featured in the game, which is what the criteria is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by hoponpop69 (talk • contribs).
- Quoting from WP:MUSIC ... "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)" --72.75.104.44 15:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's a difference between a game based around music, and a tv theme song. Because a tv theme has one group, and a game like guitar hero has so many, it would be impractical to list band information on all the groups on the one guitar hero page. You can't compare the two.Hoponpop69 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it's pretty easy to compare ... being the theme for a network television show is notable (although still not notable enough for an article if it is the only claim), while being one of four dozen songs selected for a video game (which does not provide even a fraction of the exposure, since people must pay money in order to hear it) is nowhere close to being notable ... if there are some WP:RS citations, then they should have been in the article, because lack of WP:V is why it is in AfD now. --72.75.104.44 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep- I wouldn't underplay the importance of being an extra song in guitar hero. Yes it is extra but it's not just a fun little thing to be played in the background of the actual game play, it's a continuation of the actual game play in a significant way. To compare it to songs in other games where music isn't the focus would be unfair. Aside from that they are a real band that plays real shows and has two real albums avalible for purchase, one of which is on the very real iTunes music store. Don't get me wrong it's not that hard to get on the iTunes store, but it does take a certain amount of notability. This isn't just some band passing out demos to their five friends. You can find reviews of their music from legitimate sources. So yes they aren't the "theme song" of guitar hero per say, but they aren't only guitar hero. And techincally they are the song played on the title screen of the game so... 63.139.168.233 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - Seems very arbitrary to want to delete this entry. A gigging band with two albums available for purchase at multiple outlets and they're featured prominently in two successful video games. Why wouldn't this qualify? 68.236.94.234 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 14:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the above mentioned reasons. Mathmo ^Talk 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very suggestion of deleting this article, based on the reasons given, needs to be called into question when not all of the GH bands are receiving the same scrutiny. In fact, it smacks of a personal attack/vendetta against this band. The entry for Graveyard BBQ, for example, isn't being challenged and let's examine the facts: they have only one album released and available for purchase as opposed to The Acro-brats' two CDs, Graveyard BBQ has been on only one of the Guitar Hero games while The Acro-brats have been on both; The Acro-brats have played more shows, and so on and so on. To me there's no question of whether or not this entry is valid. The only question is what was the motivation behind the individual who called it into question in the first place. 24.218.220.18 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: The band COULD be notable for the GH work, but the page itself is entirely unsourced. If they're notable, surely there's more that could be said about this band then brief mentions of their two albums and a brief trivia note. The 'personal vendetta' idea is taking this way too personally; I have no personal interest in this article, I just think it fails Wikipedia's policies. If there's a less notable article that shouldn't be there, then nominate it for AfD as well (see also: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) Tiakalla 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GH makes them notable by my judgment. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 15:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yurdanur Salman

Delete not notable, same author as Mehmet Murat İldan. --Wiendietry 12:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after hesitating. There is only a stub on tr:Yurdanur Salman, that was created by Muratildan himself. It hasn't been amended or corrected by any turkish contributor, thus I have clear doubts about her notoriety in Turkey. There are few Google hits, and it looks like Mural Ildan has created her article here more to promote or jutify that he's famous (and has his books translated in english, info for a possibly interested editor). My vote here is not final, I will review it in a few days if some more info comes. Clem23 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

weak keep note the link is acctually hereseems to establish she definitely works as translator, dunno if they're notable just for several translations tho. ⇒ bsnowball 08:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tough one. First of all she is not the same person as Ildan, let me clear that. She is a well-known professor of Bogazici University, one of the best universities in Turkey. She is also a translation guru, one of the best translators this country has ever seen (imho, of course). She is far more famous than Mehmet Murat İldan, that i can say without hesitation. But, i don't see translation works and academic career as a sign of notability. Because of that i'm for deleting this article, although i voted "Keep" for İldan, the self-promoting one. I know it's not fair, but what is?--Vito Genovese 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your info. This whole case turns to be impossible to understand. Your comments would make shift my vote to weak delete, and stronger delete for Ildan, because he clearly violates the wikipedia principles, not considering the specific criteria. But I wonder if anybody still understands something about all that case now... Clem23 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as well as all articles by this vanity author. Prittglue 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTI am sad to see that the above people, excluding Vito Genovese, do not know anything about Turkey. Yurdanur Salman is a very important translator! She has translated several important books. Now see the sites one by one. Book Anthology in this site she has 18 books listed! You know nothing about her!..
She has translated Salman Rüshdi, did you know that? İmge Bookstore NetBook Store She has translated John Berger. Do you know John Berger? She has at least 25 books translated. Can you understand the importance of this?.. My dear friends, you can never ignore her big works! I am sad to see the above childish comments on her... Please don't talk about the issues which ypu have no knowledge at all. She is a good published translator and no one can dare to prove the opposite!.. I am really disappointed to see the ignorant comments on her. Tagorgora —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.224.26.122 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Though this biography about her has been used as at part of Ildans selfpromoting spam, she should not be deleted just to get even, she seems to have her own reputation. --Orland 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 14:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a notable academic in her field. In addition to the turkish translation source above, WorldCat shows 36 results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Noted academic in her field and in Turkey. At most this needs a cleanup or cites-needed tag. --lquilter 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consider WP:PROF. No awards, no independent sources attesting her notability, no broad body of publications. Mr.K. (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not very impressive, I must say. Mr.K. (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless sourced per above searches that confirm existence, but don't provide multiple, non-trivial sources. Addhoc 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Planet

Non-notable, also possible spam. Jvhertum 14:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep, isn't spam and this place does exist (though never been there). Note that it says "indoor snow recreation centre located in Silverdale on the Hibiscus Coast". The Hibiscus Coast is at the far north end of New Zealand, hence very warm. And there has been an indoor ski slope built there! So none too surprisingly it has been subject of a large amount of media attention. I've you haven't found it when I've woken up I'll look it up myself, but for now I'm off to sleep (is after 6am over here!). Mathmo ^Talk 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this definite spam. Edeans 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep "Snowplanet is the only all-year snow resort in the Southern hemisphere." -Freekee 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep How can this even be spam? It has a link to the official site with photographs of the attraction, both inside and out. This is not spam - I simply started a page on Snow Planet because one hadn't been made yet. --KylePIB 05:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but don't salt the earth just yet. Work on this in userspace, because it SOUNDS spammy right now, even if it isn't intended that way. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources that meet WP:RS are provided, at this point it looks like non notable spam. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete that will change to keep if WP:N sources can be provided. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the reasons given previously. - Axver 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per this search... Addhoc 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sethtoberfest

Non-notable. Just 7 Google hits, 6 of which are from the same site. Jvhertum 14:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - checked Google search and agree: non-notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HagenUK (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Sorry! Forgot to include the "four tildes": HagenUK 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. S .D. ¿п? § 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, possible hoax. Edeans 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why the quantity of google results is the measure of a subject's "notability"? This is admittedly an obscure entry, but if obscurity constitutes grounds for deletion, is the implication that something needs to be already known in order to give it the chance to be made known?--Grampa 07:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the guideline on notability and policy on verifiability. We need reliable independent sources to verify the article, and right now those don't appear to exist. —Cel ithemis 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Axina

This proposed deletion has been contested. Unverifiable, appears to be either a violation of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" or a hoax. No references or sources are cited, and no ghits for this car either. --sunstar net^talk 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no referencing for this anywhere online that I can find and I strongly suspect that it's a hoax. The article's creator had his autoblock unblock request declined after the first account was blocked for "trolling".--Kchase T 17:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either crystalballery or a hoax. --Dennisthe2 20:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of above. Edeans 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as recreation of deleted content _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The S.C. European Society of Oxford University

Despite the grandiose nature of this article, it strikes me this is just another university society whose notability is not established in the article. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. This has already been discussed at

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.C. European Society Oxford University

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.C. European Society of Oxford University

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.C. European Society of Oxford University (second nomination)

and deleted at

The European Society of Oxford University

plus at least one other AfD nomination I cannot find. Then maybe look at some way of preventing its return. Nuttah68 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nuttah, didn't realise that. Have now speedied and protected the page to prevent further recreation. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel cars

The following was left on this article's talk page by Interiot:

I removed the prod because its notability is at the least unclear. I thought proding it before too, until I ran across these things:

There are 4 different language versions of the article on wikipedia (this en one, de:Pixel cars, fr:Mangacars, pl:Mangacars), with no real similarity between them, and the others are longer than the enwiki one
Googling for "manga-cars" gets 130k hits, "pixel-cars" gets 55k hits.
While reliable, non-trivial, independent sources don't jump out at you when you do the searches, what you do see is a range of forums dedicated to the concept (10k members, 2k members, 2k members, 1.5k members)

The subject doesn't really personally appeal to me (at all), but the above makes me think it's somewhat of a widespread concept, and that it should be put through AfD at least. --Interiot 03:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- IslaySolomon | talk 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very commonly misused term, without any reliable sources nor definitions. People who practice this are lifeless IMHO anyway. --=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know much about this, but a quick search seems to show that it is valid and notable. MightyAtom 06:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced per above searches. A google search confirms existence, but doesn't provide the multiple, non-trivial thir-party sources required for WP:N. Addhoc 12:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My loger explanation was victim of an edit conflict. Tikiwont 12:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to pixel art, given proper context an article is unnecessary ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortshire

Non-notable fictional county. I would merge it someplace, but I don't think any books it's in have articles. "mortshire" -wikipedia yields about 100 unique G hits. [40]. Was de-prod'd without comment. -- Fang Aili ^talk 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless, even Edward Gorey doesn't link to it. Edeans 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to the wondrous Edward Gorey. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect in case anybody decides to look it up to see if it's a real place? -Freekee 03:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 19:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced per above searches. Addhoc 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Timmon

The subject of the article appears to harangue the local council (and others), is slightly eccentric and attempted and to bring a lawsuit for discrimination but failed. None of this equates to notability. Nuttah68 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Basically, article says that she's a person known by people who know her. Citicat 18:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn local eccentric. Edeans 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - above searces indicate sufficient news coverage. Addhoc 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect the CTC articles to the respective CFB articles. Any mergers may take place from the history. Sandstein 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSTC Greenwood

This is one of many Royal Canadian Air Cadet summer training centres across Canada. Only one of the others has a separate article (I'm also nominating it for deletion). Neither of these is notable in its own right. Sancho McCann 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sole aim of the article appears to be to get rid of the red-wikilinks in the RCAC page list. Nothing notable in this stub Arnoutf 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tentative keep. I've been tring to standardize the articles for several Canadian military bases in the past week. Some of these cadet training centres are co-located on the bases and the information being provided about the cadet facilities was sometimes overwhelming the military information about the bases. I created both CSTC articles as part of an effort to direct these editors in a standardized consistent direction, in contrast to what has been taking place. There are many so-called "place-holder" stub articles on Wikipedia that have been maintained for various reasons and I think these CSTC articles will fill in over time.Plasma east 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn cadetcruft. Edeans 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CFB Greenwood, which contains all of this information, smerge CSTC Cold Lake to CFB Cold Lake. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above searches unless sourced. Addhoc 13:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Re-direct to appropriate Canadian military bases. Merge notable content into a section appearing on each correpsonding Canadian military base. For example, CSTC Cold Lake should re-direct to CFB Cold Lake, CSTC Greenwood should be re-directed to CFB Greenwood. Luke! 21:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Jordi Lassus

Unsourced autobiograpical vanispamcruftisement, questionable encyclopedic notability. Note the use of the word "rumoured". Contested prod. MER-C 07:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this one may be more notable than appears, possible COI aside. She is the new manager of Jon Secada [41], and that is of some notability. I would say it looks rather borderline. Part Deux 08:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Skates in as notable as above. Tag for cleanup. Vassyana 12:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable in my opinion, and a vanity article. PKT 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. Edeans 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get no more than 8 unique Ghits, whether for "Darius Lassus", "Darius Jordi Lassus", or "Jordi Lassus, strip out the wiki mirrors, and there are no non-trivial mentions of the subject. Ohconfucius 08:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article has already been speedily deleted by User:CesarB as attack page. Metropolitan90 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wellsville High School

I propose this article for deletion on the grounds that it contains large amounts of vulgarity.

