Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 26 May 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete, the alternatives, Merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees besides his date of brith all the same information is already there. Keep while the detainees are notable, articles should only be created where there is sufficient information beyond the what can be presented in the list. Gnangarra 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani

[edit]
Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Having been a prisoner at Gitmo is strong grounds for notability, but, presumably because of the veil of secrecy, nothing is known about the person who is the subject of this article, other than (a) he is a name on a list of former Gitmo prisoners; (b) the list says he was born in 1979 in Mecca. Should articles really exist about people when nothing is known, or perhaps knowable, about them? Tempshill 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN for own seperate article, especially seeing as who most of this article is background not even about him. Could be put in a list. --Shuki 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think the articles should all exist, because progressively more will become known, since given the name, date of birth, and place of birth, they will be recognized. Even now, has anyone searched Arabic-language sources? Even in English, there are "transcripts and statements from the CSRB" which might provide further information even if partially censored. The article did not correctly transcribe the date of birth, which is "2/10/1978" . DGG 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Geo Swan 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer, I started this article, and most of the other articles about Guantanamo captives.
    • I have his release date somewhere in my notes. I can't find them right now.
    • Arabic names are often transliterated in many different ways. Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani's name is very close to that of two highly notable captives.
      • Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani, the individual whose article is nominated for deletion, is spelled very similarly to Jabran Said Wazar Al Qahtani, one of the ten detainees who faced charges before the Guantanamo military commissions. I confused them myself, at first. Given how loose name matching has to be for people with Arabic names this would, normally, qualify as a perfect name match.
      • Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani, the individual whose article is nominated for deletion, is one of four captives who is named some variation of Muhamed Al Qahtani.
      • Muhammad Mani Ahmded Al Shal Lan Al Qahtani, usually known simply as Mohammed Al Qahtani, was the Guantanamo captive who was identified as one of the "20th hijackers". He is the one the DoD actually acknowledges torturing for two months. Another wikipedia contributor mistook Jabir Muhammed Al Qahtani for the 20th hijacker.
    • IMO, the best way to prevent confusion over Jabir's identity, so he isn't mistakenly conflated with the other guys is for him to have an article of his own.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- Geo Swan 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate combined list of detainees. I know that creating such a list will take time and effort, but continue to believe that it is the right action for any of the detainees for whom no sources independent of the standard prisoner lists and CSRT hearing records hae been found. GRBerry 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greetings,
    • You have made this suggestion before. I didn't take a crack at it when you made your first suggestions last fall. I wanted to make sure none of the articles were what my earlier critics called stubs. But, when I finished, I spent almost all my spare time during late December, January and February adapting one of the files in my rough notes as an experiment to try your suggestion. I think I have told you this a couple of times now. I think I told you have how large and unmanageable this file grew -- about 420 kilobytes at this point. I didn't spell this out before, but that experiment consumed well over one hundred hours.
    • I left a note on Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees where I asked people for their opinion about a rewrite of that article. That was five weeks ago, only one reply so far.
    • As I have said before, I continue to have concerns over the workability of a union list I continue to have concerns that it could prove to be too large to be useful because of how long it would take to load, and too large for an interested party to find what they want, once it loads.
    • If you are aware of an answer to the technical problems I anticipate, let me then ask you if you have the time and energy to lay them out? I think Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees would be the appropriate place for that discussion.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AKRadecki 22:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Strictly speaking, this is not a relisting but a continuation of an unclosed discussion started on 21 May that appears not to have been formally closed. To whoever may close this, I think another couple of days is appropriate. No opinion on the article at present, just heading off to read it properly. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This individual is not notable. How can he be if nothing is known about him? Nick mallory 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Guantánamo Bay detainees until such time as we have enough information to write a proper article on the individual. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep After having given this much additional thought, I remain of the opinion that all of these individuals are notable because of the nature, scale and likely historical significance of the political event that they are embroiled in. Little is known about them for the very obvious reason that information is actively witheld and suppressed by the detaining authority. The norms of the various guidelines such as WP:NOTE, WP:BIO etc. are rather difficult to employ in these circumstances. I also find Geo Swan's argument above against merging to the list convincing. Therefore, keep. (Please note, any response to this opinion will likely be unanswered as I am running an ancient gas-powered PC temporarily (main PC has fried motherboard - boo)). --Cactus.man ✍ 08:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masetelli

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

All the information in Masetelli and Yurubarya is unverifiable. The author, Jelld, seems to be a sock puppet of the other contributor, 167.104.6.43, who has been repeatedly accused of vandalism. 167.104.6.43 also deleted the {{prod}} tags for both articles without justification. Strodie 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Masetelli, I am nominating this article for deletion:

Yurubarya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This related article was also created by Jelld and 167.104.6.43, but has already been deleted (via the {{prod}} tag): See Morris "Great tribes of South America" P. 78 Nelson ,2001

This related article was modified by 167.104.6.43 and Jelld to include references to the proposed deletions, but is authentic and should not be deleted: Tambopata Province Strodie 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Non admin closure. Funpika 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Thompson

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

Fails WP:BIO. The person in question has not been the subject of reliable, published secondary source articles. The subject of the article hasn't had an extensive career in the entertainment field, with a few guest roles and a few appearances as a television presenter. The article's assertion to notability is lacking - with only a collection of Star Wars video games and involvement in the niche "retro gaming" community. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Hi - I would welcome any advice as to what is required to improve this entry...I'm new to all this so forgive me if I get anything wrong or am writing in the wrong place! I believe there are more press articles around, they just aren't particularly easy to find...would further references of this type help? Subject is listed in Nickelodeon UK's entry as a presenter - there are other former Nickolodeon presenters without entries but awaiting them.

Point taken about the media career not being extensive but nevertheless he does have one and someone somewhere may wish to find out what their favourite former Nickolodeon presenter is up to. I know it's not going to happen everyday but I know I've gone hunting for information for some awfully obscure people in my time!

Retro gaming is a niche, but again is fairly well covered on wiki and the subject has made a significant contribution to the ongoing revival - i'll admit that he isn't as historically significant as Maclean or Minter but in terms of current activity he's doing as much as anyone to promote the scene. Anyway, waffle over, would be very grateful of any advice, tips etc...

Stevenseagull 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If anyone wants to know what's going on with this fellow, then content like that would be best suited for a fansite, not a general interest encyclopedia. Retro gaming is an interesting scene, but it doesn't mean everyone who supports it should have an article. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TV presenter, and article contains a reference to a Lancashire Evening Telegraph article where he is the primary subject (non-trivial coverage). I suspect that other sources may be available. -- Whpq 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a few references to not exactly the most reliable of sources, but I would say this still constitutes non-trivial coverage. Fine for now at least. --Merzul 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per SNOW. PeaceNT 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-vice

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

A non-notable online magazine. The article is unsourced, makes no real assertion of notability and a quick google search comes up with little relevant. Mattinbgn/ talk 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Abbasi

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

The subject in question isn't notable, not everyone who attended Leeds university should have an article. The Joke النكتة‎ 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 02:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Water Music

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

Contested prod; article does not assert notability of band. Recommed Delete. Dchall1 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect per nominator. Sr13 02:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotarian

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

Only 550 hits on Google Alan Liefting 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. PeaceNT 05:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glass and Ashes

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

Contested prod - non-notable band. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. PeaceNT 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beard punk

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

Contested prod. Article does not assert notability for this sub-genre, nor do most linked articles. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 22:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Stirling (railway engineer)

[edit]
Matthew Stirling (railway engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Corvus cornix 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Stirling

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

Not notable Corvus cornix 21:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep for reasons as with Matthew Stirling (above). Peterkingiron 23:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just saying 'not notable' isn't much of an argument. This man, like his son, designed railway locomotives which were widely used in Britain during the heyday of steam. The article is sourced and referenced. The development of the railways was vitally important in Britain's economic growth in the 19th century and without men like this the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened. He wasn't Stevenson but he, and men like him, helped build the modern world. The fact that he worked in the pre-internet era in a now superceded branch of engineering, rather than software, doesn't mean he's not notable.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- Peterkingiron 23:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historically important British railway engineer with a very significant claim to notability, backed up by sources. The fact that he is covered in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - a printed work with much narrower scope than Wikipedia - is a testament to his notability. The article needs work, and could use some stronger references, but that is not a reason to delete. The AfD nominator has not actually offered any arguments in favour of deletion (saying "not notable", without giving a reason, doesn't constitute an argument). AdorableRuffian 13:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable designer. Nominator hasn't said why he or she believes the subject's not notable. Perhaps a misunderstanding re. American vs. British terminology? --Charlene 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable designer and engineer. The speed record of his designed locamotive alone makes him notable. The nom's comment was WP:JUSTAVOTE and not a case for deletion. --Oakshade 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stirling's designs saw wide use and are known both in the UK and the US. Slambo (Speak) 18:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be entirely no viable case for deletion here, though it would be great if someone knowledgeable about the subject could enhance the standard of the article. - Axver 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedows Linux

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

Non-notable old Linux distribution. I can't read portuguese much, but the site the article points to appears to be about another Linux distribution now. Perhaps renamed. Chealer 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globency

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

G-search shows term is only used to advertise globency.com. Contested prod. Kathy A. 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 07:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GENtOS

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

Linux distribution created because the creator wanted to learn how to rebuild an operating system. No notability. Chealer 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles should be deleted for the same reason: 

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

The result was merge. There's a strong consensus to merge, so the people who want to merge can do that now. W.marsh 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeros to Donuts

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

There have been a number of similarly low-context stubs created for episodes of Curious George (TV series). I was considering cleaning them up, but I'm actually not clear on whether there is or will be enough relevant information to support an article on each episode of this series. Hence, I've bundled them in this nomination, to get a sense of community consensus. If the decision is to keep them, I'll make attempts to bring them up to Wikipedia's standards. JavaTenor 19:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following related articles:

From Scratch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Curious George Flies a Kite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Curious George's Home for Pigeons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Curious George, Stain Remover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Being Hundley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Curious George Goes to the Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a publishing company who is not notable (yet...so deleting without prejudice to recreation if notability can be clearly established with refs). AKRadecki 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmith Books

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

The article fails to establish any significant notability for the subject. Furthermore, the article was created by an author who's first novel was just published by this company, leading to some serious concerns about COI. Doc Tropics 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Some investigation suggests that this publisher is at least somewhat successful, and one of their books has recently been filmed [3][4]. They seem to have a good reputation as an up-and-coming publisher in Hong Kong. A couple of their other books seem to be somewhat successful also. I don't know if having notable products is normally considered to make a company notable, but I think it probably should. JulesH 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America's Darlings

[edit]
America's Darlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future film that appears to have no future. Entry has been deleted from IMdB and neither Lopez's or Kidman's entries include anything about this project or anything similar. I can't see a planned movie that wasn't made being worth an entry unless there was something notable about why it wasn't made, and there does not appear to be any such reason. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to The Works (Queen album). PeaceNT 05:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tear It Up

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

The song called Tear it Up by Queen has never been released as a single by the band. The user doesn't cite the sources where he got that information (which is false anyways). He mix a track listing with a Bonus DVD that makes total nonsense. Also he doesn't add charts positions and has uploaded Andrew W. K. cd sleeve for a Queen song. I have two links to prove that Queen didn't release Tear it up as a single:http://www.queenpicturehall.com/singles/index.shtml and http://www.pcpki.com/queen/singles.html VincentG 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not-a-keep. -- saberwyn 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedied as spam Akradecki

MagicISO

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

Non-notable product with persistent and disruptive wikispammers. -- intgr #%@! 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily kept as bad-faith nomination. MaxSem 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips-Van Heusen

[edit]
Phillips-Van Heusen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason Bubuntu 17:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Per edit history, nominator's stated reason is "obscure company, idiosynchratic and unpopular product line, vanity page." —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's a stub article, but it's a Fortune 1000 company listed on the NYSE. This meets the notability standards. It doesn't appear to be edited by management of P-VH. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 07:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 Inch

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

This article should be deleted because the article both qualifies for WP:NOT and WP:DELETE. In adition, on the Simple Plan talk page, I posted that I would nominate 7 inch for deletion if there was no objections. There was none. — Ian Lee (Talk) 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per Snow. PeaceNT 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpsie

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

I prod'd this the other day and someone improved it. I still don't think the subject is wiki worthy. Postcard Cathy 16:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree - we have a busy forum, and many people (including people not on the forum) ask 'what is Corpsie all about' so a Wiki entry is valid. I made the point NOT to advertise either the forum or anything to do with it so to avoid being accused of spamming. There are a LOT less reputable entries then our simple Corpsie. koopa42

Then those too should go because they must be pretty lame. Postcard Cathy 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One reference I can give you - Retro Gamer magazine, issue 19, in an article on the Retro Ball event held in the UK. The editor used a picture of Corpsie. Merman 1974
Then that belongs in the article and put the reference in context. This way those that know about those things can decide if it is an important enough source.