-Steptrip 17:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But someone wanting to keep really should have cleaned this thing up... half it is a copy and paste from the school's webpage. I have clipped it down to an acceptable stub. W.marsh 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi School Of Public Health

Subschool of a non-major university(no precident for keeping) with no particular asserstion of notability. Prod contested without reason. Completely unverified(reason for prodding). verification not added. i kan reed 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Edeans 22:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no evidence of being a "sub-school". Independently recognized[42] as the "first graduate school of public health in Vietnam" (and apparently still the only). International collaboration.[43][44] Recipient of grant through widely covered US-Vietnam agreement.[45]

More in English. --Dhartung | Talk 02:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the Eglish language website. Now a university, and that is sufficient. Unjustified prod--it should have been realized this was contestable. DGG 06:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't speedy keep now that there's a delete vote, but i'll still withdraw my nomination, if these references actually go in the article where they belong. i kan reed 14:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Cleanup and Improve References. The school appears to be prima facie notable, though the article needs substantial improvement. WMMartin 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above references and search results. Addhoc 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). - Daniel.Bryant 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Expose

A completely non notable group «»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is it non-notable? They are a group on ECW: a new group, but either way it's a current group. I think we should wait before just deleting this. If the group doesn't last long: then delete it. There is no need to delete it now: it's doing no harm. RobJ1981 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are they notable? Kellys Expose segments were hardly notable for her own page, all this is is that times three. It can be (and is) mentioned on the separate pages.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) page for now. If subject stays around or expands then this can be restored, however there's a good chance they'll be gone before they can make any sort of lasting impression. Citicat 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable in the scope of things at this point, maybe reconsider after a set period. If tag team champions page's are deleted (and rightfully so), then there is no reason for this to be there, that's far less notable. Booshakla 21:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delele Three untalented bimbos dancing for 2 minutes? Talk about cruft. TJ Spyke 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, It would make more sense, if they keep doing this (and it seems they will), to add a "recurring segments" section to the ECW article like what's on the RAW and SmackDown! ones. Unless these three girls suddenly become a womans division there's just no need for an article all about them.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of recreating the article should this group become more notable. As an aside, I support user Bdve's suggestion to add a "recurring segments" section to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). Jeff Silvers 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They appeared again on ECW, so it seems like it will be a continuous thing, so I say keep it. Kris Classic 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Three appearances already and likely many more. Tim Long 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they appear does not make them notable. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this search Addhoc 15:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine results from five sites?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was under the impression WP:N merely required multiple third party sources. Could you be more specific? Addhoc 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those are are mentions that they do exist and have appeared. That doesn't make them notable, because they haven't done anything worth noting. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Addhoc's research: no non-trivial reporting exists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Apparently the nomination wasn't wanted. My apologies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont Baptist College

I found this incomplete while relisting debates. See the article talk page for a discussion regarding plagiarism. That seems to be unfounded. Absolutely no opinion here; purely procedural nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain why you consider this to be "worthy" of deletion. It is a well-founded college and graduate school. It has been around for over 60 years. This article is also the most complete online article on the college. I also would note that other schools that are similar to Piedmont Baptist College have pages. One of these is Tennessee Temple University. Marcus Constantine 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the article and the institution appear to fulfill requirements. Soltak | Talk 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry, I'm afraid this AfD is my fault. I assumed that Marcus Constantine had simply lifted this article from an on-line source, but I accept his explanation that the other source took the material from him. Without doubt Piedmont Baptist College is worthy of an article.--John Foxe 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a former Piedmont Baptist College faculty professor (2002-2005) I can attesst that this information is entirely accurate. Additionally, overall it is well written. The accusation of run-on sentences was innacurate. One of the subjects I taught was English Composition II; the one accusing needs to understand what constitutes "run-on." Email me if you have any concerns or would like true, inside information on what many consider one of the best Bible Colleges available. The online program is also one of excellence. It was good enough to send my daughter there.

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

The result was a lot of teeth-gnashing on both sides but no consensus. A Train ^{take the} 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Dreams NewsCenter

First deletion reason: Fails WP:Notability -- a Google News Search results in ZERO results. Completely non-notable Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Part of a Walled Garden of the Progressive blogosphere. MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This AfD has been added to a userspace AfD notice board by nom, see [46]. --70.48.71.53 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a "noticeboard". Adding the AfD there was a mistake which I have reverted. GabrielF 21:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note : As Oakhouse proves below, nominator's claim of zero Gnewshits is FALSE. There are 222 Gnewshits as of right now. Gnewshits - Fairness & Accuracy For All 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I used the search term that this RfD is about and not the generic, I get 3 Gnewshits. Gnewshits.

When I used the search term using NewsCenter as one word, I get Zero Gnewshits. Gnewshits, applying wiki policy WP:AGF the statement is not a false one.

Mobile 01^Talk 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Gnews search for 'commondreams' which is the most common terminology, and would include ALL results also including 'News Center' OR 'Newscenter' yields 221 hits. Any HONEST interpetation of his claim as it relates to the actual site, and not semantics or spelling finds it false. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 12:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two of the 16 articles [47] which I get on Google news: Talk:Common_Dreams_NewsCenter#Google_News

I asked Morton to change his comments,[48] because he was clearly incorrect. Travb (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but Google books shows that it's plugged by The Better World Handbook ("the most comprehensive news site on the web"), cited in print works such as Unveiling the Real Terrorist Mind by Nadia Batool Ahmad and Project Censored's Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories, The 3Rs of George W. Bush, Women and Children First, and Politics and Government in the Age of the Internet. The article's crap, but that's not a reason to delete it. If I wasn't quite so brim-full of good faith, I might think this was a politically motivated attempt to censor someone's political opponents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Often referenced newssite, a search for "Commondreams.org" gets 1.2 million google hits and a search for "Common Dreams" also get over a million hits (but the phrase is not unique to just the website.) --70.48.71.53 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC) — 70.48.71.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (But I actually have quite a few edits, which should be obvious by my understanding of Wikipedia. I don't use a formal account, so sue me. --70.48.70.252 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Google Search for "Commondreams.org" --> 1,200,000 hits
Google Search for "Common Dreams" --> 1,170,000 hits (but its not a unique phrase, thus many hits are not relevant)
Google Search for ""Common Dreams News Center" --> 87,000 hits
Google News Search for "Commondreams.org" --> 11 hits
Google News Search for "Common Dreams" --> 28 hits (but only about half references the site)
Alexa Website Rank for "Commondreams.org" --> 9,253 most popular website on the Internet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.71.53 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Google News Seach for "commondreams" --> [49] ~225 hits Bwithh 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : So notable that it has its own profile on David Horowitz' 'Discover the Network'. 'popular website founded in 1996' Rename to Common Dreams though - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Before launching this AfD, one of the external links that Morton deleted was http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0630-20.htm which shows Common dreams as the number one "progressive" website, and number 5,014 on the page ranking site Alexa.com. See: Talk:Common_Dreams_NewsCenter#Removal_of_information Morton states: "a Google News Search results in ZERO results." The actual result is 13.[50] LexisNexis News results are 335 hits for the term "commondreams". The google result for commondreams.org is 1,050,000 hits.[51] Non-notable? Hardly. As per: 70.48.243.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who restored Morton's deletions of material on Common Dreams NewsCenter: "rv vandalism. Morton devonshire, please do not remove references or categories just because you disagree with the organization politically. Constructive additions are welcome."[52] Travb (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an Afd on Commondreams.org, it's an Afd on an article about Common Dreams NewsCenter, which is completely unreferenced in the reputable media, which is our yardstick on Wikipedia. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Common Dreams NewsCenter" and Commondreams.org are one and the same. Also, there are references by mainstream sources to the Common Dreams Newscenter: Yahoo News: Literature and Authors, Yahoo News: Bird Flu, The Guardian: 2000 Books Awards to name a few. There are many endorsements by media figures here [53] including PBS's Bill Moyers, and NBC's Don Imus. --70.48.71.53 19:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could close this AfD Morton and move this article then. The anon is right, they are one and the same. Since 29 October 2005, Common Dreams already redirects to Common Dreams NewsCenter Travb (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on your talk page. Travb (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all trivial references, just links as part of a collection without any writing about the site at all. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Night Gyr, you looked through 1,050,000 hits on google? You did say "Those are all trivial references". I really don't see how anyone can support the idea that a webpage with over 1 million hits is "non-notable". Travb (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the ones linked, and they were. I have yet to see any significant writing about the site other than by itself. Independent, nontrivial sources are necessary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider the profile on David Horowitz' 'Discover the Network' significant? 'popular website founded in 1996' Or is that you consider 'Discover the Network' trivial ? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or the Portland Press Herald and Willamette Week Online articles? I can't fathom how Night Gyr claims that a website with 1,050,000 hits on google is not notable. I have a strong feeling that no matter how many sources we find, Night Gyr will not change his mind. How many do we have to find Night Gyr? Travb (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Williamette Week Online article has two sentences about the site and two sentences describing interesting stories. It's pretty trivial. The Portland one isn't online, so I can't check it. The title isn't promising. Horowitz has about a paragraph of information, but that still falls into the "directories" exclusion of sources that don't count for notability, and even if we count it, it's still only a single source. If you can find me another good solid paragraph about the site, then you might have something. The problem is that almost all of the links and sources given are trivial in their information about the site. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the Williamette Week article is: "War on the Web Four sites worth checking out". The Williamette Week author obviously felt like commondreams was "worth checking out". Here is a link to the article: [54] I am interested how you will see this article. As you wrote: "If you can find me another good solid paragraph about the site, then you might have something." Also, please consider the million googlelinks above, etc. Travb (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE/DELETE as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no matter who nominated it, it falls short of WP:WEB and lacks enough reliable secondary sources to sustain a seperate, non-promotional article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commondreams is at least mentioned in passing two textbooks on gbooks: Media Now and SAGE's Key Concepts in Journalism Studies. That seems like a start on sourcing, as is the stuff on "A-list blogs" in Politics and Government in the Age of the Internet. After exhausting those, would-be editors could start on the 100 other books on google books, the stuff on scholar, and the many news reports. Then they could try JSTOR, MUSE, LookSmart, and Factiva. And if they could come up with very clever search terms, they could maybe even try web searches to find reliable sources. More reliable sources for this than for all of Category:Webcomics put together. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn yourself. Go do that, or go put the commics up for deletion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt at Google Scholar came up with 400 citations: [55]. There are a few incorrect hits but the majority it appears 80% are real citations. Click on the "Cited by XX" links on the results pages to see the RS papers which are citing Common Dreams content. There are more citations of common dreams content than even I expected. --70.48.71.53 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on likelihood that sources do exist, but without prejudice to future AfD listing if they are not found and cited. Seraphimblade 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - give it three months in this current state and then, if no reliable sources are given and the article does not improve, the rouge admins can speedy it and then speedy any attempts at recreation without reliable sources. I'm a Brit, BTW, so no political axe to grind. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assuming good faith about the nomination (and its faulty google/blogosphere assertions), I'm having trouble finding sources on Google Books and Factiva which mention this website in more than a passing way i.e. more than a "recommended site" directory listing or a reference footnote. While the website claims some nice endorsement quotes from various dignitaries, that's not enough to pass WP:WEB. I can't find non-trivial references and there doesn't seem to be any awards won by this site. It's a popular site whose audience clearly extends beyond the blogosphere and into academia and professional political circles. However, wikipedia is not a directory and I haven not been able to find evidence of multiple non-trivial reference which would see this passing WP:WEB. I'm open to new evidence being produced for this afd but I'm !voting delete for now. (And since this article has been around since October 2005 with the attention of multiple editors, I see no reason to give this article a grace period) Bwithh 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability due to no sources. Their main role is to copy and reprint articles from other sources, and publish some editorials. If no one's written about them, though, how can we? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website. Edeans 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article (if you could call it that) does not appear to serve any purpose to wiki readers other than to redirect them to the Common Dreams Web Site. The article uses questionable terminolgy "according to its website" and "Common Dreams claims on its website " and "claims to refuse corporate money". While the web site itself may well serve a purpose for those wanting information on specific stories, the article itself does not appear to have any merit or value for wikipedia. This AFD is about the Wiki Article and whether it deserves a place in our hallowed halls. The AFD is not about the Common Dreams Web site. Having read what little information there is on this article and followed it's meager amount of links, I find that the article has no purpose or value except taking readers away from Wikipedia.

From WP:NOT#IINFO:

Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.

Mobile 01^Talk 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the message I left Travb, I canvassed other opinions. I'm perfectly OK with the closer discounting my vote if it looks to them like I solicited support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus McLellan you actually do not have any vote for the closer to discount as you haven't voted yet, only commented.

Mobile 01^Talk

Delete simply not notable...definitely looks like promotional spam to me.--MONGO 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN spamvertisement. --Tbeatty 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable part of the progressive blogosphere. Lots of original content. Exclusive interview with Bill Moyers just a few weeks ago Interview - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 963,000 ghits in main google search. Ten current ghits in Google news search. 31,688 blogs linking in Google blogs search. 298 ghits in Google Books Search. Alexa ranking of 9,253, with 10,537 sites linking in. Google Pagerank of 8. Seems like it would be a perverse interpretation of notability that does not include commondreams.org. --BenBurch 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cited all over the place and a much used resource on the net. This article cites it alongside New York Times and the BBC [56]. The BBC itself describes Common dreams as a site that "presents a round-up of interesting articles with wide-ranging points of view that have previously appeared in newspapers and journals across the United States."[57]. Also, reason for deletion appears to be false, I found a number of results in Google news - See [58] --Oakhouse 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as wikipedia's, which requires the existence of nontrivial independent sources writing about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the BBC considered a non-trivial independent source when they write about the CommonDreams website? Yes, I thought it was too.--Oakhouse 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They cite it, but don't write anything about it. Can we even do anything from that? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They do indeed write about it, and it is sourced in the article. Is it not?--Oakhouse 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A grand total of one sentence. We don't make articles about everything that gets a single sentence on the BBC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But with the over 1 million references, the 340 Lexis Nexis references, the Google Print references, the google news reference etc, how can this article fail notability? Travb (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable enough; keep for now. - Mike Rosoft 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Night Gyr in that it is non-notable website rehashing news links. In fact, the website featured this spam advertisement [59] among the others contained there doing the same promotional write-ups. Without the support from other references, it appears the article fails WP:WEB per Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- JungleCat, where do you get "spam"? That's an op-ed from the UK Independent, according to the citation at the top of the page. Op-eds, no matter the sources, are frequently POV-promotional or self-promotional in nature. There's certainly no evidence that the author paid CDNC to run his article; in fact, probably the reverse.--Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by Jungle Cats complaints too. Travb (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that Jungle Cat's "spam site" criticism don't make sense. Bwithh 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but improve per {{primarysources}}. Bearing in mind that WP:N is a guideline, as is its derivative WP:WEB, this site does not strictly pass that guideline based on what is available online. To my own surprise I could find no full-length articles treating the website as their subject. That said, the citations speak for themselves -- this website not only republishes articles from other sources (using standard newswire contracts, as far as I can tell), its material (a portion of which is original) is republished and cited elsewhere, and it has been mentioned or cited by almost every major news organization in the US and UK, either because it was the only stable URL for an article or because it was the only online source, period, for some. We can certainly verify that much about it. The website predates Wikipedia (not that being a non-profit is an automatic pass) and predates virtually everything known today as a blog, and has a high Alexa ranking. (Its importance may be fading in the blog era.) Deleting an article such as this one simply because by interpreting our rules down to the last dot on the i really is making Wikipedia worse and the first time I would say that WP:IAR applies. I suggest a three-month grace period for a robust source search including via the publisher (who surely knows when he has been interviewed/profiled). --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve or delete - It reads like an advertisement or press release. Jinxmchue 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list of contributors alone makes this a no brainer, as does its citation in several textbooks mentioned above by Angus. Gamaliel 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable source of news, professionally edited. AnAccount2 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a simple mistake of Morton not knowing how Google searches work. I am surprised he has not come back to close this himself. Anyway Commondreams is obviously notable we cite it here quite often, then again, I guess if its proven not notable then all the CommonDreams citations could be removed as well ... So CommonDreams with its millions of google hits and immense citations above of references to them etc, seem to be beyond the requirements of WP:WEB. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 12:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring the bad faith in the nomination, fails WP:WEB. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn-spam-troll-cruft--RCT 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say its spam, trolling or cruft? I don't think it comes across as spam and its definitely not trolling or cruft. You wouldn't be !voting simply on the basis of your political views, would you? I hate to say it but thats the impression one might get from looking at your user page and your history Bwithh 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Fellow-edit 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions is 21 edits. As per: Wp:afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted"

Further Fellow-edit, you did not explain why.Travb (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have no objection to someone starting up a stub based solely around the sources Angus and others mention, but there is nothing on the current page that is sourced, encyclopedic, or worthwhile. Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V with no prejudice to the creation of an article in its place that meets policy. TheronJ 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here continue to cite WP:WEB this article meets WP:WEB#Criteria it is mentioned by other news organizations, as mentioned above. Travb (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the current version of the article that IMHO (1) qualifies as a "non-trivial" news reference, or (2) is worth keeping. As I've said, if someone wants to re-create the article so that it identifies and conforms to the non-trivial references, I would have no objection. TheronJ 18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per aboveOo7565 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation with non-trivial sources. Being cited isn't the same as being written about, and I can't see anything more than passing mentions. A lot of "keep" arguments being based on "This number is big" - notability isn't the same as popularity or prominence on the web. Trebor 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. But the fact is that some of the numbers are big, and that poses a significant problem in finding if there are, or aren't any WP:N-fulfilling reports. If there are 101 ghits, it's easy enough to skim through them. If there are $BIGNUM, it isn't. Likewise, separating all the trivial news reports isn't easy. I still think that skimmimg recent journalism/media studies textbooks would be the best way for people who want this kept to conclusively prove that it is notable, but I've neither the time nor the inclination to check. Garage bands have more appeal than anything concerning Unitedstatesian politics. The moral of the story seems to be that editors should use the amnesia test when writing articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if and when someone finds more in-depth sources, it can be recreated. Just not as it stands. Trebor 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the first time, I am really concerned about the AfD process. No one here, except Fair and myself have added anything to this article. User:Trebor Rowntree asks other people to find more in-depth sources otherwise the article will be deleted, but adds nothing to the article himself. Another nominator for deletion asks others to "Improve or delete", another user acknowledges this is "bad faith in the nomination" Travb (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to add something the article yourself in order to express an opinion on it. Trebor 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Nominator: Several of you have pointed me to http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0&q="common dreams"&btnG=Search to demonstrate what purports to be non-trivial descriptions of the Common Dreams NewsCenter in these articles. I have looked through ALL of the ghits, and none satisfy our requirements under WP:NN, as they are all trivial (i.e. none of them do more than casually identify the name of the website, and do not go beyond that to describe anything about the Common Dreams NewsCenter), as Admin Night Gyr states above. So, it still fails our requirements here under WP:NN, and, I might add, WP:RS if used as a reference in other articles. Wikipedia relies not upon our own evaluations of notability, but on the substantive mention of a subject by reputable sources. It's why a Google News Search is relevant, but a straight Google hits search isn't. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator : You don't consider the stand-alone profile on David Horowitz' 'Discover the Network' significant? 'popular website founded in 1996' Or is it that you consider it 'trivial' or 'not reputable' ?- Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider http://www.discoverthenetwork.org to be a non-reputable blog, and not WP:RS except with reference to very limited info about Horowitz and his org. MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completly - discoverthenetworks lacks basic requirements that we demand of reliable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or non-multiple? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Portland Press Herald and Willamette Week Online articles? Why is it other users responsibility to find sources for this article? When Morton's only contribution to this article before this AfD was to delete sections of the article which were twice reverted as vandalism?[60][61] When User:Hipocrite acknowledges that this is "bad faith in the nomination". Morton this statment: "a Google News Search results in ZERO results." is false and misleading, and I again encourage Morton devonshire to change this misleading sentence. Travb (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is it other users responsibility to find sources for this article?" According to WP:V, burden of proof is on editors who want to include the material, not those seeking its removal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Night Gyr, I am aware of WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. This article has met WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, as shown above. As per: WP:BB "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, and so on" those who want to delete this article are asking others to "fix [the] problems". Does this AfD help build an encyclopedia? Travb (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Discover The Networks and Portland references are so notable, why do they keep getting deleted from the article. I have done some research and included 3 references that highlight the notability of this article, this was all reverted. It doesn't matter whether the references are considered to be reputable, it only matters that they support the claim for notability. I was going to change my vote to KEEP as the article had improved over the last few days. Now it has been reverted and brought back to a nothing entry, my vote stands.