I have to disagree too. The forum IS a hive of activity, with people asking 'who's Corpsie?' all the while. Even having several appearances in some mainstream gaming magazines, I don't see the problem in having this as a Wiki entry. djmassive

Then where are the citations from those magazines? Postcard Cathy 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright guys, looks like we're not gonna get anywhere here. You're obviously set in your mind that this isn't to stay a part of Wikipedia. You may as well just pull it at the next convenient time. Long live the 3rd Reich eh guys? djmassive
Ok DJ since you are so upset, then make a MySpace page for the guy and then you won't get pulled for lack of notability unless he is a sex offender! Really, just because a lot of people ask about something doesn't mean it is wiki worthy. Postcard Cathy 21:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, the nominator is alread blocked. MaxSem 17:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jadzia Dax

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

idiosynchratic vanity page about fictional non-event, unencyclopaedic Bubuntu 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete Advert --Tango 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republique Capital Management

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

Non-notable company, unsourced. De-prodded without comment. Pleclech 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by User:Irishguy, CSD G11. YechielMan 21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Private Capital LLP

[edit]
Greenwich Private Capital LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, article has been sitting unwikified and unexpanded sice Dec 2006. Prod tag removed without comment. Pleclech 16:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Nelson (singer)

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND. Made up facts (no charting singles at Billboard.com and misleading wording (implying that her "Running With Scissors" is from the soundtrack of the film of the same name--it's not). No reliable sources. Closenplay 16:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Drobena

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

Page is a joke about a non-notable college student. Beginning 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was kibosh applied. Krimpet (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to M*A*S*H

[edit]
References to M*A*S*H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a driectory of loosely-associated topics. It's a small list now but if it follows the pattern of other similar pop culture articles it will shortly be bloated with every reference to the series or film that any random editor happens to spot in any movie, TV show, song or whatever. I suggest we put the kibosh on the article sooner rather than later, in line with any number of other similar pop culture articles that have been deleted in the last several months. Otto4711 15:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to urban golf. Sr13 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Town Golf

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

Appears to be a vanity piece on a non-notable concept. See urban golf for a much better article on this topic. If independent references can be found, merge this to urban golf, otherwise delete. Carcharoth 15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to urban golf. As far as I can see they're the same thing, and this article was created by a user account with the same name as the "founder". Redirect. Ben W Bell talk 15:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Noachide Council, Inc.

[edit]
United Noachide Council, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Queried speedy delete. See User_talk:Ibn_nuh#Your edit to United Noachide Council, Inc. Anthony Appleyard 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, your saying the United Noachide Council was featured in the news, not the High Council of B'nei Noah? Addhoc 17:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the only remaining form of the High Council of B'nei Noah and so it should be merged with that article explaining in particular how it came to survive the disintegration of the High Council of B'nei Noah. Kaz 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Addhoc 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ok, ok. Then delete the page already. All I can say is that I was trying to create an encyclopedia page that would help anyone interested in the subject of Noahidism. Given the strict opposition this page has seen, It is based on the same idea as the High Council of B'nei Noah page, and I fail to see how it is any different. Enough of this for me. --Ibn nuh 07:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was STRONG no consensus (there's so many "strong" inputs here I couldn't help but do it myself). AKRadecki 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany national football team

[edit]
West Germany national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV-fork [5] from August 2006 by Hammersfan who claims West Germany and Germany were/are different states and teams. No citations for these claims are provided, talk by others is ignored. The same user apparently had previously introduced another dubious article on a football team that had to be deleted. If his attitude prevails, e.g. all articles concerning the USA have to be splitted in periods for 13-states-USA to 50-states-USA.  Matthead discuß!     O       13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update for clarification: Since 1908 to present, the Germany national football team is fielded by the German association DFB, recognized by and member of FIFA. It was this team, representing the DFB based in what is since 1949 called the Federal Republic of Germany, that won the WC in 1954, 1974 and 1990, not a team by any other name even though some might have called it West Germany, and some still try to do so for reasons one can only speculate about. Communist East Germany had fielded a team of their own, but both the new states there and their DFV clubs and players joined the FR of Germany and the DFB in 1990. There was "no merger of equals", nothing new was created, the FR Germany, the DFB and the German team continued as usual, the only change in 1990 was that the area and population of FR Germany grew as the separate East Germany ceased to exist and additional players were eligible. Nobody claims that the USA were founded by a merger of "South USA" and Alaska, either. I strongly urge User:Phoenix2, User:JdeJ and User:Lepetitvagabond to learn about the historical facts and update their statements accordingly. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but your statement above is hugely ambiguous. Perhaps you might want to rewrite it and use shorter sentences? On one hand, I get the feeling there existed two teams, yet on the other, I have this understanding that they could be identical. Although what I see now here is they were never identical. After all, do you mean that the West German team and East German team played together, each replacing the other in international competitions? - le petit vagabond 22:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very, very simple: Germany national football team, fielded since 1908 by the DFB, covers the whole history of Germany's national football team from 1908 to the present, including the period from 1949 to 1990. Period, end of story, no discussion needed. Due to partition after WW2 there were two other teams, Saarland national football team (1949-1956) and East Germany national football team (1949-1990), but never ever a separate West Germany national football team. Some just called the DFB team West Germany until the East team folded in 1990. The same persons should have called the 1954 WC winners Central Germany, as the Saarland was the westernmost separate part of Germany back then!).-- Matthead discuß!     O       23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, West Germany and Germany were two different countries at one point, and I think there's enough historical information for the maintenance of both articles. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. West Germany was one of the strongest and most succesful teams ever, including being World Champions three times. They were a different team from the Germany-team that came into existence when West Germany and East Germany were united, as the article makes clear. There is absolutely nothing to support deleting this article. JdeJ 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' While I have some sympathy with the nominator's views, while not necessarily agreeing with them, this does not belong in AfD. AfD is not a place to resolve these kinds of disputes. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 21:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Delete Convinced by arguments provided below. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inadvertent deletion of Mattinbgn's comment by Matthead restored. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute had been resolved as there had been consensus months ago on the talk page to merge the 1950-1990 history of the team from the separate article into the the proper one, but some individuals keep separating it. Rather than renaming the separate article "Germany national football team from 1950 to 1990", which would accurately indicate both the content and the lack of need for a separate article, I filed this AfD to keep this zombie from being resurrected over and over again.-- Matthead discuß!     O       22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there were three de facto states/teams, and it wouldn't make much sense for a game between two of them to link to the same page for both teams. It wouldn't make sense for Confederate Navy to be merged with United States Navy, either. Note that the analogy is incorrect as the U.S. may have had fewer than 50 states at one time but in the cases where territories were independent or under a different flag then we have articles, e.g. Republic of Texas. If the Republic of Texas had a soccer team, it wouldn't make sense to merge it with the U.S. national team article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you have to vote Delete according to your own statement. Germany never played against West Germany, this was and is impossible as they were and are identical. The historical separate teams, East Germany and Saarland, have and keep their own articles of course (and only with these it adds to 3 states, but not 4). You also misunderstood the analogy. There are no two separate articles on the US national team, one before Texas joined the US, and one after. Same about the navy, there was a Confederate one, but not two different US navies before and after civil or any other war.-- Matthead discuß!     O       22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As East German football fan I can confirm that the DFB teams are seen as a continuity even within East Germany, only that Ossis (as well as many West Germans) see the East Germany national football team as equally representative of the "nation". All content for this article would have to be exactly identical to the appropriate history sections in the Germany-article, so there's no point in maintaining both. Mentioning that the DFB team was usually referred to as West Germany between 1950 and 1990 of is absolutely enough. Malc82 23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Before reunification, East and West Germany were de-facto separate states, each with their own national institutions. As long as this article confines itself to the period when there were two states, it has every right to exist. If it duplicates an article on the Germany football team, then the duplicated text should be deleted from there, perhaps being replaced by a brief summary of the 1950-1990 period, referring to this article using a 'main' template. Peterkingiron 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment An article about the German national football team that excludes 1950-1990 would be total nonsense to any football fan. By that logic we would have to create separate articles whenever the territory of a country changes. Would anybody really suggest that when Quebec would split from Canada, all articles concerning Canada should be renamed "Canada (before 2xxx)" and a new one should take their place? The DFV didn't merge with the DFB, it simply seized to exist and it's clubs (and territory) were integrated into the DFB. Malc82 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, User:Peterkingiron is advocating a separate article for the England team that won the 1966 World Cup, too. The current English team, according to his logic, is a totally different one as Hongkong now belongs to China. English fans surely will love this attitude. -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sense a lot of WP:POINT from you here, using this to execute some sort of agenda that needs to be taken elsewhere. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page. -- Matthead discuß!     O       04:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment: The article on the German team, which lost in 1974 to the East German team, already refers to the East German team and its article, as well as to the Saarland team that had an even shorter lifespan than the East German one. Why to you vote to keep a fourth article that deals with a part of the 99 year long history of the German team? -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense intended, but I beg the closing admin to consider that, so far, three "Delete" votes came from football fans from German-speaking countries, while none of the "Keep" voters is from Europe and only one of them seems to have an interest in soccer. The continuity is not a POV, it is commonly accepted. Last year I didn't meet anyone who said that a German World Cup win would be the 4th for the Western parts but the first for the New Länder. Malc82 09:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as horrendously misinformed fork. The votes to keep are inexplicable bordering on the astonishing, given the arguments that were advanced in the nomination. Eusebeus 13:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No distinction is made by FIFA or UEFA, no separate articles for West Germany exist at RSSSF [6] or seemingly any other Wikipedia (just checked the German, Portuguese, French and Spanish WPs). The accomplished "Enzyklopädie der europäischen Fußballvereine" (Encyclopedia of European Football Clubs; by Hardy Grüne, AGON 2000) lists West Germany in the Germany part and GDR and Saarland as separate articles, so does every other source I'm aware of. Hope that's enough. Malc82 14:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with user Phoenix2. As Matthead is the nominator, we are aware of his view. Constantly semi-attacking users who oppose his nomination does not inspire greater confidence. We are fully entitled to our opinions, thank you very much.JdeJ 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might not be the most polite person, but I tried to give you and others a hint as some of the statements made here deny historical facts. Insisting on these "opinions" is embarrassing to the authors and can be regarded as offensive to Germans and Germany. It would be wise to read up the basic facts and adjust at least the obvious errors in the statements, if not the vote itself. -- Matthead discuß!     O       17:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May I also point out that the current article is completely logic. There is a Wikipedia article on the country West Germany [7], as it was commonly known. What is more, the pages on various tournaments, including those won by West Germany, link to this page. [8], [9], [10]. The team of the country known as West Germany competed under the name of West Germany, and they won the World Cup three times as West Germany. I see no reason for removing a completely valid article. JdeJ 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the intro to West Germany and you may understand the continuity of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to the present which is described there with "Since this reunification, the Federal Republic of Germany (still the country's legal name) has been commonly known simply as Germany." There is a 99 year continuity of the DFB's German national football team that is since 1908 always the same from the viewpoint of FIFA and UEFA, no matter if they are "commonly known" as Germans, Krauts, Nazis, West Germans, Huns, or else. As you seem to be Swedish, you'll know that there are about 10 different articles dealing with parts of the History of Sweden, including separate ones dealing with pre-WW2 Sweden and Post-war Sweden. Yet there is only one Swedish national football team article that covers also the pre-WW2 results. According to your logic you prefer two different valid articles for separate Swedish national football teams then? -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your arguments a bit simplified - few other countries have been divided. As you will have gathered by now, I don't share your opinion and that's something you'll have to accept. End of discussion for my part. JdeJ 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is factually wrong. Please note that the country never started in any tournament as West Germany (it was only translated so because people found it easier to distinguish than FRG and GDR). The West Germany article exists mainly because the Germany article starts at 100 BCE and would be way too long otherwise. The very first sentence makes clear that West Germany was an informal name given to what was and still is the FRG. Btw, we also have separate articles for the German Empire, Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. All of them were represented by the DFB and all of them had different territories. So far nobody has proposed scratching from the main article and create a new one for every one of their national teams. Malc82 19:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the governing bodies of the sport consider "West Germany" and the current German team as the same entity, and with the fact the teams were / are organised by the same organistion, it's all pretty conclusive that they should be considered as one IMO. FredOrAlive 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and that the governing bodies of football/soccer consider this to be the same as the current German team, also explained above numerous times. The team had different names at different times, but don't require separate articles. Flyguy649talkcontribs 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect or merge and redirect. I suppose the decision to recommend keeping or deleting in this instance depends on whether one takes a purely political (though not necessarily POV) perspective or the perspective of the history of the sports team. A single "German" political system did not exist in the period 1908-present. There was the Deutsches Reich (1871-1933), inclusive of the Weimar Republic, the Dritte Reich (1933-1945), the DDR (1949-1990), and the BRD (1949-present). A political perspective might suggest that we need individual articles for each period. However, the fact is that the German national football team has been essentially one and the same for the entirety of this period. The establishment of a separate team for the DDR can be viewed as a split resulting from political conditions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have modified my initial recommendation from a simple "delete" to "delete and redirect"/"merge and redirect". As noted by Oldelpaso below, a redirect should of course exist. Whether a merge is worth doing is a different matter (it seems that most of the information in this article is duplicated almost verbatim in the other article). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the West German and German national teams represented the Federal Republic of Germany and were administered by the Deutscher Fußball-Bund, and authorities such as FIFA regard the "German" side as the formal continuation of the "West German" side. Caps for players whether for West Germany or Germany are considered to be for the same team, so there should just be one article. Qwghlm 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Certainly not outright deletion, its linked from hundreds of pages. Adding references for some of this history to Germany national football team wouldn't go amiss. Oldelpaso 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the large number of articles that link to the hypothetical separate West Germany team illustrates the damage that is currently done to Wikipedia by the fork of content. A redirect will lead to the proper article where it is explained that the German team was also called West German in times when additional ones existed temporarily only due to external military and political pressure. As soon as external influence vanished, these states and teams joined (the proper) Germany. The East German team for example had became as unpopular in its own state as the ruling communist politicians there. Anyway, an awful lot of articles might still contain statements that need to be fixed. The first step to clean the mess is to merge and delete this bogus article here, and to write-protect the redirect to the proper article.-- Matthead discuß!     O       10:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that a redirect needs to remain. Also, "Merge and delete" is not a valid option for GFDL reasons. Oldelpaso 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom and redirect. The DFB team represented "Deutsches Reich" from 1900 to 1945 and then the "Federal Republic of Germany" from 1949 until present day. The only change in this between 1949 and 2007 was, that since 1990 (when the former GDR joined the FRG to form the "New Länder") the DFB-team could also nominate players from the new länders. But there never existed a separate "West German Team".--BSI 10:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems to me that this issue is not about whether there was or wasn't a seperate West German football team - instead it seems to be concentrating on the question "what is Germany?" Does the Federal Republic between 1949 and 1990 qualify as a seperate country from the Federal Republic as it exists today? So I'll ask these questions:
What was the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany between 1949 and 1990?
Is the same city the capital today?
How many individual states made up the Federal Republic of Germany between 1949 and 1990?
Reply None of these is relevant for the football team article and none of it constitutes a new country. Malc82 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the international community not use GER as the country code for the Federal Republic between 1949 and 1990? (If the answer given here is "to avoid confusion with the GDR", I counter with "why not assign "DDR" to East Germany and "GER" to West Germany, given that "ESP" is the code for Spain?)
Reply Maybe it was because both parts had Germany (GER) as part of their name and the "international community" didn't want to offend one side? Malc82 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There also seems to be a lot made of different eras in German history, and that there should be different articles for each. This is countered by the argument that in all those eras (German Empire, Weimar Republic, Third Reich), Germany was a single entity, with one government and one nation representing the whole German people. Between 1949 and 1990 this was not the case - there were two governments, each claiming to be the true heir to those that came before. Many people here are stating things in terms of "the Federal Republic is the one true Germany and always was". To me this seems like WP:POV, and should be discouraged when attempting to write what is merely a piece of historical fact. I am prepared to accept the consensus of this, but please don't let it be driven by factors other than this article's relevance in the wider context Hammersfan 30/05/07, 11.57 BST
Instead of asking questions like this you should look up and stick to facts. The Federal Republic exists since 1949. The DFB (in its current form) exists since 1949 (reestablished after WW2). The GDR dissolved and joined the FRG in 1990. The DFB didn't dissolve, reestablish or anything like that, it simply included east german players from then on.
And of course Berlin wasn't the capital of the FRG from 1949-1990 because part of Berlin belonged to the GDR (and it would be kind of odd to have a capital which is surround by another state). But that doesn't change anything about the Germany National Football team, since the DFB is headquartered in Frankfurt/Main.--BSI 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basically, what Hammersfan is doing is pushing his political POV, which is largely OR. If the pre-reunifaction FRG should be treated as a separate entity is completely besides the point, because Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
The question of how much continuity there is in German history (and that of many other countries) is a very difficult and largely philosophical one, which may be the reason that every reliable source avoids it by treating national teams as ongoing entity, regardless of political change. Malc82 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Excuse me, but where do you conclude I have a "political agenda"? The question of continuity is not a "philosophical question", it is a historical one. It seems to me that the people voicing the strongest objections here are people with a somewhat coloured view. And I object to having what I have done here classed as "original research". Hammersfan 30/05/07, 21.25 BST
Reply So please name reliable sources stating that the DFB team of the re-unified Germany has to be treated as a separate entity. By political agenda I meant that the question put forward is political/historical and not specific to the football association or team. If the geographical articles treat West Germany as only a temporary "synonym" of the FRG, there's no need to discuss it in this context. Sorry if the phrase was a bit too offensive. Malc82 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hammersfan, would you please consider the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany is based since 1949 on the same Constitution and that the five states of the former GDR decided to accede the geographical scope of the Basic Law. There was no rise of a new state in 1990, just the one existing state became wider and the other one vanished. --Mghamburg 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is soo simple. The Germany national football team is just called national football team. But in fact never a national football team existed besides a squad selected by the DFB. The whole article tells the continuous history of the DFBs selection and not of a team under the responsibility of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. By an accurate understanding of history the renaming of the article would be appropriate - but that is not a solution I would suggest concerning simplicity. --Mghamburg 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Exactly. There is no United Kingdom national football team or Great Britain national football team either, as football is not played by national governments, but by the football associations recognized by FIFA. The associations of England, Scotland, Wales etc. field their teams, and the DFB fields its team since 1908. The name of this DFB team can only be Germany national football team. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep - Rename. - Okay, you're all missing some vital points here, After WW2 when Germany was divided between Russia and it's allies into the two state occupation. This period in time, The national team was called "West Germany". You can get citation for this from history books of the period. Now my suggestion is that you keep this article to cover that period and it did produce some interesting results and history. The articles need to be tied together better, but this article is certainly more complete for the history part in that period and suits the other article well if written correct. Govvy 10:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you claim that there need to be two article for two different teams, so provide citation if you can. The creator of this separate article had never provided any sources, either. Wikipedia is no place to promote Original Research or unsourced POV, that's why this article needs to disappear. Besides, if you want to Keep and rename this article - please state to what. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I say take the national bit out of the name, as it clearly wasn't that national if naming it West Germany! Next I like to point out, all the history is on UEFA.com if you look hard enough. Govvy 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know this is a long debate but you should still read all of the above. It has been pointed out before that the country has never started as West Germany. It always started as FRG, nwhich it still does. Btw, "Provide Citation" usually means that you look hard enough and present your evidence. Malc82 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sadly, History can be written by anyway, you have books written by German's who says West Germany national team is just Germany, then you have books written by sources outside of Germany, which name the period of post WW2 to the fall of the Berlin wall. They name the team West Germany. It's all depended on who is the person and perspective, you can't have different variation citation from sources which contradict each other. You can either have one or the other, if you look at document history and decide to choose what you want. Then it's going to be a tough choice, the magazine I have right in front of my made by UEFA clearly have the team of 1990 labelled as West Germany. The DFB is the organisation that runs the Germany National team and on their website there doesn't seem to be any references of "West Germany" however if you go on UEFA site you can type in West Germany and get results, old teams sheets, stats from that period, you can have total stats for the whole period or you can consider West Germany a period with the most accomplishment. It's not about true citation to begin with, it's about which convention you wish to have citation for, UEFA's or DFB. I myself would choose UEFA over DFB because UEFA is the ruling body. Govvy 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For the final time now: the team that is usually (colloquially) translated to "West Germany" always started as FRG. Of course the 1990 team isn't called just Germany, because the GDR also had a team in the tournament. Read the official UEFA statistics and you will find that their position on this matter is very clear. Before writing anything else: Read what has already been discussed here! You still fail to provide any reliable sources who handle the West German teams separately. If this isn't commonly done this whole discussion is moot. Malc82 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE: The name "West Germany" is only the informal one. The team is the national team of Germany, a state that is represented by the Deutsches Reich (1871-1945) and later the Federal Republic of Germany (1949-). Its association is the Deutscher Fußball-Bund, which existed between 1900 and 1945 and exists since 1949 again. The Deutscher Fußball-Verband - the football association of the GDR - was foundet in 1950/1958 and decased in 1990. The DFV and the national team of the GDR need their own articles for the time of 1949 till 1990, the DFB and the national team of the FRG don't need own articles for this time span. (Before you ask, I was born in the GDR and live in the FRG now.) --32X 10:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted variously above, soccer authorities do not distinguish between a "West German" and a "German" team. That's because they are, as also explained above, the same team from the same nation, the Federal Republic of Germany, which East Germany joined in 1990. Sandstein 13:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Its not clear that Gizmo5 is the best target for any merge given that Gizmo5 instant messaging software is only part of what the company provides. Further discussion should be held on the articles talkpage if a merge is felt needed and request made at WP:RM. WjBscribe 06:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIPphone

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

fails WP:NOTE Misterdiscreet 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. i didn't know the new york times wrote press releases for companies. Misterdiscreet 14:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better Luck Yesterday

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

Nonnotable student film; doesn't seem to have gone anywhere since the one cited news article from several months ago. NawlinWiki 16:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 12:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield GAA

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

Per WP:ORG, I could not find any reliable sources about this club. RazorICE 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. They received a grant of £350,000 from the Irish government in 2001, which suggests they're a fairly serious organisation. Hurling is a notable sport in Ireland, though largely unknown elsewhere. BTLizard 11:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that the "Mayfield Hurling and Football Club" (the one that received the grant) is the same as the Mayfield GAA? The article seems to specifically talk about a hurling club, and not about a combined hurling and football club, so I'm not quite certain that they are the same. Withholding judgment until this is cleared out (or other sources are found, as this is an indication of notability, but not really overwhelming). Fram 13:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is the same club, but the grant seems to have been mainly for their new sports complex, not so much the athletics department. The club is a pretty successful junior GAA in one of Ireland's main counties, so it might be notable enough for an article. There are other articles about clubs from the same level (see Cork GAA). One of those cases where notability is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. Malc82 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's another problem. Much of the text of the article seems to be identical to content on the club's website, which presumably adds up to a copyvio. Oh well. BTLizard 13:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Ginn Marvin

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

non notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorrules (talk • contribs) 2007/05/20 21:06:13

*Delete. Seeing as User:Agmarvin is the only contributor to this article, I would say that the person who wrote the article may have a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the article seems to fail WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kubigula. As a state rep for 6 years, she's notable. Being an innkeeper in Kennebunkport doesn't quite cut it, but we can probably throw that line out. YechielMan 13:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disillusioned

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

Information about the band cannot be found on a search engine. No evidence of any chart entering hits, nor reliable sources about any tours they had. Hence does not satisfy WP:MUSIC.--Kylohk 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Róbson Silva de Assis

[edit]
Róbson Silva de Assis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A very few tracks of his existance, not mentioned in the Corinthians roster list, does not adhere to the current notability rules for sportsmen. Angelo 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Robson Baiano is an Under-20 (and Team B) player. I would keep the article because he integrated the first team in the last Campeonato Paulista. Fregonassi 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not enough according to the current notability rules. --Angelo 18:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secretard

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article should be either deleted or if the criteria of inclusion of wikitionary are met transwikified. Esurnir 12:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 12:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard lobster

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

I thought for a moment that this might be talking about crayfish, but google does not turn up any substantial usage of the term. Most of the hits are talking about cooking lobster in your backyard. This [15] search for the term in concert with the family to which this creature is supposed to belong turns up nothing. That makes this unverifiable, and most likely a hoax. Deranged bulbasaur 12:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonAssistance! 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Islamic Insurgency

[edit]