Mobile 01^Talk 23:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Well-known site. Referenced in multiple textbooks. Explicitly mentioned as notable in some form or fashion by Don Imus, Ralph Nader and Bill Moyers (as examples). Cited as a source by other news providers and a number of Wikipedia articles. WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy and should not be used to wikilawyer a legitimate notable site to deletion. Vassyana 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, please. Trebor 08:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith does not preclude acknowledging that arguments against the article are wikilawyering based on POV when perjoratives are openly used to describe the site. AGF only applies in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The nominator has repeatedly made demonstratably false arguments (e.g. no Google News hits), which is hardly good faith. Vassyana 12:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no POV on the article, I really couldn't care less, so accusations of wikilawyering are still in bad faith. Trebor 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my comments. I did not accuse you of wikilawyering. Your defensiveness is not justified, unless you are a sock for the nominator or have used POV pejoratives. (Neither applies to you as far as I can tell, so I don't understand why you're twisted up over my comments.) Vassyana 11:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted delete based on a failure to meet notability guidelines (or in other words WP:WEB). So I felt that your comments were implicitly aimed at me and everyone else who !voted for those reasons. And see my debate with NuclearZero below as to why this isn't wikilawyering, it's simply a standard interpretation of the notability guidelines. Trebor 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete or merge. As observed by MortonDevonshire, the site is a Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement and part of a Walled Garden of the lunatic fringe blogosphere. It does no reporting of its own; it merely recycles news stories available elsewhere that serve a left-wing agenda. Responding to concerns expressed by Travb this AfD helps to build an encyclopedia. Any notable material about this site can be merged with another article, producing one good article rather than a couple of lame ones. Dino 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whether or not it is part of the "lunatic fringe blogosphere" is irrelevent. It is cited in textbooks, other news media, highly popular, endorsed broadly by a number of more-than-notable figures and otherwise notable. Vassyana 12:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- lunatic fringe blogosphere ... lame articles? ... The arguement that "it merely recycles news stories" is almsot the equivalent of stating we should delete Google news for doing the same. How about Yahoo news? It seems that notability is not based on them "reycling news stories", nor is the reason for keeping or deleting articles based around it, luckily. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Google News is well-covered by the reputable media. Thanks for making my notability argument (spelled a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t, BTW). MortonDevonshire Yo · 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually other then its founding because of it steeming from Google, its not. So we are once again left with an arguement that would lead to the removal of Yahoo News and Google News. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely a notable website. I've been visiting it periodically for years. Everyking 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep reason. MortonDevonshire Yo · 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Morton_devonshire, Everyking also mentions that the site is notable. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason, and as Fair wrote in the comment below, when you examine your reasons for deleting this article, (like the dubious Zero google hits and dubious non-notability claim) Morton, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is all you are left with. Travb (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be your opinion. The other reasons remain valid, and you have not overcome the notability requirement, which is your burden. MortonDevonshire Yo · 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that my familiarity with the site gives me reason to think that it's notable, not that it should be kept because "I like it". Everyking 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I ask that the ruling admin take into account the bad faith aspects of the Morton's nomination. 1) Neither the Wiki article nor Common Dreams are Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement nor self-promotion and Morton's trollish, baiting, derogatory characterizations do not help this process. Morton seems confused about Walled Garden's as well. There's NO aspect of CD that constitutes any 'walled garden'. Joe Farah's G2 and The Debka File - sites you have to pay $20 bucks a month to read ARE. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Interviews with Bill Moyers, cited by New York Times, Portland Press Herald, Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Willamette Week, and Fox news. Plus, used in text books. EDIT: WP:N is met by all this. - Denny 14:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: The primary dispute seems to be whether this site meets any of the criteria identified on WP:WEB. As far as I can tell, the answer is no. The absolute best source I have seen offered above is a two sentence description of the site in a book that is apparently only held in four libraries in the entire world. WP:WEB#Criteria specifically defines "a brief summary of the content" as "trivial" coverage, so the Better World Handbook therefore fails to satisfy even one of the multiple non-trivial independent references required to establish notability, and the Better World Handbook is the best source I have seen offered. With no sources to establish notability, the remaining arguments are "I like this website (ILIKEIT)" and "Morton is a poo poo head (IDONTLIKEMORTON)." Neither of those is a valid argument, and therefore, AFAICT, the site doesn't meet notability criteria. We're not in the business of writing articles about popular websites, we're in the business of writing sourced articles about notable websites. No one has offered even one non-trivial source, much less multiple such sources, and I therefore recommend deletion. Thanks, TheronJ 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Its notable enough that multiple newspapers use it for a source and reference it. There are lots of popular sites on the web, like YTMND however they are not used as sources for major newspapers. The fact that major newspapers use them as a source goes to show the site is notable. If you would like a closed examination it would be to look at Digg.com, where as Digg is not referenced by Washington Post, they are not because they are popular but not notable. Where as Common Dreams is both. Its hard to see the line where popularity and notability divide, however when major newspapers and not just average people begin using it as a source, its clear its passed that line. So how do we find out if a news source is notable? The basic idea of a news source is to cover other items and people, not to attract coverage for itself. Much like Schools do not require sources to show their notability, it makes little sense why a news source would, considering the popularity and notability (enough to be cited by the biggest national papers). It seems to say that Washington Post and other national papers find them notable enough to include thier views and cite them, but since there is little evidence of someone writing about them, they fail WP:N, is a bit of wikilawyering. What happened to the spirit of Wikipedia and not the letter of the policy? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digg.com is notable in itself, as a widely-discussed example of Web 2.0 -- discussed in reputable media, not just blogs. No such notability exists for CDNC. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what you are talking about. Digg.com was used as an example of a site that is popular but not cited, showing that CDNC is more notable since major newspapers actually will cite them and reference them, as opposed to Digg which really is just a popular website, notable for layout not news. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no consensus that being cited indicates notability, that's why that doesn't appear in the guidelines. This isn't wikilawyering over technical details, this is making up a new definition of notability and saying it is "in the spirit". That doesn't work. Trebor 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF. I am stating that we adhere to the spirit of the guidelines, stating that an article cannot exist without sources is false, hence the WP:SCHOOL example. My point isnt that citations are required to be notable, its that citations for a news site are an example of notability. How can they be not notable yet often references by the most notable sources in the world? That makes little sense. As I stated, you will not see Digg being used as a reference, however you will see CDNC. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF yourself, wiklawyering is a pejorative term. And my point still stands: this isn't wikilawyering by people arguing "delete". Your argument for notability (and I'm not commenting on the validity of it here) isn't expressed by the principles or spirit of WP:WEB or WP:N. Nobody is arguing over technical points, they are saying that the principle - multiple, non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources - isn't met. So by all means make your arguments for notability, but don't make false attacks on the other side. Trebor 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are so hostile, and I really do not appreciate it. But you have yet to counter the point so I will just ignore it and ask you to take a wiki break if you are stressed out. As I stated they are cited by the most prominent news companies in the world, that shows notability. If you think I am wrong, show me another news source with as many citations that isnt notable. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being hostile; I'm saying that accusations of wikilawyering are in bad faith and just not true. I'm not in the least bit stressed out because, as I said earlier, I have no feelings either way regarding the subject. My point is that nowhere in the notability guidelines does it say that being cited shows notability. There's no need for me to show anything, as it you are the one trying to extend the standard notability definition. Trebor 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you keep repeating yourself, but I already explained this. Who said its part of WP:N? I am stating that much like Schools notability is derived from a different criteria for different items. The reason WP:N is not policy is because of that very fact, it snot all encompassing. I am explaining that being cited by many of the most popular news agencies is a show of notability. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you implied it was part of WP:N when you made accusations of wikilawyering. Trebor 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, I have been specifically stating that the criteria in that guideline is not appropriate. Did you read the massive paragraph? It makes comparisons to WP:SCHOOL where schools are deamed notable without having someone write about them, etc. As for accusations of wikilawyering, it wasnt meant as a attack, its a term. Seeing as there has been a mountain of WP:INSERT GUIDELINE HERE talk, it seems there is much wikilawyering going on. I havent seen so many guidelines since my Arbcom hearing =) --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilaywering is a pejorative term, so there's an implied attack there. And I don't think any wikilawyering has gone on; it's not simply quoting and using policies and guidelines, but dwelling on technical details which override the spirit. But this argument isn't really relevant to the deletion debate, so I will accept it as a difference of opinions (and advise that using the term doesn't normally help your cause). On topic again, I disagree that being cited indicates notability; I think a topic needs to have been specifically written about. Trebor 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if you have repeatedly taken offense to something I stated was not said to be offensive. I do however believe people are citing quite a bit much of Wiki essays and guidelines and it seems even stating them as policy, which is wrong. There used to be a essay on quoting a mess of WP:THINGY's where did it go? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WOTTA? If so, you missed the point of the essay. That didn't mean don't quote policy and guidelines, it meant try not to abbreviate everything you quote. Trebor 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website review: [62] --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear, you mentioned above that the Washington Post had cited to Common Dreams. Can you give us a link or a citation to the article? That may clear this up. Thanks, TheronJ 01:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a link to the Guardian Newspaper's "pick of the best online journalism" which includes Commondreams alongside New Scientist, Atlantic Monthly etc. [63] I don't understand what's going on here. Commondreams is simply one of the biggest resource sites on the internet for political essays and comments, and has been for years. People above have provided ample evidence of its notability. Way more notable than 50% of the articles on wikipedia which include articles about schools and minority fictional characters. And the page meets all requirements. Can anyone explain how some background detail about a well known internet journal - that carries inteviews and original work by nobel prize winners and various household names - is not notable enough to be of interest to readers?--Oakhouse 13:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's misleading. The Guardian article you refer to just provides a link to Commondreams, it doesn't discuss it. MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comments about the rest of the paragraph? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WEB, as discussed by Trebor above. If you're having trouble understanding Wiki policy, try WP:HELPDESK. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to the WP:HELPDESK, perhaps you can ask them the difference between a policy and guideline since you don't seem to know what it is. WP:WEB says at the very top in a big box "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes." --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for WP:N where it states: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. My arguement is that common sense is not being made here. The page is cited as shown above by some of the major newspapers and listed on Google News and cited in numerous journals and papers as Google Scholar points out. This is my last post here as I do not want others to seem unwelcomed to comment. PS I have you found out somewhere along the way that there is more then 1 google hit, you never changed your comment so I wasnt sure. WP:HELPDESK can help you with setting up google searches, its pretty basic syntax. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Common Dreams is clearly notable. The initiator of this AfD is obviously on an ideological crusade to 'clean' Wikipdia of views different than his own. Oldporter 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor is a single purpose account. His/her first edit was three days ago, and all seven or so of Oldporter's edits are to the Common Dreams article. (See contribution history). TheronJ 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher punk rock band

This article was Prod'ed as "nn band" but I feel they are a borderline case and it could be argued they meet our notability criteria for bands. So I'm opening this for a broader debate without a specific recommendation. if the article is kept, it should probably be renamed to "Fletcher (band)" Gwernol 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn defunct punk rock band. Edeans 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article asserts that the band's work was "well received by UK music press" but does not provide any references. Unless these references can be provided, the article should be deleted. ShadowHalo 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree it should be changed to fletcher(band) — 82.9.16.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Be aware that this is a discussion, rather than a mere vote, and votes should be backed up with reasoning if they are to carry weight. Please explain how you think the article meets the requirements of WP:BAND. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "well received by UK music press" means nothing without supporting references. Until then they are well short of meeting WP:BAND. Nuttah68 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agreed, references are needed. The following information will appear on the main entry (with references)as soon as I have sifted through the many magzines and press cuttings. Bear with me as I am still learning how to edit information on Wikipedia. The band had very good reviews for both of their releases in Metal Hammer, Big Cheese, Rock Sound,Fracture and Kerrang. These are the main rock magazines in the UK. Dexter Holland (The Offspring) personally reviewed the EP in Big Cheese magazine and gave it much praise. There are also many great reviews online. Big Cheese magazine also dedicated a double page spread to the band for an interview. All these statments will be backed up by references, but some time is needed.