Poorly written, POV article, written by an user (Celebau), whose only contribs are related to this page. Aminullah 12:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't finished. Feel free to explore the links on Fourth Generation Warefare and the DNI website before passing judgement. - Celebau
  • Procedural keep The article has been expanded since the nomination, and the writer intends to improve it further. "What links here" produces about ten incoming links from article such as Taliban. I need to be convinced that a good article cannot be written on this subject, or else I don't see justification to delete. YechielMan 13:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a theory out there called the "Global Islamic Insurgency", or the term has been used by someone of note, and if there are links out there to back it up, then the article should stay. If it is just the users theory, and has not been proposed by anyone else, then it should go, imo. Chwyatt 14:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was only started today, give it a chance, nominating it for deletion just half an hour after someone starts writing it, instead of asking for sources or discussing it with the writer seems harsh. There's plenty of sources for "Global Islamic Insurgency" as a theory. There's a (Pakistani) Daily Times story which starts "The US administration has failed to recognise that Al Qaeda is now a global Islamic insurgency rather than a traditional terrorist organisation, and so poses a different threat than previously believed, according to a former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Osama Bin Laden unit." [16] which I'm adding as a source. It's also discussed in this essay [17] and by Lieutenant Colonel (Dr.) David Kilcullen here [18] This source [19] discusses the 'Challenges in Fighting a Global Insurgency' in the Summer 2006 issue of Parameters, the US Army War College magazine. This piece [20] 'How to beat the Global Islamic Insurgency' is from the Winter 2005 issue of the Middle East Quarterly. This paper from the the Strategic Studies Institute [21] discusses it too. I'll stop at 6 sources but there's plenty of others. Pointing out that this is the writers first article seems irrelevant too, everyone's got to write their first article sometime. Still, we have all our own POV Aminullah Nick mallory 14:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an non-notable unsourced conspiracy theory that has not been published in leading peer reviewed scientific journals. It's a POV fork-like attempt to associate organizations like Hezbollah to Al Qa'ida. It's not possible to write in the Hezbollah or Hamas article that they are terrorist organizations without qualifying that statement and basing that on the literature. A link to this article can, of course, be given and surprise surprise, that's exactly what I saw today in the Hezbollah article :) Count Iblis 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a political and millitary idea, not a new type of fundamental particle so it's not going to appear in Nature. I think you'll find that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States and is banned in Jordan. Australia and the United Kingdom both list the militant wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization. Nick mallory 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The listing of Hezbollah and Hamas as terror organizations by these countries is exactly what I mean by "qualifying that statement". Of course, this is not a scientific theory, but there are peer reviewed journals on political and military topics too. Count Iblis 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for adding a few more sources, not deleting the whole article. Nick mallory 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given the timing and content of the nomination, it is hard to assume good faith here - poor diction and POV are not reasons to delete. In reply to the argument to delete above: what would science journals have to say about this? For current history/political theory, often the 1st person accounts of what government actors are saying and doing (and related news stories) are the best sources, trying to say one needs peer-reviewed "scientific" journals to support keeping this is a straw-man argument, I would also point out that the article Muhammad has a lack of peer-reviewed scientific journals substantiating the claims. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The articles, academic & newspaper, which are cited above are not necessarily using the term as a standard term for the subject, but simply referring, in lower case, or in a title, to a global Islamic insurgency. Coincidence of title by itself doesn't demonstrate much. No one is asking for scholarly articles, but we are asking for some evidence that it is a specific term applicable to a specific movements, and not merely an alternate name for the overall phenomenon, which is treated at a number of other places. I think it's flawed from the start--and seems to be to start out with a POV. But there's 4 days to see if it can be improved. DGG 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the sources I think you'll find they are discussing the same idea as this article in the same terms as this article in some depth. What exactly do you think a long piece entitled "How to Beat the Global Islamist Insurgency" from Middle East Quarterly is about if not this? You seem to be setting the bar very high for their acceptance as sources here. Nick mallory 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a new article and at present a poor one. However, it has the potential to become a decent one. It should accordingly be permitted to remain for the present. The question of whether Hezbollah and Hamas form part of an alliance with AQ is likely to be controversial, but WP ought to be able to present both sides of the argument. This has the potential to become a satisfactory article providing an overview of the subject, but links (using a 'main' template should be provided to the separate organisations behind the insurgency. Furthermore to AFD an article so quickly is highly inappropriate: give the author a chance to improve it first by applying less devastating templates in the first instance, to enable him to deal with criticisms. AFD is a blunt instrument and the threat of deletion may lead a new author to give up, when he ought not to. Peterkingiron 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Islamic Insurgency vs “War on Islam”. Isn’t the phrase “War on Islam” also just a collection of POVs? Maybe there should be a general article on criticisms of political Islam? There seems to be plenty of criticism of political Islam, so maybe that needs a dedicated article and any relevant points regarding a "Global Islamic Insurgency" could go there. Chwyatt 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you think the present title is not WP:NPOV, can you suggest a better one? Peterkingiron 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Smart Is Your Dog?

[edit]
How Smart Is Your Dog? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The book hasn't been covered by any reliable third party sources besides Amazon, so it does not seem to be notable. Many search engine results aren't even related to the book. Kylohk 10:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per snow. PeaceNT 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

804SQN (AAFC)

[edit]
804SQN (AAFC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While the article needs a lot of work and breaches WP:V, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and probably many others, I am nominating it for deletion as I am unsure if there is consensus on the notability of miltary cadet units, particularly Australian ones. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, for so many reasons... chief among them failure of WP:BIO and probable WP:AUTO, but also that the articles in question are complete bollocks. Orderinchaos 11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Reidy

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

Google doesn't find anything on this. One would think it might turn up something if he really did shoot an umpire. I suspect that the two users who've edited this are one and the same. There are several other articles related to this, and I'll take input on whether or not they should be included here. Deranged bulbasaur 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Australian rules football even have umpires? This entire walled garden smells of hoaxery. Deranged bulbasaur 10:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Reidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dad Reidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deranged bulbasaur 10:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very likely to be hoax. Google search for "Tom Reidy" Collingwood [22] brings nothing relevant. There are no sources at all so is completly unverified. Unless reliable and verifiable sources are provided during this discussion should be deleted. Davewild 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I just did. Maurog 11:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to School District 39 Vancouver. WaltonAssistance! 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayview Elementary School (Vancouver)

[edit]
Bayview Elementary School (Vancouver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another stellar example of a completely unnotable elementary school. Disputed prod, so bringing to AfD. Eusebeus 09:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This strikes me as a perfectly normal, charming little primary school (hey, and it's nearly 100 years old, too ... that's cool). I'm not sure why we need to delete this article. I don't see that it's any different to the thousands of other schools we would never dream of deleting because of "notability" (well, it's in Canada, not the USA, but is otherwise no different). Heck, the article itself has a list of primary schools in Vancouver, but the nominator doesn't seem to consider these to be non-notable, only this one. Why deliberately place a hole in our coverage? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It looks like someone has been working on a series of articles on all the elementary schools in Vancouver (Why?!). I'm of a mind to let this one live. It's an institution, it exists, it's probably enough press coverage at some point in its history to marginally satisfy WP:NOTE better than a lot of other things that have articles, thus passing the entirely spurious Pokémon Test, and deleting it would create a gaping hole in Wikipedia's heretofore solid and reliable coverage of Vancouverian (?) grammar schools. --Dynaflow babble 10:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest I find both of the above to be specious arguments. Either the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, or it is not. There are many who argue that elementary schools are not sufficiently notable and should be redirected to school districts. There are also many who feel the reverse, of course (see WP:SCHOOLS for the length back and forth)). But the existence of a spate of other non-notable Vancouver-area primary schools is not grounds for keeping this one. And the others shall have their turn. Eusebeus 11:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Canuckle 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I now relize that this isn't notable. It was listed as a request article form a WikiProject so I wrote it. Selmo (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:AWP:V. Author concedes school is nn. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author is a (relative) newbie bitten by Eusebeus (see page history). I wouldn't place more value on his "concession" than I would on someone saying, "Well, if you want it gone so badly, I guess you must know more about notability." Notability in and of itself is a poor deletion rationale (especially if you say it like "nn" just to feel that warm little glow that says you've made life more difficult by using unnecessary jargon/abbreviation), because notability tends to be in the eye of the beholder: you say the article is non-notable, I say it is. Where do we go from there? I still do not see the reason for deliberately leaving a hole in otherwise comprehensive (or intended-to-be-comprehensive) lists, and I don't see why we need to throw this information out the window rather than, at the very least, merge it somewhere else. 203.122.238.225 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not as subjective as you indicate. It states that to be notable, a subject has to be discussed in a nontrivial fashion by multiple independent sources. This school does not appear to be, so it is not "notable" as defined by WP. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Kitsilano School District 39 Vancouver per the WP:LOCAL guideline, this page would be most useful as a redirect until more reliable sources can be presented. Yamaguchi先生 07:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to School District 39 Vancouver. The non-notable description in the nomination seems rather disingenuous, especially given that the nominator has repeatedly expressed the entirely unsupported and baseless opinion that ALL schools are non-notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources. 203.122.238.225's description of what were perceived as bullying tactics to obtain the page creator's acquiescence to delete the article are problematic in and of themselves, and using such agreement as a justification to delete the article seems to imply that the creator has ownership rights in violation of WP:OWN; The article's notability stands -- or does not stand -- independently of the opinions of its creator. That said, the article not only makes no claim of notability, it makes hardly any statement about the school, other than the fact that it is a school, and nothing more has been added in the near full year since its creation. A review of the school's website shows no distinguishing characteristics, nor did a search of Google and Google News/Archive uncover any additional information that could be used to expand the article. Neither the nominator nor any of those who have followed his lead have provided a valid explanation for why the article should be deleted and not merged. When additional information becomes available, I look forward to the point where sufficient material exists to demonstrate notability and revisit the article. Alansohn 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing in the article makes the school remotely notable.--Wizardman 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, agree with Wizardman. Cedars 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:LOCAL. --Myles Long 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the district. This has been the trend for minor, stubby elementary and middle school articles that have no individual notability per WP:SCHOOL, ie: no notable alumni, no significant national mention or historical importance, no unusual architecture or location, no amazing athletic accomplishments or athletes, etc. Nevertheless let the kids have their redirect to their district, where they can construct a section for the school with notable information if desired. If they discover enough notability for the school later on, then they can try and make another article. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Sr13 03:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Buske

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

This musician is non-notable. Google search: [23]. I am also listing the other assorted pages relating to her here. nadav (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Buske (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Never Say Goodbye (Carla Buske Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh Baby! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If she really reached #13 in the charts like the article says, it should be Kept. Could you check this twice? Salaskan 13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a big if. The article says her single reached #1, not #13. She is thirteen years old though apparently. The Canadian Billboard lists are subscriber only, however a search on the billboard site found nothing. [24] Feel free to peruse her myspace site if you are still unconvinced. It lists 14 fans for her. [25] The Candadian music site Jam! also has nothing about her.[26] This really is open-and-shut. nadav (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor is now alternatively blanking or removing templates. DarkAudit 21:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete hmmmm-i'm new to wikipedia and i also created the carla buske articles.carla is a really good friend of mine and yes she does sing.all the information in all of the articles were givin to me by her so ya...you can delete the articles if you want because i don't really care anymore Allison Levesque 18:20, 27 May 2007
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. No ghit outside of WP, so "Oh, Baby" can never have been #1. Malc82 23:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to the main article. Sr13 03:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate libertarianism

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

Article was created to promote a book Gavin Collins 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


An interesting discussion regarding the proposed deletion of an article has arisen. I propose that the article Corporate libertarianism be deleted, but I have been overrulled on the following grounds: --Gavin Collins 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your request that the instant article be speedily deleted as spam inasmuch as it doesn't facially serve only as blatant advertising and because we interpret criteria for speedy deletion, including G11, narrowly; that the article had been edited by several users but had theretofore not been tagged as blatant spam, further, suggests that there existed at least some belief that the article might serve some encyclopedic purpose (covering, for instance, an economics concept advanced in a[n ostensibly notable if relatively insignificant] book). I am not at all sure, though, that the concept/phrase is sufficiently notable as to merit encyclopedic inclusion (I don't know, in fact, that even a redirect thence to When Corporations Rule the World would be appropriate), and so I would encourage you to suggest that the article be deleted, either through AfD or PROD, in order that the community might consider the notability of the concept and the propriety of our covering it in a standalone article or even referencing its tenets more-than-cursorily in the article about the book. Should you have any questions or should you think me to have erred here, you should, of course, feel free to write me at my talk page. Cheers, Joe 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments against the speedy deletion are eloquent, but I put it to you that the article was indeed created with the intent to promote the commercial interests of an individual. Promotion of individual or organizational endeavour (as in this case, a book), is not necessarily self-seeking or can be categorised as spam in itself. On the other hand, nor does the fact that the article has been edited by several users (related parties perhaps?) make the article encyclopaedic. By extending your analogy that the article does not facially serve as blatant advertising, once the veil of intent is formality is lifted, it is clear that this article purporting to be an encyclopaedic article is in fact an example of self-promotion similar to an author writing a review about his own book on Amazon. Proof, I would suggest is apparent in the fact that the contributors of the article did not see fit (or find time) to include reference to the book to any other article would lead me to the (cynical) conclusion that this article is indeed self serving spam.--Gavin Collins 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing interesting about this - put it up for Afd like the man says. Johnbod 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to When Corporations Rule the World. Kinda sorta asserts enough notability to kinda sorta avoid being speedied, but worthy of deletion just the same. --Dynaflow babble 09:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it was a speedy either, since it was not typical advertising, regardless of its purpose, and if the concept or the term had been notable, which they are not , then it might have been a base for an article. But whether it asserts N or not, it certainly does not show it. the speedy standards are deliberately narrow, to avoid making mistakes, since only two people are involved in the deletion. With more people at AfD, we can consider it more carefully. DGG 23:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Dynaflow. --JayJasper 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect ditto. The articles that might refer to this term can offer a brief explanation if necessary (it is quite self-explanatory, however). Unless it can be proven to be a widely used and accepted term, it does not warrant its own article. Adrian M. H. 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but it's better that we all had a chance to look. We can now follow it up with a discussion on the bookDGG 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this term is in widespread use, or indeed is used by anyone other than the creator, in one not very nmotable book . No other indication of the notability of the term. Even if the book is notabel, not every coinage in it is, unles that coinage is picked up by critics, commentators, or enters more general usage. DES (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 21:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware terminator

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

NN software whose only assertions of notability are ... well, there aren't any. All references link to the software's website. Two different editors have added "sounds like an advertisement" templates, but have had them removed within minutes by the page's apparent owner. I considered adding a prod tag, but since that would probably be immediately removed too, I am presenting the article for AfD's consideration. Best to get this sorted out now. [EDIT: I take back the WP:OWN bit. I didn't realize how new the editor is, and how unfamiliar with WP:EQ he is -- and now that I think of it, he's probably fairly put off by the WP:OMGWTFBBQ too, but he'll learn quickly, I think. My other concerns about the article still stand as of the article's current revision.] --Dynaflow babble 08:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. Sr13 08:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antione

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

This is a character from the podcast Recordings of an english jackass which I nominated for speedy deletion. There's no CSD for fictional characters, so it comes here. I see no indication of notability for this or the show it's on. There aren't any reliable sources so there's no verifiability either. Deranged bulbasaur 08:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following article for similar reasons -

Proctologist Nefarious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deranged bulbasaur 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the creator made many vanispamcruftisement modifications to barely related articles for the purpose of inserting mention of this stuff, which I have reverted. Deranged bulbasaur 08:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nokeep. Krimpet (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOPEC

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

Neologism with no evidence of use after ~8 months. Note that there was also a US Senate bill by the same name, but that appears to be unrelated. MrZaiustalk 08:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by Mel Etitis. Non-admin closure of orphaned AfD. Deor 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem's fifth studio album (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Eminem's fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was already deleted once, and rightfully so. It is completely speculative and is about an untitled future album which Eminem is rumored to be working on. There's no reason to have this yet--I'm sure Eminem will release a fifth album but it's complete conjecture at this point. Delete again. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page shoudn't be deleted. Both T.I. and 50 Cent have confirmed that Eminem is working on his new album and some tracks are ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.181.198 (talk • contribs)

Hmm... it appears as though it alread has been deleted. Charlie 08:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still there. Redlinks were the result of some problems with the (2nd nomination) linking, which I've repaired. Serpent's Choice 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't get deleted because almost everyone that's in or knows about Eminem knows he's working on a new album and Kuniva from D12, 50 Cent, and T.I confirmed he's working on one. Plus if this get's deleted another person will create a fake album or another page like this. TahoeZ71 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete until something more than "Eminem is working on a new album" is made public. The album will become almost unavoidably notable on release - and maybe even earlier - but currently it's a nothing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Eminem, which will (hopefuly0 stop re-creation of a speculative article. Totnesmartin 09:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desdemona (Fame song)

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

Delete - this individual musical number from a single episode of the series does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC nor do there appear to be multiple independent sources establishing the notability of the song. Otto4711 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a single song from a musical series generally won't be notable. No reason given for notability, let's get rid of it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Relisting twice for a borderline-A7 is overdoing it. >Radiant< 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximiliano Ramirez

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

From the looks of it he fails notability. He is a class A minor leaguer (Lake County, not even Kinston which has had afds on its players closed as delete) who probably won't make it to the majors anytime soon. Wizardman 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, he's playing at Kinston now. But that means we can delete him via precedent here.--Wizardman 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up: The author of the article under discussion recreated one of the articles in the AFD cited by Wizardman. If it were up to me I'd leave it alone for now, but I'll follow consensus and support deletion. Placeholder account 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no other votes, this may as well be deleted instead of a third relist.--Wizardman 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. >Radiant< 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Ridley

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

Googling the name reveals no notable sources, the subject is apparently not notable at all. Splintercellguy 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the article were moved to and made primarly about her husband, Alvin, it would probably fly. I recall seeing one of those Bill Kurtis A&E shows about this case (probably American Justice), so I'd imagine there are indeed news sources available about his trial. I'll abstain from voting since I don't think it matters too much whether this one is deleted and then later an Alvin Ridley created with a Virginia Ridley redirect, or if this one is just moved itself. Mwelch 06:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't recall this even really reaching minor-grade sensation. --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ten Pound Hammer. There are sufficient references, especially if it was covered on a cable TV show. I'm not thrilled about having articles like this, but it's good enough for the rules we have. YechielMan 13:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as poorly sourced BLP -- I may seem to be out of phase here, but this article, more than some other recent articles, seems a BLP problem with respect to her husband. Though acquitted, he was charged with homicide. How do we know this? From two UK tabloids (though it happened in the US), a web site, and a possibly fictionalized video made on the subject of the trial, about which we have information only from IMdB. I don't trust the IMdB entry: the woman a/c the WP article, died of natural causes in 1999. According to IMdB, she was played by herself in the 2001 video. Not surprisingly, there is no photo available there. It's asserted there that he played himself as well, from which it could be implied that he sought publicity, but we can't satisfy BLPO from an inference based on an IMdB entries, and an IMdB entry source that contradicts the WP article at that. (I realize this could be perceived as POINT, but I honestly think the article is dubious. I do support the BLP policy, but I want the consensus here to make the decision.) DGG 00:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As I mentioned above, I've personally seen that episode of American Justice. It is not fictionalized nor re-enacted in any way. There are no acted scenes. It's just a news documentary look at the case, including interviews. IMDB is not saying that the people involved "played" themselves in acted scenes or anything like that. Just that they appeared in the show as themselves . . . which is how the would list any news show that contains interviews. There isn't any reason to assume "publicity-seeking" on the part of her husband than there is to to assume such of anyone else who grants a TV news interview. I agree that using IMDB specifically as a source can be somewhat dubious (and I suspect in their listing her, they're referring to her depiction in photographs of her as a young adult; indeed, one of the key points of this case was that she became such a recluse over her adult life that until she died, hardly anyone in town other than her husband even knew she existed), but I don't think that's the intention here, though. I think the intent is to cite the show itself. IMDB is just where the show's info was found by the editor who cited it. Citing the show is perfectly appropriate as a WP:RS, since, as I said, the show was a news documentary. Mwelch 06:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bend (Oregon Department of Transportation)

[edit]
Bend (Oregon Department of Transportation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bus stop. As per WP:OUTCOMES, this had been discussed before and it was decided then too that bus stops are non-notable. Fails WP:LOCAL. Katr67 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. >Radiant< 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland, Oregon (The Shuttle)

[edit]
Ashland, Oregon (The Shuttle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bus stop. As per WP:OUTCOMES, this had been discussed before and it was decided then too that bus stops are non-notable. Fails WP:LOCAL. Katr67 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Ashland, Oregon. Not so much an article about a bus stop as about a bus route, which are slightly more notable, although rarely in need of separate articles. Still, considering that this bus appears to make up much of the public transportation to Ashland, I think it is natural to cover this in a "transportation" section there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article about serious allegations against a minor that were never proved in court. Not enough material to provide a balanced article about the person and the allegations are ultimately just a news story. WjBscribe 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Waterman

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

Pretty much the same rationale for deleting Esmie Tseng. Is notable only for killing her mother and keeping an online journal. Except unlike Tseng, she was never convicted. Givenhands 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a person is mentioned by name in an article about a larger subject but remains of essentially low profile themselves doesn't really seem to be addressing the situation where the person is the main subject, rather than 'part of a larger subject' - but nevertheless, how about combining Brian Radel, Jason Arrant and Rachelle Waterman into a single article? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 10:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Unlike the others, she actually did get quite a bit of national coverage within the U.S., including a Dateline NBC special and trial coverage on Court TV. I think that makes this different. This was more than fifteen minutes of fame. Beginning 15:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that the online journal and national coverage probably makes it notable. If there is a case for a wider article, then some one should write it. However that does not mean this one should be deleted - use links or 'main' templates to refer to the individual articles. Peterkingiron 00:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain I am much more dubious about this case than about E.T., and the reason is obvious: E.T. was found guilty, and R.W. was not. It makes a difference. In the one case we are recording a final decision by a jury after which news courses no longer refer to the 'alleged" criminal but the "criminal", we can say pretty much what we want without fear of legal action, and any harm we do is rather incidental to the sentence. In this case there has been no decision, the case has been dismissed, the person is not longer in prison, to call her a criminal would be libel, and additional publicity can affect her. Does she want publicity? Apparently she does want to, in order to proclaim her innocence, and she is old enough to make the decision. On that basis I can can see letting the article stay. I can also see deciding that we do not infringe on a minor's privacy, regardless of her apparent or actual permission--this argument was raised in another BLP case lately. What I am looking for is consistency, the consistency that comes from rational decision making. DGG 00:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete another example of news being conflated with an encyclopedic topic by those who blindly use news sources and ghits to determine the subject notability without regard to other factors, like the old 15 minutes of fame rule and other points concerning WP:N raised at WP:BIO. Eusebeus 13:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWeak keep(changed per rereading of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section 10: "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.") For 10,000 Google hits, 2 years plus of news coverage, early example of accused blogging about experiences. Acquittal does argue against keeping. Edison 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my well-explained reasoning on the talk pages of WP:NOTNEWS. These stories all belong in Wikinews, putting them in an encyclopedia is inappropriate as they have no lasting historical impact. Zunaid©® 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. WaltonAssistance! 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti mantras

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

The article seems to be a lot of original research. It is also written in the style of a "How-to" essay. Wikipedia is not a "How-to" guide. References are given, but no page numbers, so it is very difficult for an average reader to discern whether or not sources support the conclusions stated in the essay. The extensive use of passive voice in the article also indicates that it is original research. Complex topics such as Kashmir Shaivism and Tantra are oversimplified and the essay seems to be very non neutral in regards to them. TheRingess (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As above, this is a "how to" article and Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Even if it were rewritten to be more encyclopedic, it is sourced from two books which are apparently not academic sources as neither is published by an academic publishing house. One of the authors, Thomas Ashley-Farrand, appears to be a Western practitioner with no academic degree. The Hindu author, Swami Vishnu-devananda, is probably notable due to connections with a large religious organization that has had most of its success in the Western world. The mantras discussed in the article are not written using IAST notation so it is difficult to determine exactly what they are trying to say in Sanskrit. Without a better representation of the Sanskrit source, independent verification of any of the mantras in WP:RS related to mantra theory is very difficult. The article gives the impression of having been copied from one of the mantravidya "spell books" that are sold for a few pennies apiece in some Indian shops, which are notoriously unreliable when quoting sources. Many of the mantras appear to be simple nama japa mantras (e.g. OM DUM DURGAYEI NAMAHA) in which a particular goddess is simply hailed by name, with an associated sound syllable (bija mantra) added. It is unclear where the magical associations given to these are actually sourced. Buddhipriya 04:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am the author of the article Shakti mantras. Let me respond to the above.

First, the article is not original research. It is based on material from the six books referred to in the references. I have avoided original research. I have had extensive experience with mantras and could have drawn on it, but generally did not. If there are any statements that look like OR, I can modify them.

Subjects like Kashmir Shaivism are said to be dealt with in an oversimplified way, but the article is not about Kashmir Shaivism, it is about mantras. In this context, there is no reason why I had to deal with KS in any detail.

The books referred to are said to be "not academic sources" but the guidelines don't say that the references have to come from "academic sources".

One of the authors referred to is said to probably not have an academic degree. Again, the guidelines do not say that authors referred to have to have a degree. If it says this anywhere in the guidelines, I would like to see it.

The mantras are not in IAST and we can't tell what their meanings are. I could have put translations in there, but did not because it is not necessary to know what mantras mean. The use of mantras does not depend on knowing their meaning.

The references do not come from cheap "spell books'. This statement is untrue and unjustified. It is on the level of throwing mud and has no accuracy or relevance.

The mantras "appear to be simple nana japa mantras". So what? Is there a Wiki policy saying that "simple nana japa mantras" are not to be written about? Is the subject banned from Wiki?

I could modify the article to make it more NPOV. I realized that it was probably not NPOV enough, but intended to modify this.

Alternatively, how about if I modify the article to make it an article on the book "Shaktipat Mantras"? This was what I was going to do originally, but I decided to make it an article on the mantras as such. Would an article on the book "Shakti Mantras" be more acceptable? Please advise before deleting.

Sardaka 09:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Based on Buddhipriya's remarks, it doesn't seem absolutely hopeless, but someone familiar with the subject would have to help. DGG 04:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I can make the article more encyclopedic by removing the "How To" elements and the statements that are too "original research".

Alternatively, I can change the article, as I said above, into an article on the book Shakti Mantras. This may be the best way to go.