Fletcher should definatley be considered 'notable.' They were the only band on an independent label, and the only English band to open the Deconstruction festival in front of 20,000 people, where they were also interviewed for Radio One. They were indeed a prominent figure in a prominent UK scene for 5 years. I believe it meets points (3), (4) and (10) of the 'notable' criterea

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schwagstock

Schwagstock gets 502 g-hits. This article is basically a promotional brochure for the concert - it tells us the schedule for the event, has a visitors' guide telling you where you can eat and what the dog policy is, and has photos from previous events. BigDT 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn local rock fest. Edeans 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete too spammy and only one source provided. If the article is cleaned up and another source or two added my opinion could easily change. Keep Addhoc's improvements show the event is well documented and the article no longer reads like an advert. It's not the biggest event in the world but has a history better than some.Nuttah68 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 15:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above search indicating sufficient news coverage. Addhoc 16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Wright

Unnotable person. Claims to be an "animal communicator," whatever that is. Possible vanity article. JJYWE 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although the concept of telepathic communication with animals is (at least in my humble opinion) total WP:BOLLOCKS the article does appear to assert adequate notability to the lady, although not to her profession.--Anthony.bradbury 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her profession is more like a reiki practitioner, but nonetheless I don't think she is sufficiently notable. PKT 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn pet psychic. Edeans 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced per above searches. Addhoc 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acasola

This article is about a college club that doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CORP. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no attempt is made at claiming notability let alone providing sources. Nuttah68 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above searches unless sourced... Addhoc 12:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Kingdoms: The Crumbling Towers

A self-published book does not normally meet WP:N, and even after being asked the article author has not provided WP:V sources to assert notability, or indeed any sources at all. It failed the speedy deletion process because another editor removed that tag, and it is obviously contested by the article author so I did not try proposed deletion. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. PKT 18:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published? Nah. JuJube 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loma baseball club

Unsourced, unimportant local team. gren グレン 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The league doesn't have an article, so why should this team? PKT 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced per above searches. Addhoc 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. WP:NOT and WP:V, foundation principles, were cited and not addressed. - Daniel.Bryant 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorota

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an extension from my nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay, this time culling the fluff from Category:Czech given names, Category:German given names and Category:Irish given names. Again, I will withdraw the nomination if the article can be made into a valid redirect or disambiguation, or even article. J Milburn 17:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating-

Delete Dorota, Jiří and Gerok which are nothing more than name dic defs - Keep Éanna which is a valid disambig. Nuttah68 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not a valid disambiguation page, it only links to one article. It actually meets the speedy deletion criteria, I just brought it here to give it a chance. J Milburn 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be only one blue link, but the three kings of Ireland with the name make the name notable even if articles have not been written yet. Nuttah68 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not denying that the people the article links to are notable, I am just saying that, until we have articles on them, there is no need for a disambiguation page. That is the Wikipedia poliy. J Milburn 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll accept delete on Éanna if none of the information (the King's names and reign dates) is lost. Of course that will mean creating an article and we then need a disambig. The page is more than a basic disambig and does contain information, minimal I'll accept but because it is royalty it is notable. Nuttah68 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think this is a part of wikipedia, information about names and its origin. If you see in the name just a translation of its english equivalent that's seriously wrong point of view. Every name has its origin and meaning which can be a part of encyclopedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With all due respect, what you 'think is a part of Wikipedia' is irrelevent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as is stated at this policy. There is no reason to keep these articles, and the consensus on the last debate should stand. J Milburn 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: why are you so disrespectful to the other opinions ? This is a correct dispution and I provided my opinion. I think you did not understand what I said. It is not a case George = Jiří, it is a case that Jiří has some kind of origin and was used since XY century etc. etc. Or don't you see that difference ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: So you are saying that we should have articles on words, describing their history? That is not an encyclopedia, that is a dictionary. In what way was I disrespectful of your opinion? I did my best to stick to policy, and, as I interpretted it, policy disagreed with what you were saying. Do I have to agree with you to be respectful? J Milburn 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: words and names are little bit different, aren't they ? It is a part of knowledge. No, you were disrespectful saying that what I think is irrelevant in the AfD dispution. I am telling you that you miss the point of that policy. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless converted into a sourced article, a redirect or functional disambiguation page. Addhoc 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dorota for sure. Practically unused among Czechs as the first name for decades, sometimes employed coloquially in Czech language as offense (dorota == dumb and/or quareling woman). Jiří (diminutives Jirka, Jiřík, Jiříček) is a very frequent Czech first name but I somehow fail to see much of value in the article so delete this too. A couple of relevant studies about evolution of Czech first names was published by Miloslava Knappová (in Czech language). Pavel Vozenilek 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Especially Éanna which contains zero useful information. All High-Kings of Ireland, be they ever so imaginary like these ones, are listed at List of High Kings of Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:40Z

Phazyshier

Self-admitted hoax article, possibly can be construed as an attack against ethnic Georgians. Disputed prod by author. Caknuck 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the facts, as the author has stated in the article, are untrue. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository of 'funny' stories. Nuttah68 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlingford Court

No assertion of notability. ArglebargleIV 18:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does need sources but it is notable. I'm looking for some now. DXRAW 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from sources, shouldn't the article also say why Carlingford Court is notable? -- ArglebargleIV 06:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what the sources would do. DXRAW 09:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominated before, kept before. Is it just acceptable now to keep nominating articles until you get the result you want? Rebecca 06:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that it had been nominated before. -- ArglebargleIV 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't been nominated before, article had a prod tag added and removed and a speedy tag added and removed, thus Afd is a correct step. No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 10:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article has been previously nominated for speedy and prod but never that I can see for AfD. No assertion why subject is a notable corporation. Seraphimblade 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a mall does not make it notable. If sources proving notability can be provided I'll reconsider my opinion. Nuttah68 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOLE. There's nothing in the article which gives a clue as to why it is notable. Just because it exists is not a good enough reason to keep, and I can't find any trace of it having been deleted. Ohconfucius 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:CORP, a business is notable "If the organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works whose source is independent of the organization itself." This article has none of that. I would also point to WP:V: "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." --El on ka 22:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that policy out - this article in it's current form seems well sourced and referenced. If there are facts you dispute feel free to tag them appropriately - there seems to be nothing libellous or controversial. Any editor may remove it and any editor may revert your change. Removing unsourced content can easily be achieved without deleting the article.Ga rr ie 09:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major regional shopping centre within northwestern Sydney (I know of it despite living at the other side of Australia and having never been there) - was the subject of a major corporate tug-of-war in the 1990s that made the news. I'm not close enough to find sources (Australian sources prior to 1995 tend to be located in real libraries near their source) but am happy to vouch for its notability - it's not simply a corner store. Orderinchaos78 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos78 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Rebecca; if not Strong keep per Orderinchaos78 - the article is a large well-known shopping centre in Sydney, and a Factiva search brings up 413 articles in newspapers, including a major issue with the owners (or former owners) GEM Property Trust back in the late 1990s, when they tried to put "Venture" Stores in the shopping centre, which all failed, and they overvalued the place - they had to write $12 million dollars off the shopping centre's price - OIC78 seems to be right; the article is also referenced, more than can be said of most articles of this type too. JROBBO 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure of the exact details, but GEM (Growth Equities Mutual) Property Trust shares actually were frozen for several years and then merged fully into GPT, and Lend Lease Corporation were involved in it somewhere. Orderinchaos78 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the financial and ownership issues are part of what makes the mall notable, maybe all that should be in the article? -- ArglebargleIV 06:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion for improvement. The hard bit is turning local knowledge into reliably sourced content. I would guess that's why OrderInChaos hasn't put it in yet (maybe that's what not sure of exact details means).

In terms of ownership this centre has been through several changes over it's history and also changes in branding / management.Ga rr ie 09:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Rebecca. Could some other method be attempted to encourage the article to be improved such as a comment on the talk page or dropping by a wikiproject that supports the article - it seems to have worked for other similar articles which were proposed for deletion (articles relating to shopping centres in Sydney area).Ga rr ie 09:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not fall under any criteria of speedy keep. Also a quick check of the history of the Carlingford Court page is in order. On 31 October Rebecca removed a local tag added by Elonka, which asked for expansion of the article. On 26 November JROBBO redirected the page after Elonka added a prod tag, then Rebecca subsequently reverted the redirect on 3 December. The article was subsequently nominated for deletion on 3 February, when it looked like this. It currently looks like this. While I agree that other methods of improvement are preferable, two of the people who have voted !keep have previously edited this article in the past and had made seemingly no attempt to improve it during the three months available. One Night In Hackney 12:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting or making comments on editors who have made votes that you don't agree with them to try and discredit their comments/vote is not on. I've had to edit various other pages in the last three months, and I don't have the page on my watchlist, which means I haven't had much to do with it. I have already shown why this article should be kept, and that is to do with the financial worries of GEM in the late 1990s. If you want to vote delete, you can do so, but don't try to attack or discredit those who disagree with you. The fact I may have once provided an edit on the page in question is nothing more than an aside. JROBBO 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same - I'd note I only edited the article *after* it came here - I saw the AfD, tried my best to improve it, left it for others once done. The idea of stub articles is to establish a framework that will jog those who know something about the subject or have more time and/or resources to fill it out. I've been filling out stubs in the Perth geographical area which prior to my contribution were simply one line stubs that did not express notability. It may well have been that the creator did not have the means of research at hand, or worked a 40 hour week and couldn't get into the State Library or whatever - it is a volunteer effort, after all. I have not changed my opinion and still believe Carlingford Court is notable both in terms of its magnitude and also in terms of its history. I also believe AfD is overused as a "cleanup" tool. Holding a gun to one's head is not the way to encourage article growth, as has been discussed elsewhere. As it is, there's nothing wrong with the article remaining as a stub, and until Wikipedia policy changes and says "no stubs" (which I doubt will ever happen), that will always be the way. Orderinchaos78 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep People have raised good reasons why it might be notable, but none of these are in the article itself. Wikipedia being voluntary and not a job, some leeway should be given to delays in adding additional content as per comments by JROBBO. But if there actually is some notable copy to be added, let's add it and we can bring the great Shopping Centre Debate to a close (and if there's not, then we can also bring the Debate to a close the other way).Jeendan 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reviewed the new version of the article[64] but in my opinion there's still not enough there to justify the article's existence. Two references to street directories, and one article in a local business magazine talking about a building expansion. That's still not "multiple non-trivial reliable published sources" per WP:CORP. I stand by my original opinion that this article should be deleted, and/or have any genuinely notable information merged into a parent article about the local community. --El on ka 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed with Elonka, and stand by my earlier assessment. An industry-insider rag and two street directories are not non-trivial mention. Seraphimblade 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orderinchaos78 and JROBBO and Rebecca. The reasons being given to delete this article would cover 4 in every 5 articles on Wikipedia and just about every stub there is, it should be kept and improved. If you think it needs sources then put a sources tag on it!! Is the writing NPOV? Yes. Is the subject notable/would Wikipedia be a better place if this article was completed? Yes. Does it fail any of the speedy deletion criteria? No. Can it be improved? Clearly yes if you read the submissions above mine. DanielT5 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Orlando, Florida in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:38Z