Sardaka 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that I don't think the person who nominated this article for deletion has followed the guidelines, which make it quite clear that deletion should not be proposed "unless it is obviously a hopeless case". The guidelines say, "consider sharing your reservations with the creator, mentioning your concerns on the discussion page...instead of bringing the article to AFD...consider adding a tag...etc etc"

The guidelines also say something about being civil by informing the creator of the proposed deletion. Needless to say, all of this has been ignored by the person who proposed deletion. If the problems had been brought to my attention, I could have solved them by rewriting the article to make it more encyclopedic, or by turning it into an article on the book Shakti Mantras. I don't think the nomination of this article for deletion shows good faith.

Sardaka 10:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, Delete. Regarding use of IPA, the problem with this sort of article is that the authoritative notation for what the mantras are would be IAST, which is a lossless notation for the sounds of the Devanagari alphabet. As I mentioned in my prior comment, there is no IAST or Devanagari in the article now, which means that all of the mantras are unreliable in terms of what they are. The Western book being used as a source is something that I have not seen, but if the material in the article was copied from it, it honestly looks to me to be patent nonsense. The amount of work it would take to get a meaningful article on the subject would require collaboration by someone who understood at least some Sanskrit, working from an authentic source that gave the Sanskrit, not a poor English transliteration. The transliteration method being used in the article is not the standard method used within the Hinduism project (i.e., IAST). Furthermore, the attempt at phonetic versions of the mantras is, well, terrible, for want of a better word. It is obvious that the Western book being relied on will not do the job. Furthermore, while documentation of what the actual mantras are (i.e., the words) is one task, trying to associate them with meanings is another. It is unlikely that any two sources consulted will agree on these meanings, unless they are directly quoting one another. That is because these are being characterized as some sort of magic spells, which trivializes them. The article reads like an online Grimoire, which is an insulting characterization of Hindu beliefs. I think the suggestion to make the article be about the book is perhaps a way out, as the book can claim anything it wants to, and questions of accuracy or verifiability regarding what Hinduism actually thinks about these subjects apply indirectly rather than directly. On the other hand, making an article for the book would give WP:UNDUE weight to one author's perceptions about what these things mean. Buddhipriya 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the author of the article is now reverting my comments on the talk page for the article [27] and removing nag tags on the article body, which is not a good faith action. This may indicate that there will be problems even trying to get the article cleaned up if it does remain. Buddhipriya 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire article at the moment is original research. While the topic is worthy of article inclusion, it is best to delete this and those who want to create a well-written page on Shakti Mantras can do so with sources attributed to the translations and an authorative transliteration method. The particular selection of the mantras may also provide an unintentional sense of POV, since certain prayers are preferred over others without any justification as of yet. GizzaChat © 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original nom.TheRingess (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it stands, the article is almost complete original research. Most of the citations are coming only from a few sources, none of which have shown whether or not they are reliable. In response to the nomination for deletion, instead of attempting to improve article, the author suggested changing what the article was about (to a topic that doesn't seem to be able to meet the guidelines set at WP:N). --132 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddipriya and TheRingess have both voted twice, now. Is this a good faith action? Doesn't look like it to me. As well, the person who listed the article for deletion did so in complete defiance of the guidelines. This doesn't look like a good faith action to me. You people are very naughty. Non-good faith actions have been known to cause bad karma, which will have to be paid off one day.

Sardaka 10:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book

[edit]

I am still suggesting that I can turn the article into one about the book Shakti Mantras. This would not be "undue weight" except in the sense that any book gives undue weight to the views of its author.

Sardaka 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)? Please read the page and reply. GizzaChat © 09:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the test about notability and I think the book passes the test because it presents a large number of Sanskrit mantras to the general public in a way that it simple and easy to understand. Most books either don't present these mantras or are so badly written that you can't follow them.

Sardaka 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please comment on why the author is notable, and why the claim that this author is competent to discuss the topic of Sanskrit mantras is valid? You have previously said that the author is not an academic, and therefore perhaps has no training in Sanskrit. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for tests of how one could tell if an academic is notable within a field. If the author does not even claim to have academic standing, is there some other basis for the claim that the author is notable? A Google search turned up the following bio for the author, which does not suggest any particular clear background as a Sanskrit scholar: [28] Buddhipriya 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting twice

[edit]

By the by, if any more people vote more than once I will delete the second vote. It's not playing the good faith game, peoples.

Sardaka 12:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfD consensus is not gained by how many votes are accumulated, it is gained by how strong the arguments are for or against the deletion. If four people say "Keep" but provide no reason why, the one person who voted "Delete" and gave seven guidelines to support that vote would hold more weight and be more likely to gain consensus. The opposite holds true as well. In this area, the reasons are what matters, the numbers are not.
Deleting others' comments can be considered uncivil and can even be seen as vandalism. If you suspect that the vote is not in good faith, you can bring that up by responding to it in a civil manner, but deleting it could cause more controversy than is necessary. I suggest you give your reasons for why the article should be kept, bring up relevent rebuttals to other votes, and let the process run its course. --132 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Sardaka 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 09:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Smith (singer)

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

NN Reality TV star. Miss Smith was placed 4th in the reality show Pussycat Dolls Present. The 2nd (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Reyes) and 3rd place (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chelsea_Korka) contestants have had their articles deleted for being NN. Nothing in this article suggests she is known for anything other than appearing on this show. Maybe she will become more famous but for now she is only a minor reality TV star. PTSE 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Peacent 18:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Sawhney

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

Contested prod. Non-notable actor, and the page is unsourced. Recommend delete Dchall1 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 07:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Phaedriel - 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POV

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

Non-notable student magazine with a circulation of apparently ~350 copies, and two issues published. The pertinent Google search yields 5 results. Speedy deleted twice already. Sandstein 06:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as the article does not offer much evidence of the notability of its subject. I'm not even sure it asserts any. Charlie 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable magazine. Davewild 08:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable magazine. feydey 12:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Addressing notability, The POV has been featured in two reputable publications including The Notebook, a professionally-produced alumni magazine that reaches thousands of BB&N alums. Brian McGrory, a columnist at The Boston Globe, contacted The POV requesting an interview regarding certain subjects in an interview The POV conducted with Congressman Mike Capuano. Presidential hopeful John Edwards and Bill O'Reilly have also agreed to be interviewed for the next issue of The POV. Dontexpect 15:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
  • Delete: fails to meet notability criteria. -- The Anome 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not a notable enough magazine. As an aside, I've removed the {{hangon}} tag; with this AfD open, we should let it run its course. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a student publication would have to be really special to get an article, and if anything the article makes it painfully obvious how non-notable it is, with a claimed circulation of 458 (!!). It also says it's published "Triannually", which I hope is a typo (if not, let's hope the upcoming 2010 issue reaches 500 readers, eh?). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Regarding the above comment, Wiktionary defines "triannually" as the following: "Adverb- Thrice every year without fail OR Occuring every three years." thanks for the jab at the circulation vs. number of issues? Dontexpect 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I go to the school that publishes this magazine. In an extremely short period of time and with relatively little resources the POV has managed several impressive interviews. The print circulation number is inaccurate because the POV distributes electronic copies to make the best use of their resources. I asked the editor and he said that they recieved 400 downloads per issue, which aren't counted in the circulation figures. Additionally if you want to decide what is a "notable" magazine then I will argue that this is one, if a little young. Is it the quality of writing? whether you yourself have heard of it? or the interview subjects? Frankly the magazine is growing, the budget is larger for next year, and there are possible plans to expand the staff accross a few schools, wikipedia would help the magazine to grow, and retaining the article would do no harm to anything.
I'm afraid to say that in discussions such as this one, these arguments are neither new nor persuasive. Please see WP:NOHARM and generally WP:V, WP:N. Sandstein 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally as wikipedia aims to be essentially the repository of all knowlege why not include this? It is certainly as significant as some of the articles that are retained without debate, and additionally is not slanderous, insignificant or irrelavent to those not immediately involved. It is significant to students at other schools interested in starting their own school's political magazines, to alumni and families, to the students, and frankly anyone trying to get a look at student political activity today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.234.24 (talk • contribs)
  • keep "Most likely, no reliable source has ever published on the crocheting skills of Aunt Mildred" well the Boston Globe writes an article on POV, that is a lot more than Aunt Mildred ever got, recognition by a nationally reputable newspaper is certainly noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.234.24 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek: Enterprise introduction images

[edit]
List of Star Trek: Enterprise introduction images (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic content/excessive detail - Move offsite to Memory Alpha? MrZaiustalk 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Transwiki move mostly complete: [30]. Just needs a little link cleanup over there. MrZaiustalk 06:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated comment: Apparently they use a CC license, incompatible with the GFDL. Move flagged over there as copyvio & deleted. Is there any point in keeping this on another Wikimedia site, or should it just cease to exist? MrZaiustalk 06:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response comment HAH! even they don't want it. Shall we throw tribbles at them as well? (sorry, I'm being sarcastic tonight) --Whsitchy 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response comment No. MrZaiustalk 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge the entire article, or a 2-5 sentence more basic summary in Star Trek: Enterprise? Can't really see a place for the entire article, given the way it would overwhelm a preexisting article, barring a move offsite. MrZaiustalk 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ulrich

[edit]
Paul Ulrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saudi Match Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced autobiographical VSCA. Notability is questionable, see the conflict of interest noticeboard for more discussion. MER-C 05:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Falling over laughing vanispamcruftisement. *laughs hysterically*. Anyway, Nuke it per above. --Whsitchy 06:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability possibility (as a debut novelist) marginal at best and there are no sources. WP:COI nips any charitable impulse in the bud. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would have also included Blacksmith Books (the Hong Kong based publisher) in this nomination as well ... it has an identical WP:COI problem because it was created by the same author around the same time (each one attempting to add verisimilitude to the others), while totally lacking any WP:A to satisfy WP:CORP. —68.239.79.82 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neither subject has sufficient notability to warrant inclusion at this time. Doc Tropics 19:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - the only thing that shows up on a google search for the book is a lot of spamself-promotion. If this book was in the slightest notable, I'm sure some honest reviews would show up, but I didn't even see any blog reviews of this one. Searching for books even by not-particularly-well-known midlist writers normally show up more than a few of these. The book is the only thing described in the author's article that would make him notable. JulesH 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both risible vanity. Eusebeus 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand that Nury Vittachi is a notable Hong Kong writer, but using something on his blog as a source isn't really reliable. Either way, it fails WP:N for lack of other coverage.--Kylohk 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both No credible sources. 'Nuff said.--JayJasper 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bio He seems like a non-entity. There are plenty of Ivy-educated, well traveled, minor-league inventors, with a first novel published. His biography could be of interest only to those who like his book. As for the novel, it might warrant consideration. I added a citation a few days ago that 86.... deleted. Last time I checked, however, verifiable sources need not be online: printed books qualify. I don't have the reference work handy but recall something to the effect of what the Saudi Match Point entry says in its first line. Suppose you'd have to prove by a counter-factual, though - ie of identifying another novel with the same characterisic.--Breezer84 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You make it sound like I did a Bad Thing ... I deleted what I believe most editors will agree is a spam link to a PDF order form for a book titled Beyond the Dunes, with the edit summary,

      replaced <ref> with {{cn}} -- a link to the order form for a book is not a WP:RS citation for a claim of "only novel ..."