Eastwood, Florida

Not a sufficiently notable place, article is also orphaned and poorly written. PKT 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If kept, however, it should be renamed Eastwood, Orlando, Florida. Soltak | Talk 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename on precedent of Factoria, Bellevue, Washington, amongst others. --Dennisthe2 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it with following precedent in this case is that the article provides little-to-no context and describes Eastwood in terms that only locals would be familiar with (i.e., "Kensington, Heather's Glen, etc.) The Factoria article not only provides context, but demonstrates the importance and notability of the neighborhood. The Eastwood article seems to boil down to "rich people live there." Soltak | Talk 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Soltak. As the article currently stands, there is no notable information making it worthy of remaining. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved per Soltak. If kept, rename per Dennisthe2. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even a list of famous "rich people" who live there would not be enough to establish notability. -Freekee 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to The Legend of Zelda series#Fictional universe. Cbrown1023 talk 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rupee (The Legend of Zelda series)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The numerical values of Rupees in different Zelda games has nothing to do with what Zelda games are, or why they're notable. As such, this sort of information belongs in a gaming FAQ or gaming wiki, not Wikipedia. Chardish 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the more relevant data into the Fictional universe section of the main article under "currency" or some such. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Legend of Zelda (series). This information is appropriate for a game guide, not Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 02:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree with Merge, but not on the basis of notability or WP:NOT--I imagine the unit of currency of one of the world's most popular video game series is inherently notable and inherently encyclopedic. But what else could possibly be added to the article as it stands? We know nothing about the material from which Rupees are made, nor how the Rupee came to be so widespread in the Zelda universe, nor any other aspect of Rupeean history, nor what bank guarantees the value of the Rupee, and so on. We can't provide any information about the currency itself, and so we shouldn't have an independent article about it. --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with you, but for future reference, nothing is "inherently notable," and the only topics that are encyclopedic are notable ones. We have a set of objective criteria for notability: read about them at WP:N. - Chardish 09:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but if WP:N were strictly applied in all cases, then we couldn't have articles on Zebes or Great Fox or every episode of Robot Chicken, simply because no one cares enough to write a book about them. That would be bad. :P --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Zebes and Great Fox articles are stuffed full of original research and lack any sources whatsoever. The same is true for the few episodes of Robot Chicken I looked at. Being tangentially related to a notable topic (Zelda, or Metroid, or Star Fox, or Robot Chicken) does not make the related articles (Rupee, Zebes, Great Fox, the RC episodes) notable. These are superb illustrations of what Wikipedia should not be: a place for people to type up information they "already know." The presence of reliable sources is non-negotiable. - Chardish 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The right editor will be able to access plenty of players guides and magazines which could source every part of this article per WP:V. The nom provides no real rationale for deletion here, as it certainly does not violate WP:NOT and is a perfectly legitimate target with no clear merge target. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in the article is obviously verifiable: that's not the issue being contested here, so debating that is a red herring. Would you please explain how this article does not violate WP:NOT#IINFO? The policy makes it clear that video game guides are not acceptable for Wikipedia. - Chardish 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can go with strategy guides not being acceptable for Wikipedia, but what about game manuals? I'm not trying to be ornery, but I read the WP:Not article that you are referring to, and I don't remember game manuals being brought up either as acceptable or unacceptable. This might be a good time to put that in writing, if it hasn't already been. : Bucky
Keep. There are enough primary and secondary sources to properly reference this (magazines, the games themselves, etc). Merge would be a good idea if the target article wasn't already gigantic. --- RockMFR 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be sources for this information, but that does not mean that it doesn't fall under the description of what Wikipedia is not. Please read that article and Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and reformulate your argument to address the primary problem with the article. - Chardish 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parts of the article are inappropriate for wikipedia, but the solution for that is to remove those parts, not delete the entire article. This article should probably be 1/3 its current size, and only include appropriately sourced information. As noted above though, this virtual currency exists in dozens of games and that's easily verifiable from good sources. This should have been tagged for cleanup not deletion.--JayHenry 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "virtual currency" and it's not important to the Zelda universe. It's simply a "colorful" way of representing an in-game measure of the character's money. It's of equal importance to Zelda as coins are to Super Mario games. Wikipedia is not a place to house gaming trivia, which everything except the first sentence is. - Chardish 00:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue that if Mario collected "Mario Ingots" then that would also be deserving of an article. I would suggest looking at an AFD for something like Goombas, AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goomba. Similar to the Goomba, the Rupee is an iconic part of the Zelda universe. Anyways, I've said my peace. My argument that it should be kept is well-taken as is Chardish's argument that it should be deleted. No need for never-ending rebuttals of those we disagree with.--JayHenry 04:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't place the Rupee on the same level as the Goomba. That level of notability is reserved for the Tektite or Octorok. Also Mario Ingots, if they exsisted, would probably wind up in the Mario Series article, just like the Rupee. :Bucky

Delete; I was going to say merge, but it's all pretty much irrelevant information. Rupees should already be covered by the main Zelda article anyway. Moogy^(talk) 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; The people up top are right. This deserves a section (or even a subsection) in the Zelda Series article, not it's own article. I've started the merge process already; I hope it's okay.User:Buckwheatjones
Merge (not just redirect and forget): This currency has had enough of an impact on popular culture and is quite important in regards to the Zelda series, so the information should be retained, but it shouldn't get its own article. Voretus 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions: What impact on popular culture? (Remember, we're talking about popular culture, not internet gaming forums.) How are rupees important to the Zelda series? (Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if they were called "gems" or "crystals" instead of rupees.) And most importantly, what do the different values of rupees and the size of Link's wallet have to do with either of those? - Chardish 06:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other video games, for one pop culture example. They're very important to the Zelda games. Have you played any of them? You wouldn't be able to beat the games without them, and they're even used in puzzles sometimes! They're NOT called gems or crystals. We're not talking about the name ("Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if they were called "gems" or "crystals" instead of rupees."). We're talking about the monetary units themselves. A better hypothetical situation would be "Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if there was no money system." The answer to that would be "a lot." :) I'm asking for a merge. There's not enough real-life consequence to the rupee to have an article, but there is tons of consequence in regards to the Zelda series, so the information should definitely not be deleted. Voretus 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Other video games" could be a trivia thing in the main Zelda article. The fact that Zelda games contain a monetary system is of minor interest to the Zelda games - a few sentences in the main article would do this topic justice. "Zelda games frequently feature in-game currency known as rupees, which appear as crystals of different colors and are found over the course of the adventure. They can be used to buy items and powerups, and are occasionally used to pass certain required game objectives." And find a good source. That's it. Everything else is trivial.

And yes, for your information, I've beaten four Zelda games: the original, LttP, OoT, and TTP. - Chardish 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to again mention that work on merging this into the main Zelda Series article has begun. If you can find a source for what you just mentioned, I'd be glad to add it. By the way, TTP refers to Twilight Princess, Right? :Bucky 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep interesting and valuable. IrnBru001

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble Match Results

All information already covered in individual article for each year, see Royal Rumble (1988) for example. One Night In Hackney 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An incomplete and unnecessary duplication. Soltak | Talk 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redundant information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DXRAW 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that AfD is a discussion and not a vote and therefore does not work if one simply writes "keep" or "delete" without stating their reasoning. Soltak | Talk 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that before but going by previous discussions it does not matter what people think only the closing admin. One example is an article had the result of keep but the closing admin redirected it and locked the page so it could not be reversed. Anyway whats the point in writing "Keep - Because i don't think it should be deleted", when just a plain keep can do. DXRAW 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....erm, because "Keep because I don't want it deleted" is not a valid argument and the closing admin will most likely disregard it anyway - see WP:ATA, specifically the bit that says Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature is almost certainly not going to be considered by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present actual reasons as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it's an argument based on the right reasons. ChrisTheDude 13:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline DXRAW 21:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay or not, most closing admins completely disregard straight "votes" in an AfD discussion. Soltak | Talk 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- oakster TALK 14:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Strangnet was kind enough to provide a source that demonstrates how this band meets WP:MUSIC and I've added the ref to the article. Since we've already proved Godwin correct again here, I don't think there is much reason to continue this discussion.--Isotope23 14:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addis Black Widow

Article was previously deleted speedy, recreated in a different form, PROD'd, deproded, and now I'm brining it here. This band does not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. My opinion is that it should be deleted.--Isotope23 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where are the Prod discusssions? Why are all the links to .se links? This is English WP. TonyTheTiger 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Foreign-language sources are not disallowed, see WP:V. But foreign sources should (as far as I understand) a) be of exceptional quality and b) be quoted in a way that explains to English-speakers what the source contains.--Bonadea 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you two had any interest in music you would know that addis black widow are like one of the worlds biggest rap band/matrix17

Somehow I doubt that hyperbole, but if you look below Strangnet has asserted notability and sourced it... which is what should have been done in the article in the first place.--Isotope23 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Matrix, you have been told MANY times that articles need to be verifiable. The external links in the article do not assert notability. Most of them just mention that the group are in Melodifestivalen (and apparently ended up at the botton of the field). Surely the world's biggest rap band has sources you can quote in an article about them?--Bonadea 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria.--Bonadea 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per the sources in the article currently--Bonadea 08:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but in need of expanding. If one of the criterias in WP:MUSIC is to have charted success, Addis Black Widow fulfills it with their "Goes around, comes around" a couple of years ago. It was difficult not to go through a day (during several months) without hearing the song in any setting (tv, radio and whatnot). It managed to claim 12th spot on Swedish Radio Chart Tracks marathon table of 2001 [65] --Strangnet 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly would meet WP:MUSIC. I've stricken my opinion above. I didn't find this source when I was looking into possible notability here.--Isotope23 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (though I would contest the assertion that it was difficult not to have heard that song ;-) Thanks, Strangnet! --Bonadea 08:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Strangenet. Vints 10:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if anyone of you actually new swedish and new about this band you COULD find out that the story is perfeclty true. but as usuall eveyrone trys to be MR FANTASTIC and always puts deletions on articles they know nothing about. or as i call you MINI HITLERS(matrix17
- Ach... another victim of Godwin's Law...--Isotope23 00:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Strangenet. Also agree that this article needs lots of work. However, only keep if someone is prepared to sort this article out. Cream147 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article now features substantial third-party coverage. Sandstein 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Queens