      If it had been under External links, then I might have left it alone, but it was being used as a citation/reference for the very first sentence of the article:

      Saudi Match Point is the only novel originally written in English and set entirely in modern-day Saudi Arabia or its immediate neighbors on the Arabian peninsula.[1]

      A claim that grandiose requires a WP:RS, and the order form for a 552 page book that allegedly contains WP:Verification of that claim just isn't a WP:RS, IMHO, although a proper {{cite book}} with a page number is ... after I confirmed ISBN 1850439729 on Amazon.com, I noticed that Amazon said that Beyond the Dunes was published "July 27, 2006", but the article says that Saudi Match Point was publish "April 2007" ... so instead of replacing the EL with a {{cite book}} (I still might have done it if Breezer84 had just provided a specific page number to cite), I chose to replace it with a [citation needed] tag ... anybody else have a problem with that? —68.239.79.82 12:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 12:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemacolin Woodlands Resort

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

Could be notable, doesn't have sources to show that it is. I can't find sources. I'm hesitant to speedy delete, as I think they might be out there. Discuss? (There was also content at Nemacolin resort, but no sources; I've redirected that article to this one.) ··coelacan 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Anastos

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

Notability of this person is not at all demonstrated--no references to him or his work in secondary sources. Delete. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) subpages

[edit]

(View AfD) Non-notable contest between several schools, additional content entirely within Girls Sport Victoria (GSV). Orderinchaos 04:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Cross Country Carnival Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Diving Carnival Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Swimming Carnival Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Track and Field Carnival Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment I think its very important knowing who won major sporting carnivals over time. This is especially important to independent schools in Australia and is typical of what is recorded for all other School Sporting Associations on Wikipedia. User:Steve Stefan
  • Merge as per Steve Stefan providing that there are reliable sources. Google News Archives indicates that there may be some. [31] Capitalistroadster 05:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability shown yet. Certainly not the top end of amateur competition. However, some of them shouldn't be too hard to make into a notable list with all the newspaper references to the various competitions. Assize 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what Thewinchester said above so eloquently. Results from a collection amateur sports carnivals, and not even top-line amateur carnivals at that. Lankiveil 12:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete high school sports, arent notable. Another flawless display of what constitutes a WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Gnangarra 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are all orphan pages, not even the parent article links to them. But really, the sports association should have its own web-page with the results, we should have one article on Girls Sport Victoria (GSV), not host all their tournament results. --Merzul 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, this looks to be a hoax. Herostratus 08:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Smock

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

Non-notable Explodicle 04:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MINIX from Scratch

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

Dead vaporware project Alterego 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as a non-notable bio. Sr13 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Ruby Ryan

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

Contested prod. Original reason for prod was: Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Book of poems is self-published. Rebuttal by prod remover is on the article talk page. CIreland 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a blatant and evident hoax. Sole source at IMDB is bogus. Appears to be an attack page against numerous people. Newyorkbrad 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fabulously Gay Charles Elkin Brown

[edit]
The Fabulously Gay Charles Elkin Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, almost certain hoax. Zero ghits for the title. Possible attack page as well. Kesac 02:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was bold redirect by me. Sr13 07:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

panook

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

    A mirror of the correctly spelled nanook. Knulclunk 02:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was AfD procedurally closed. Even assuming that Estonia was not a legally sovereign state in 1917-1918, which is a factual issue and/or content dispute, this does not represent a basis for deletion as articles may be written about regions, territories, areas of disputed sovereignty, etc. The article may be renominated for deletion if a valid rationale for deletion is provided, but I suggest discussion on the talkpage first. Newyorkbrad 02:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Estonia (1917-1918)

    [edit]
    Estonia (1917-1918) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No such country legally existed during that period. Martintg 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete per G1 and A7. Sr13 03:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Smallwood

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

    Unsourced, but does claim notablity. nn-bio. I would expect a "leading Jewish comedian" to have something verifiable beyond what is in the article. Probably coud speedy this. I could not find anything on google, but did not do the most exhaustive search... —Gaff ταλκ 01:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete per A7. Sr13 03:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesenia Aristizabal

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

    Sole editor of the article appears to be the subject. Article content does not display why subject is notible. No sources at all saying she is notable in anyway. TheDarkArchon 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC) -- TheDarkArchon 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bilalism

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

    Hoax. Google shows no hits for Bilalism, except as an unrelated term in Islam. A real medical expert would be more literate, and wouldn't say that a disease caused by stress is contagious. Art LaPella 00:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete as a neologism that is not the subject of non trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources. WjBscribe 03:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-temporalism

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

    Non-notable neologism used in one journal article. Not part of the established terminology of any field of study or school of thought. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep. PeaceNT 06:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    High School Musical On Stage!

    [edit]
    High School Musical On Stage! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    sketchy notability (remember notability not inherited) Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 01:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was DELETE DRV may have reversed the previous A7 speedy. I believe the deleting admin indicated he didn't mind. However, a number of editors in the DRV debate expressed the opinion that these are are unacceptable per WP:BLP. I am deleting them for that reason. DRV and its process concerns does not trump policy. If you disagree with this close then dispute resolution is open to you.--Docg 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Robyn Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Gavin Clinton-Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Procedural per this DRV. ViridaeTalk 01:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete and redirect to High School Musical. WjBscribe 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stories from East High

    [edit]
    Stories from East High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    nreferenced, no assertion of notability (other than it's a spinoff of High School Musical, which is the jusitfication for half of the HSM articles) Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. I note however that these issues are part of an ongoing dispute presently being mediated - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo. This decision should probably be revisited as part of that mediation and I suggest these issues are best resolved within the context of those mediation proceedings. MaxSem 07:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Goguryeo-China wars (2nd nomination)

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Goguryeo-China wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Comments from previous discussion did not address the real problem with this article and should be considered irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The issue wasn't about "renaming" the article as the keep votes conveniently dismissed. See old discussion.

    The real issue is that the so termed "Gogureyo-China Wars" is not a single series of wars and the individual wars listed in this article have separate articles and so there is absolutely no encyclopedic need to establish a combination article such as this one. They were completely separate wars over a span of more than 600 years involving many different polities and ethnicities. Any attempt here to classify these very separate wars into the "Goguryeo-China Wars" is original research, anachronistic and a hoax and should not be acceptable in Wikipedia. The combatants and casualties template on the top right further adds to the overall ridiculousness and patent nonsense of this article.

    The suggestion here is that this combination article "Goguryeo-China wars" should be deleted, as such a combination is OR. In its place the separate articles of the separate wars should remain: Goguryeo-Han Wars; Goguryeo-Yan War, Goguryeo-Sui wars; and Goguryeo-Tang Wars.

    --Naus 22:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This AFD was incomplete. I've completed the nomination and placed it on today's page. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The reasons user:Naus have given do not meet the criteria for deletion. Calling the article as original research, hoax, and ridiculous simply shows how Naus wants it his way, which is POV. If you think that the word "Chinese" "weakens" the Chinese political position on Goguryeo, you are wrong, because this is the english Wikipedia and it is not a problem to english readers. Good friend100 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep and Close. AfD is not the place to take content disputes. --Charlene 03:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't transfer information and then delete the article from which it was taken, that violates the GFDL. Also, if you are seriously proposing speedy deletion, please explain which of the WP:CSD criteria applies here. -- Visviva 05:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split or rename Goguryeo-China wars implyed that Goguryeo is not of China,which was controversial.The Goguryeo is seen by many as chinese kindom,how can a chinese kindom to be equal with China?The title may further give others impression Goguryeo isn't of China.--Ksyrie 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, several of the articles referenced by JakeLM above are very recent creations, and appear to have been simply copied from Goguryeo-China wars. There's nothing wrong with this, but it does mean that this article can't be deleted unless those articles are also deleted, per the GFDL. -- Visviva 05:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not convinced that this is the right forum for dealing with this. However I think a move to Military history of Goguryeo would be the best proposal and the creation of seperate articles for the wars as and where there is enough verifiable information to justify a seperate article. Davewild 08:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article cannot be moved, split, or deleted simply because of the wish of a few POV editors. I don't think calling this article and its related articles "ultranationalist Korean crap" is a good reason. Good friend100 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Reasons cited for this are not grounds for deletion. similar combination articles exist - Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars (one of several examples), covers completely separate wars of a span of 700 years. Classifying such articles as original research, anachronistic and a hoax is inaccurate and appears to be sour grapes over the previous failure to delete the article. Edward321 18:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep for the reasons I gave before. Carlossuarez46 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - While I know nothing of the subject, the article looks genuine. The present title is perhaps unsatisfactory, and it might be split. The article at present lacks sources, but it may be that English language sources are hard to find. However none of this merits outright deletion of the content. Peterkingiron 00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: The exact content is available in other articles. There is no historical reason to combine the articles together into Goguryeo-China wars as the wars mentioned were completely separate and unrelated. The only reason for doing this is from the perspective of Korean ultranationalistic agenda and thus highly controversial. There is also the controversy of whether Goguryeo is a Chinese polity or not. If Goguryeo is interpreted as also a Chinese polity (which many Chinese interpret as), then this article becomes patent nonsense, as it becomes effectively China-China wars. --JakeLM 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Duplicate articles with identical content are highly undesirable, as the articles tend to get altered so as to go in separate ways, even ending off contradicting each other. I see no objection to the proposed "Military History ..." title. I have not checked whether the content is identical, but would see no objection to converting this to a disambiguation page, or perhaps a little more. I now understand the politically charged nature of the subject of Goguryeo, which I had not appreciated. This seems to involve latent potential territorial demands, but the boundaries of a former state ought not affect modern political realities. What I am concerned about is that the content of the article should survive in some form, not whether the present article should remain. Peterkingiron 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I do not think this article will be completely deleted. Good friend100 20:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as spam and blatant advertisement. Sr13 03:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Idealogue

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

    Advertisement. No reliable third party sources Nv8200p talk 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep. PeaceNT 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Boardman

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

    Article makes claims of notability, but offers no citations. Google search doesn't seem to back up notability - most references are simply lists of the authors books or or trivial mentions - in my opinion, fails WP:BIO. MikeWazowski 02:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christine McGladdery

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

    Article makes claims of notability, but offers no citations. Google search doesn't seem to back up notability - most references are simply lists of the authors books or or trivial mentions - in my opinion, fails WP:BIO. MikeWazowski 02:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Does not appear to have made enough impact as an author to achieve notability. CitiCat 04:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep, biography of James II is more worthy than many "author" pages created and retained on wikipedia and position at St Andrews University satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:WAX is not an excuse for keeping an insufficiently notable subject. Adrian M. H. 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. There are some big assertions of notability in the article - "leading historian" and "particularly important" - that aren't backed up by any sources and are more extravagent than her official bio at St. Andrews. That being said, my attempts at research suggests there may be some scholorly articles about McGladdery and/or her books, but these articles required paid or special access (e.g. Jstor). So, I would not be surprised if she could meet WP:PROF, but I can't prove it. Between the lack of evidence of notability and the fact that the article really doesn't have much content, I am going with a "weak delete" position at this point. However, I am more than open to being convinced otherwise.--Kubigula (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW, needs clean-up to correct WP:BLP issues. feydey 12:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul McCarthy

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

    Contested PROD, procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 27#Paul McCarthy. Chick Bowen 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. A simple google search will reveal that McCarthy is a major artist. The article itself isn't very good, but it can be improved easily. I have added a brief bibliography and some more links and will work on this some more tomorrow. Freshacconci 03:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep unfortunately, this gentleman is a well-known artist. Bigdaddy1981 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete unless sourced - this article makes inflammatory claims about the guy and unless they are sourced, that's a WP:BLP issue. I have no idea whether they are true ... I have no reason to believe that they aren't, but unsourced articles about living people, particularly those with a negative tone, are not permitted. --BigDT 04:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep It would be outrageous to not have an encyclopedia entry about one of our most important living artists. BigDT, who admits he has no idea about art, is correct that this article needs to be sourced, but that's very different from deleted.Aroundthewayboy 04:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I don't see how the article is "negative in tone." Just because it mentions that he uses bodily fluids and masochism? Welcome to contemporary art. That's factual description, not judgmemental prescription. But I agree that it needs to be sourced. Aroundthewayboy 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's fine, but if, hypothetically, those claims were untrue, it would be libel. This article cannot exist unless it is sourced. If you want to keep it, all you have to do is find sources for the claims in it. WP:V and WP:RS are fundamental content policies on Wikipedia ... this isn't a novel claim here. --BigDT 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict with BigDT, whom I appear to echo) Even as I have to imagine that to most contemporary artists (as, for that matter, to me) a suggestion that one works in bodily fluids would not be particularly troublesome and would almost surely not be perceived as defamatory, BigDT is quite right that we generally (rightly or wrongly) remove from BLPs any unsourced material that might be controversial, even if not to a reasonable observer, such that several parts of the article (if not the entire text) would, under BLP, merit removal in the absence of good sourcing. I gather, though, that the stellar work done by Freshacconci resolves most of the sourcing issues, and his adding citations to specific pages in the works of the bibliography would surely assuage any BLP concerns one might have. Joe 04:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the paragraph in question. BigDT is right that it needs to very carefully sourced if it's going to be included. Chick Bowen 04:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. It would be ludicrous to not have an article about Paul McCarthy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, as sources are available to improve the article and the subject is without a doubt notable in his field. Yamaguchi先生 06:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, this is a key artist of his era. I have added a sourced reference to his use of bodily fluids in his work (I hope the New York Times suffices for reliability). Not mentioning the transgressive nature of his art is like not mentioning that George Bush is Republican. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Amazon lists at least five books exclusively about him. Once I'm reunited with my books from last semester, I'll add what I have. Wickethewok 07:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I crossed my fingers hoping Wikipedia would catalogue information about contemporary artists, and was excited to find an entry on McCarthy. Perhaps not a fixture in our mainstream pop culture consciousness, McCarthy is still of great importance and value to interested students and others within the 'art world'. Whether or not the article is precicely accurate seems secondary, next to the earnest and competent insight it provides. Understandibly, this site operates on the assumption of varifiable information; let's hope this entry can therefore be varified for accuracy, rather than too hastily erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.128.143 (talk • contribs)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth. Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 05:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PANGO

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

    non-notable website CitiCat 03:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Panila Cantini

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

    Non notable gymnast, did not receive prominence at highest level of competition. CitiCat 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Paper boat racing