I no longer believe that being invented by a child makes an otherwise ordinary card game notable. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was surprised to see that the manufacturer Gamewright is probably notable, but I don't think individual games are. -- Bpmullins | Talk 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom.Arnoutf 20:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do think that something invented by a six year old does have a spark of notability. In addition, this game has received quite a favourable welcome (mostly noted in parenting websites and blogs, so I have not listed them in the article). I've added a few positive independent third-party sources and reviews of this game to the article, including being listed on the "2006 Best Bet Awards" by the Canadian Toy Testing Council. Agent 86 01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This does not appear notable. If Gamewright had an article I would suggest a merge. Soltak | Talk 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references, although minor, establish notability as per the primary criterion of WP:N. Ccscott 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've reformatted the references that were there and added another one covering the subject from the Washington Post. Please take another look. Ccscott 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear notable to me. Montco 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never heard of it. --Linear Model 08:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "I've heard of it" and "I've never heard of it" are not reasons for deletion or retention. I hadn't heard of this game before, either, but I took the time to find out that it actually has a lot of coverage and attention. Agent 86 10:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Linear Model is new created vandal account. Hevesli 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. The linked sources seem to indicate some notability. Can't say much about the award as I've not heard of the group awarding it, so I don't know how big it is. This article needs some serious expansion, though; it doesn't even give the slightest indication what the game consists of, besides cards. Tiakalla 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 16:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient news coverage demonstrated in above search. Addhoc 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent86. There's enough raw material to create a verifiable, neutral encyclopedic article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; but recommend merge per WP:LOCAL. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:37Z

Innerkip Quarry

disputed PROD for NN-scuba diving center delete Cornell Rockey 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two references are enough to demonstrate notability. It sounds like it might be the most interesting thing in Innerkip, Ontario. --Eastmain 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Innerkip Quarry is a major destination for South Central Ontario Divers, I was surprised someone hadn't already made an article on it. --Liambrown 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. This is a move request, not a deletion request. I'm going to explain this on the nominator's talk page. Sandstein 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Unions

Rename to Kansas City Cowboys (UA), per historical naming conventions for this team. Even the external link names them the Kansas City Cowboys. I insert the (UA) after to distinguish them from other teams similarly named Neonblak 18:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:36Z

Power Power

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article itself says records is"set to be released at some point in 2007." Nv8200p talk 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crystalballing. Possibly recreate once released. Sandstein 19:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with a more specific timeframe. It has been confirmed the album will be released this summer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Lars Ericson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete None of the references provided state that the name will be Power Power, making the article fail WP:CRYSTAL, and the verifiable information here is already on the artist's page. ShadowHalo 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fruitionlv.com source is not on M.I.A.'s main page, and is specific to this entry. The name Power Power comes from the artist's official webpage.

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:35Z

Bobby Mercer

Completely WP:OR biography of a nonnotable movie character, who is already well covered at Four Brothers (film). Skipping PROD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack "Jackie" Mercer also turned out to require an AfD. Sandstein 19:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Flyguy649 19:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article per WP:FICT, as a fictional character without multiple independent sources showing notability except that of the film. Per Sandstein, it doesn't appear that there's more to be merged beyond what's already in the parent article. I also suggest Redirect to Bobby Murcer (the baseball player) as a commonly entered misspelling. Barno 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's sufficiently well covered at Four Brothers (film). Support redirect to Bobby Murcer.-FisherQueen (Talk) 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:35Z

Gary Wilde

Delete notability, WP:BIO not established. TonyTheTiger 19:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Author has a large list of books available at various reputable sources (including online sites like Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble). A number of these, (e.g., Outreach: Sharing Good News, Bible Promises to Treasure for Champions, and Receiving Love, the last of which he co-authored) have received independent, third-party editorial reviews, fully satisfying WP:BIO. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think I made all the proper requirements for a bio article, but I may be wrong. I think it should be kept, but worked on. Does anyone have any suggestions?--Lord Balin 01:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, too much red link for my taste which creates problems with WP:V Alf photoman 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep many publications, but not clear how main stream.Racepacket 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:34Z

Techtronica

Contested prod. Google has never heard of this band or this record. [66] [67] Pascal.Tesson 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, were not very famous yet. and nore are a lot of bands, but i dont see them getting deleted??

why delete my band??? does it really mater if it stays? its not doing any harm to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumandraisin (talk • contribs)

I can assure you that it's nothing personal. If you find any other band articles that fail to meet the basic requirements of WP:MUSIC, you are more than welcome to similarly propose their deletion. But Wikipedia is not MySpace. Pascal.Tesson 21:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 'we're not very famous yet' RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yes, in fact, we are constnatly deleting bands that do not meet WP:BAND notability criteria, such as this one. Sorry. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable band per creator's admission. Montco 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the author's admission of non-notability and WP:Pokémon test. ShadowHalo 03:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

My Tank is Fight!

There are no independent sources to show why this book is notable, and the only real claim to that effect is that the author writes for a popular website. The previous debate was closed with a result of keep a month ago, despite the lack of sources, and none have been added since, despite the presence of tags requesting such. Drat (Talk) 20:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no proof of notability outside of its Something Awful connection, no media coverage or outside reviews. The author is not notable outside of writing for SA; Zack Parsons even redirects to Something Awful. Krimpet 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect to Something Awful. Metrackle 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Something Awful. My vote was Weak Keep last time, but there haven't been any sources added and its notability is mostly through its relation to SA. JuJube 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significantly-selling books are generally considered notable. Mathmo ^Talk 13:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for those sales? Are they significant?--Drat (Talk) 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looked around a bit, but don't have time to find them now. Did however bumb across this, an interview with the author about the book. And now, another link. An interview with the author about the book at retrocrush.com Mathmo ^Talk 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any real coverage for this book. GassyGuy 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. So NN bordering on hoax if there wasn't a link to the publishing site. SakotGrimshine 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoax?! Doesn't seem likely at all, here is a few of the places where you can buy the book yourself: Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.ca, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de, Amazon.fr, Amazon.co.jp, and Play.com. Mathmo ^Talk 17:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, significantly-selling books are not inherently notable (though many are). Things which receive multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable source coverage are notable. Can't find a thing that fits for this book. Seraphimblade 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A book about non-notable inventions, many of which didn't get off the drawing board. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #27,583 in Books. Not bad, but not so good that I'd support a keep vote without some other claim to notability. Besides, the current article is little more than a list of the chapters of the book. If the book does turn out to be notable for some reason no-one's noticed, the article should be trimmed right back to a stub. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Article does not lay claim to any notability for the topic. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, these are not non-notable inventions. Many (possibly all) already have a page here on wikipedia. It is not a listing of chapters, but instead stating what inventions it covers. A perfectly reasonably thing to include in the article. Also if you look at the inventions you will see many of them have a wikilink to their own article page like I said. Thus obviously not non-notable inventions. Mathmo ^Talk 08:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Largely irrelevant-the notability of a book's subject has no bearing on the notability of the book. Nor does sales (notability is not popularity). If and only if reliable non-trivial secondary source coverage exists is the subject notable. Seraphimblade 09:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know that a book being about a notable subject doesn't mean it is notable. Likewise the reverse is also not automatically true. Thus is why I was replying to Ben Aveling's delete vote where it was stated "book about non-notable inventions". Probably could have stated it better, either way the combination of your statement and mine I think now makes my point clear. Mathmo ^Talk 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment. What I was saying was 'non notable book about non notable things'. Most of them never got off the drawing board, or past the prototype stage. That doesn't mean they aren't interesting, but it does make it less likely that they have impacted the universe in any noticable way. And per everyone, we need to establish the notability of the book. The only argument presented on this page so far is sales, which aren't bad, but not, I think, good enough. Currently #9,283 - a problem with Amazon rankings. It does seem to have been #6 at one point [68] , but I'm not planning to change my vote unless the article explains why the book is notable. Currently, it says "Parsons describes the work as "pulp history" given its nature of combining technical details with a more action and humor-focused writing style. The book was published mainly because of Something Awful's huge popularity as a humor website, with many people interested in purchasing a book by one of its contributors. It is based on a series of columns for the site." BFW. The bulk of the aricle is a list of chapters, followed by apparently OR observation that "Many of the inventions are of German origin because ...". Actually, I will change my vote. See above. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the arguments presented in the previous AFD Johhny-turbo 06:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do us a favour. Summarise them here and keep everything together. AFD is not a vote and you need to explain your reasoning here. Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the last debate Night Gyr said "significantly-selling books are generally considered notable, and WP:BK is still only a proposal. There is also coverage of this book, but it's buried under all the listings of retailers selling it. I've seen a scan of a newspaper article about it, documenting that it sold out its first printing (over 10,000 copies total), but I don't have it on hand right now. The author was also covered in the Retrocrush podcast here, and in a number of other places around the internet." Addhoc 10:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless multiple, non-trivial, reliably published sources are included per above searches. Addhoc 10:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without some third-party critical commentary, this is a simple directory entry, which is not WP:NOT stuff. Wikipedia is not books-in-print, and this book is not notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:32Z

ZincTech Dragon

Non-notable band. Google finds no relevant third-party sources [69]. Moreover, the article has been solely edited by Rumandraisin (talk · contribs) who claims to be Robert Wilson, the band leader. Pascal.Tesson 20:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What dyu mean?? claims to be?? i am robert wilson. why would i lie about my name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumandraisin (talk • contribs)
Delete for several reasons:
1. If Rumandraisin is the leader of the band, then he's got a conflict of interest. Somebody should tell him not to edit this article if it is kept, and not to re-create this article if it is deleted.
2. All of the "singles" are self-made by Rumandraisin. They look like somebody made them in MS Paint. I don't think that they are valid.
3. Their website [70] looks pathetic. I know that this isn't a basis for deletion, but look at all the spelling errors. Those give me the impression that this is simply a garage band, and we all know how Wikipedia feels about garage bands. Also, they only have 4 songs loaded on their website, which is the limit for free users. Looks like they aren't paying for their free hosting service.
4. The most important reason: Fails WP:BAND. I tried to find the chart claims on somewhere other than the band's website, but I couldn't find them. My guess is that they were fabricated to make the band look better than it is. PT O 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Rumandraisin has confirmed that he's part of the band [71]. Pascal.Tesson 22:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then refer to my first point: WP:COI. PT O 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. all of our singles were download only, anyway, i dont see how it matters. this page isnt doing anyone any harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumandraisin (talk • contribs)

Comment if that is the case, the claimed UK Chart positions are false as until 2007 download only did not qualify for the charts. Nuttah68 15:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Pascal.Tesson has demonstrated, this band is clearly nn. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Every date was cancelled due to foresight of low ticket sales." That's not exactly comforting. No reference available for chart positions, no references provided at all. Simply put, fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 03:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability demonstrated or sourced. Nuttah68 15:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:29Z

Cepstral

Delete Notability was not established. TonyTheTiger 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Turgidson 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, no sources. Nuttah68 15:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect not ruled out, but strikes me as an unlikely search term. Sandstein 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV2 A-Z video marathon

Delete - unsourced article on what was a non-notable glorified publicity stunt. Coupled with OR problems and a dash of crystal ballery toward the end. Otto4711 23:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I never knew about this and find it interesting. TheNewMinistry 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not particularly persuasive. Otto4711 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support of the idea of an article on the subject, but the current version is completely unsourced so I won't be opposed to deleting it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources provided are from online forums, far from reliable. Unless some reliable sources can be found, the article doesn't meet WP:V. ShadowHalo 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches. Addhoc 15:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MTV2 where there is a small corresponding section justly marked with citation needed. Tikiwont 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:29Z

MTV's Most Controversial Videos

Delete - fails WP:N, WP:V and probably WP:OR and WP:POV with its characterization of videos as "gross" and whatnot. Otto4711 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In my mind, this is dangerously close to indiscriminate information. However, and in defense of the article, this is not the creator's own choice of top 20 most controversial videos but simply the list that appeared in an MTV special. I'm sure a little bit of cleanup would remove the OR and POV and the list itself is clearly verifiable. Pascal.Tesson 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question It's been a while since I've seen one, but I have a feeling that lists excerpted from magazines (100 hottest celebrities or whatever) are at least accused of being copyvios. Would this one potentially fall into the same category? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reprinting the list might be copyvio since the inclusion criteria is subjective. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as list-copyvio, but with no prejudices against recreation of a similar article on the "two-hour documentary hosted by MTV News" ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is, but tweaking the article to be about the PROGRAMME, rather than the list of videos, would probably be a better solution. J Milburn 21:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per db-copyvio. I don't think shows like this are notable enough to have articles on, though. JuJube 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia rules on copy-vio for publishing someone else's list. Doczilla 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:28Z

Northwest Africa 3009

I prodded this a while back (explanation: "nn meteorite, one of many"), and it was deleted. Now it has been recreated, but since prod is not an XfD discussion I didn't want to just slap a speedy tag on it. I'm hoping to set a precedent here. I still think it's not notable. N Shar 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think your initial prod explanation says it best. Soltak | Talk 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Isn't there a List of meteorites for meteorites that aren't particularly notable? -Freekee 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. DanielCD 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted bargains

Article is an advertisement. Nkras 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 as ad for nn-company. --N Shar 21:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did this even go to AFD? --DanielCD 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied by User:Jimfbleak. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:26Z

Dr. ARK Pillai

Entirely uncited, does not meet WP:BIO, and heavily biased RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks suspiciously like spam. I totally agree with RHB. Also: the user entering the article is brand-new, there are only about 5 mentioning of the ILF in Google. This article either needs a complete rewrite or deletion. My preference is deletion. HagenUK 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search suggests that sources exist, but most seem to be unreliable or non-independent. Agree with HagenUK and RHB. --N Shar 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~

comment. If documented N is evident. Placing an unsourced tag would be the appropriate action.DGG 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC) However, the only other article from this editor " Indian Development Foundation" has just been removed by speedy as a blatant copyright violation, so this one should be checked as well. DGG 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I hate articles like these with a vengeance. Tagged as WP:CSD#G11 Ohconfucius 09:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:25Z

List of fictional characters with phobias

Delete article. It is original research beyond repair. As written, it is a list of characters with things they're afraid of. The diagnostic term phobia is more specific than that. It requires much greater severity and more debilitating effects than most people realize. Basically, unless the characters are said to have been diagnosed with a phobic disorder, applying the label in this list invokes POV. Even if we changed the name to List of fictional characters diagnosed with phobic disorders, that wouldn't fix the current list. We could more easily start over from scratch than work our way through this whole list figuring out which item fits and which does not. Doczilla 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indiscriminate. Only a couple of characters possess phobias sufficient enough to substantially contribute to their notability, anyway.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dmz5. JuJube 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO with loads of original research. Krimpet 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list does not seem to distinguish between an actual "phobia" and a run-of-the-mill fear of something. For example, I may fear burning my hand on a stove, but that does not give me a phobia of the stove or a phobia of being burned. Because it is problematic, the list should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (probably) - converting it to characters with clinically-defined phobias seems like a better solution, but even so, I'm not sure it adds much, and feels like indiscriminate collection of information. (For example it includes homophobia, which is not a clinical "phobia", but the common term for disapprobation of same-sex behavior/identity.) But if someone came along with a good proposal for limiting & cleaning it up, I'd consider changing my mind on the value of the article/list. The proposal would need to include (a) defining; (b) weeding / paring; and (c) organizing by disorder, which might actually add some value to wikipedia's phobia articles. --lquilter 03:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:25Z

Aaron Faro

Doesn't quite seem notable, I don't THINK what is said in the article qualifies. However, uncertainty made me bring it here instead of speedying. J Milburn 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked at tagging this one for speedy myself but wasn't sure, Theres not sources to show this meets WP:BIO RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, less than 300 ghits, 8 with "NACA" attached. Mystache 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability and no sources. Nuttah68 15:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bucketsofg 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Fury

Wrestler from Liverpool. Was deleted as a prod and restored on request, so now it's here for discussion. I'm opinionless. ~ trialsanderrors 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least initially this article was probably a vanity, as the majority of edits are courtesy of Lisa Fury. However, it appears to satisfy notability requirements for professional wrestlers. Soltak | Talk 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No it does not satisfy the requirements. She wrestled in a few minor indy feds, and no notability claimed. TJ Spyke 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Star Wrestling are not a minor indy fed. They have been running shows for well over 20 years and run a significant number of shows per month, see their calendar for information. One Night In Hackney 23:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IF All Star Wrestling is notable (which I doubt), it's still just a minor indy fed and isn't relevent here. Every wrestler who competed for ROH (also an indy fed) isn't notable, and her article does nothing to show she isn't just another iny wrestler. TJ Spyke 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't think a promotion that has been running over 20 years, used to be on national TV (on one of the four main terrestrial channels, not cable or satellite) and runs a significant number (more than any US indy, for the record) of shows per month is notable? From my understanding of the sequence of events Paulley has said there is new information regarding her notability forthcoming, see the deletion review. In my opinion she is notable now, regardless of this. One Night In Hackney 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in regards to British wrestling, Brian Dixon's All Star Promotions is very notable -- Paulley

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:COI. The organization she is part of is also borderline notable, and the promotion existing for 20 years isn't in itself an assertion of notability (particularly when that group's article is unsourced and also provides only a very weak assertion of notability). If the article on the wrestler can be sourced and cleaned up, I might change my mind. --Core desat 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she's hot and the article isn't just a vanity stub. Nardman1 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being hot isn't a basis on whether it should or shouldn't be deleted. She is a non notable wrestler, so an article isn't really needed of her on Wiki. Kris Classic 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She recently became a Destiny Girl in Italy's top promotion NWE.. making her an international starlet --- Paulley
- Comment Just because she is a "Destiny Girl" doesn't make her notafiable. Kris Classic 03:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But competing internationally and appearing on TV does. which she has done while being a "Destiny Girl" -- Paulley 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this search Addhoc 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:24Z

Sebastian Mego

One song on the soundtrack of a TV movie, and a MySpace page saying he's signed to Columbia Records... doesn't seem to have achieved notability yet. But I could be wrong, so here we are. FreplySpang 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete According to Billboard, neither the soundtrack nor the subject have ever charted. One tenuous claim to notability is that the subject sang background vocals on Stevie Wonder's recent A Time For Love (according to AMG). Not enough, however, to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 02:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the article gives no claim anywhere clode to meeting WP:MUSIC let alone offering sources to back it up. Nuttah68 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cricket02 12:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 10:24Z

Chelsea Shepard

Second nomination. The first AfD debate resulted in keep after two keep votes unsupported by any sort of fact. The subject is an author of erotic fiction whose sole publications went through vanity presses. No sign of any reliable, non-trivial third party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn triviality. --Fire Star 火星 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to vote keep if she were hot, but there's no pic of her, not even on her own webpage, nothing in GIS, and wikipedia is the top ranked hit. Nardman1 15:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-publications are not an indication of notability; often the opposite. Nothing here meeting WP:BIO and her books do not meet the WP:BK proposed guideline or, as cited in the nomination, our bedrock of reliable, non-trivial third-party coverage.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was pending. Bucketsofg 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annelies Tanghe

"Contested" A7 (another author removed the tag) however, there's still no assertion of notability or any sources/reviews that indicate this singer is notable. I can't find any charting information, or any sources (the band's myspace seems to indicate there might be reviews, but we don't know if those are reliable. The language barrier does hamper efforts to find sources, I admit, but that's why I brought it here. The band JinXS is also included in this AfD, similar reasoning. ColourBurst 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please check the on www.jinxs.be. Under "Calendar" you will find a huge list of gigs. Many of the gigs link to respected festivals with sites mentioning JinXS and Annelies Tanghe. Wouter Verlinden 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for weighing in. The main issue is that I couldn't find any third-party reliable sources, such as music magazines, reviewing the band. This is needed to verify the article, making sure it isn't original research, which cannot be used in Wikipedia. WP:MUSIC notes other criteria that would make a band pass Wikipedia's notability bar (which in turn indicates how likely they would be reviewed by third-party sources); see if Annelies satisfies any of these. ColourBurst 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability per WP:MUSIC and no sources. Nuttah68 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did add some links to press-articles to the Annelies Tanghe wiki-page to confirm that this is a real performing artist, who is being reviewed be music magazines. Wouter Verlinden 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- does not appear to exhibit notability under WP:BAND, as secondary sources are weak. Google test for Jinxs was very weak. Pages are linkless and band only has one (apparently minor) album. Danski14 01:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All resources are now added to the JinXS -page and the Annelies Tanghe -page. 84.194.223.221 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - references just sufficient to pass WP:BAND... Addhoc 12:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know this band, and they are pretty known here in Belgium. I saw they will also be touring in The Netherlands, being a second medium-size country to tour for them. 193.58.82.178 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. SYCTHOS ^talk 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArtRocker

Delete as non-notable journal. Alexa ranks the home page as #648,519, per [72]. Feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong. SYCTHOS ^talk 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (nomination withdrew) with expansion and redirect from Artrocker. The 600,000s are high? I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. SYCTHOS ^talk 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the 600,000s are actually pretty high up for Alexa rankings. I edited the article a little. Look at the web site -- they have a lot of activity there. As a bi-weekly ditributed by Borders, they probably have a circulation in excess of 200,000 -- way over the notability threshold. They sell ads for £1000 per page, but don't list their circ. --James S. 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 600,000's means we would have to nearly double the size of the Wikipedia to accomodate all the website articles. And "probably" 200,000 units doesn't work in an encyclopedia, give us hard numbers. Ruby 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As per James S. IronDuke 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Thorri 10:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give a reason. Turnstep 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too bad circulation data isn't available, but aside, agree on notability criteria being met based on distribution/web activity. -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 11:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per research and facts establishing notability by Nrcprm2026. Turnstep 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a newspaper more than a website. (Quite surprising the alexa rank is that low, though.) If kept it should be moved to Artrocker. Flower party■ 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my own site has an Alexa ranking around 350,000, but I see no need for an encyclopedia entry about it--nor this. Ergot 16:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be more of a print magazine than a website, so Alexa rating shouldn't be the primary factor here. Gets a lot of Google hits and seems notable enough. Snurks ^{T C} 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Snurks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-27 21:14Z

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