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

    There does not appear to be one distinct activity universally considered as "paper boat racing". The most an article could accuarately say would be "paper boat racing is the process of racing paper boats" CitiCat 04:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    The result was speedied. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Acoustical jujitsu

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

    Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: {{db-music}}. This is not a valid speedy reason as db-music does not apply to music ideas, but rather to bands and groups —— Eagle101Need help? 08:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC). As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several of the Keep commentors also suggested pruning and/or sourcing. Maybe this should be part of the close, but I am not making it part of the close, but just a suggestion. Herostratus 22:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of snowclones

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

    A list of examples of a neologism. As far as I can tell, we have on sources for these being considered notable examples of snowclones, or indeed examples at all. Appears to be both indiscriminate (WP:NOT) and original research. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - indiscriminate and OR-ridden. Otto4711 13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above statements. I saved this page for own reference though, it may become useful :P --Tinctorius 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: doesn't meet the standards of WP:NOR and appears to be potentially all-inclusive regardless of snowclone influence or merit anyway. --Jacj 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There's a lot of cruft that needs to be pruned out, but the core idea seems to be useful, notable, and reasonably encyclopedic. Some good points in the article's favor were made last time. Note that the list elements are not "examples of a neologism"; rather, they are examples of snowclones. The word snowclone is a neologism, but the list elements are not neologisms. --Quuxplusone 08:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and prune per User:Quuxplusone. Dismas|(talk) 07:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, source, and prune. It seems like a lot of these could probably be sourced, though I'm sure there are many which aren't even notable enough for inclusion. Jeff Silvers 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either delete, or rename and prune. My views on the name "list of snowclones" are here. Very few of the listed phrases have been verifiably categorised as snowclones. So few, in fact, that I believe the full list would fit comfortably in a section on the snowclone page, making this page completely redundant. People adding to the list of "snowclones" are seriously misunderstanding what a snowclone is claimed to be; as per its definition, the variant/variable phrase has to be overused by journalists or writers to begin with. It's not a case of parameterising any old cliché, which is what people are doing here. If people want a list of formula-based clichés instead of a list of snowclones, the page should be renamed to reflect that, and a better definition of inclusion criteria should be devised. 62.31.67.29 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki the verifiable content to Wiktionary, delete the rest. It's a nice page and I'll be sad to see it go, but it's not particularly encyclopaedic. RobbieG 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Snowclone may be a neologism, but I'd argue that it's verifiable and notable enough to have an article (and others agree). I don't see why it isn't possible to verify every entry in the list with as many examples as deemed necessary. The term is new, but the verifiable linguistic phenomenon it describes is not. ―Wmahan. 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If Snowclone is worth keeping (and it is), then this is relevant. ―Cayzle 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with snowclones. I just passed by this article and found it very helpful in describing what a snowclone is. I believe that it is a bit lengthy and much of it is unsourced. I think that a few sourced examples would be sufficient to get the point across on the snowclone page. I did find it a bit strange that this info had it's own page. Abby83 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Steel 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pony Island

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

    Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: {{db-repost}}. This is not a valid speedy reason as there does not seem to be an AFD or other discussion on this.. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    note to closing admin - the tags for this were removed by ip editor for period of 4 days - might want to leave it open longer than the five day period for more editors to make views known --Fredrick day 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually that's not true - read the tag - "Previously PROD-deleted articles are not eligible under this criterion, and Speedily deleted articles are not automatically eligible for this criterion. Check the deletion log for prior deletion rationales." - so no discussion needs to have taken place depending on the context of the previous speedy. Anyway a discussion DID take place with the author, who originally contested the speedy and then when WP:RS was explained to them , they gave up and said they would try and recreate the article at a future time when they could provide sources. So I'll say SPEEDY DELETE. --Fredrick day 09:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. There is no evidence that this web site fits the WP:WEB criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Noticed this on FisherQueen's page. I have no opinion one way or the other, but is Wikipedia a good place to put information about a children's site that children will likely read? I find some of Wikipedia's content unsalient for minors. Please note I'm not doing the whole "let's censor it!" thing but I do wonder about this type of content. Are children being inadvertently drawn here? Perhaps this is an inappropriate place for an academic discussion like this?--Manboobies 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia - we don't remove articles because children might read them. If parents think wikipedia is unsuitable for children, that's their business not ours - it has no bearing on the merits of an article or even deciding if any article should exist.--Fredrick day 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete! Does not meet notibility criteria, no references, the content looks to be just a hotbed of debate for people that support the site vs. ones that have issues with it. (And I am a loyal member of the site in question!) Victoriam 00:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was assassinate. Krimpet (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    President of the Internet

    [edit]
    President of the Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: {{db-a7}}. This is not a valid speedy reason as the given reason does not match with the content. This appears to be a contest of some sort for SEO folks, and is not about a person, group, etc. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Phaedriel - 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Lefebvre

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

    Was proposed for speedy deletion, the deletion was contested, with the statement that it is notable and referenced. There are citations on the article, i leave it up to you guys to figure out if it is notable or not. I'm neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Undoubtedly a good chef, but so are thousands of others. References are to restaurant reviews rather than him. Emeraude 11:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't see the notability. He's not won any awards, written any books or been cited as influential in any way. Compare, for example, with Gordon Ramsay. andy 11:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Criteria for notability of people: A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards: The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." You don't have to be a celebrity chef to be included, just one where you fit above. A restaurant review with biographical information, in the New York Times or Michelin, make a person inherently notable.
    Comment on comment No, a restaurant review in the NYT may make the restaurant notable. Emeraude
    That would be true if no information was given about the chef. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment x 3. Some discretion in selecting sources is required. On this basis all individuals named in newspapers would be notable - e.g. an old lady whose cat gets stuck up a tree and has to be rescued by the fire service. Secondary references may impute notability but they don't confer it. Pretty much every newspaper in the world recommends or disrecommends a couple of restaurants per week. That doesn't make the chefs worthy of a WP article. andy 20:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "an old lady whose cat gets stuck up a tree and has to be rescued by the fire service" would be Wikipedia material if it was covered by "multiple independent sources" for whatever reason. Wikipedians don't bestow subjective notability, the media does in their coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. If I were more energetic, I would add Frog and the Peach; Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide - decent the last time I ate there, but that was before Lefebvre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. (Conflict of interest: I tidied up Frog and the Peach by removing a lot of stuff about the chef and (sorry) suggested that he should have his own page if he's notable enough... which he's not.) Mmoneypenny 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes your local paper does review restaurants, but only if your restaurant gets recognition in a national paper would it be significant. "Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide" true, but the article isn't a restaurant guide, it makes no recommendations of what to eat, its a biography, properly sourced from multiple independent sources.
    • Keep I went through all of the available sources, which seem to focus on Mr. Lefebvre almost exclusively and mention the restaurant as an aside, in most cases. The sources provided, which cover a broad range of national and specialty publications, are primarily about Lefebvre, and are all from independent reliable and verifiable sources. I'm not sure what everyone else is reading, but this article clearly passes WP:BIO and establishes notability. Alansohn 03:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; I'm surprised by the comment above that neither the chef nor the restaurant is notable; both articles are well sourced, and certainly there's plenty of reference here to support the notability of one of them (after all, most restaurant reviews do not go into detail about the chef, so there is something distinctive about these). I actually don't think, pace Mmoneypenny, that we need two separate articles. I generally merge minor albums into bands and minor theatre troupes into directors; on that logic, I would say keep this and merge the restaurant into it. Chick Bowen 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If there is to be a merge just let me return it to the way it was before the article was broken out of the restaurant. I originally had them combined until the information on him was deleted.
    • Keep - The sources provided are not simply drive-by mentions of the subject. The Conde-Nast article is specifically about him. And for the better restaurants, the chef matters, and the New York times review devotes a good portion of the article to Mr. LeFebvre. It seems to be properly sourced, and establishes notability. -- Whpq 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. W.marsh 12:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Theatre Techniques, Inc.

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

    I have found this tagged as {{db-corp}}, but it was contested with the following: I have contested the deletion of this article, since there are many other companies which are listed in Wikipedia, with no problem whatsoever. I consider Baryshnikov's production of The Nutcracker to be extremely notable, and I think that anyone who had anything major to do with it deserves a Wikipedia article. I leave it up to you guys if it should be deleted or not. I'm nuetral. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. PeaceNT 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The white rave

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

    Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: Zero references, most likely bias.. This is not a valid speedy reason. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. WjBscribe 03:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Ordertaker

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

    Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: {{db-band}}. This is not a valid speedy reason as this is not a band, but rather a single released by a band. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a song. There are lots of song articles on Wikipedia. This song is no less important than many other songs which have articles. I see no reason why it should be deleted. -KingpinE7 21:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. WaltonAssistance! 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Conceptual Act Model of Emotion

    [edit]
    The Conceptual Act Model of Emotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: new model, not notable. This is not a valid speedy reason. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 08:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment this is part of a set of two pages created by what appears to be a single-purpose account. See Special:Contributions/Lindqukr. The pages in question are this one, and the later Conceptual-act model of emotion, which appears to have been created to fix capitalisation problems in the title. Should have been moved instead, so now we have two articles with similar content and slightly different edit histories. For notability concerns see Lisa Feldman Barrett and Talk:Lisa Feldman Barrett. The edit history over there for the article about the author of the theory, shows COI concerns were raised, the article was PRODed, and then rewritten. I have no opinions on this set of pages myself, just doing some research into what happened here. Carcharoth 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sorry, I'm not very good with all the procedures yet here in Wikipedia. I flagged that for speedy delete because I couldn't find any general references to the model and the info came from her husband. Also, the phrase "the conceptual act model of emotion' struck me more as academic marketing hype than serious research. If the model can be proved to be widely respected and accepted, I'm open to changing my vote. --SueHay 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Both, that is, this article and Conceptual-act model of emotion. Essentially original research, or at any rate a single-sourced article much like a cross between a scholarly paper and an ad, neither of which are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Herostratus 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. W.marsh 12:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NatureSoft Pvt Ltd

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

    not notable company Nabbt3 08:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete by Mallanox. WjBscribe 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Meadows Collective

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

    not notable record label Nabbt3 08:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Overclockersclub

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

    Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Just chock-full of in-depth information and namechecking of non-notable moderators and posters, apparent conflict of interest. Deiz talk 10:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ooh, "unilaterally".. Is that a problem? There is a keep !vote above, and in any case the article appears to assert notability, hence the reason I listed it here rather than speedily deleting it myself. Deiz talk 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The keep votes are by the main page author and a sockpuppet. And as far as speedy deletes go, it always depends on which admin looks at the article. There is little consistency in interpretations of the guidelines. In any case, that's neither here nor there, so I'll strike the apparently offensive wording.  :-) --NMChico24 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't get me wrong, as nom I'm sure this should be deleted, just its always less painless and more definitive to follow process, and to be seen to be following process when dealing with web forum AfDs. Forum members usually don't understand WP practices (as evidenced on this page) so it helps if multiple editors show how these things work, rather than one lone admin who then gets flamed and harassed. Deiz talk 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD debates are conducted according to the relationship of the article in question to WP policies and practices, not perceived similarities / differences / problems with completely different articles. Deiz talk 06:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But my point is that those articles are for tech websites. I'm just trying to understand what content they have that makes them not "up for deletion." Because just from looking at them, they don't have anything that would prevent them from getting deleted. Sdy284 06:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC) sdy284[reply]
    • HardOCP has been up for deletion before. You can read the log to see what kinds of criticism it went through. Basically, an article is not up for deletion, because nobody put it up for deletion. If you read it and think there's something wrong with it, you can nominate it for a deletion discussion just like this one. If nobody else thinks your arguments are valid, be prepared for some quick keep votes and possible accusations of bad faith nomination. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 06:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think sdy284's purpose was to get HardOCP or Anandtech deleted, but rather to understand why OCC was being targeted, and what can be done to prevent the OCC article from being deleted.--ClayMeow 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete - non claim that this voting system is used and it has not been published and reviewed in any scholarly sources. All mentions are blogs, mailing lists etc. as opposed to reliable sources. WjBscribe 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Definite Majority Choice

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

    Delete. Original research. This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. Furthermore, this article is POV. ("DMC satisfies many desirable criteria, but is simpler to explain and implement than many other voting systems with similar benefits.") Yellowbeard 10:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Before anyone tries to discredit some of these references due to them being mailing lists and related media please consider the following quote from Voting system: "The advent of the Internet has increased the interest in voting systems. Unlike many other mathematical fields, voting theory is generally accessible enough to non-experts that new results can be discovered by amateurs, and frequently are. As such, many recent discoveries in voting theory come not from published papers, but from informal discussions among hobbyists on online forums and mailing lists." Demerphq 09:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the article contains references to off-site materials in its first paragraph! Demerphq 09:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody can post articles to mailing lists, to blogs, and to wikis. Therefore, see this Wikipedia policy: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Therefore, this article violates WP:OR and WP:V.
    Furthermore, the first paragraph of this article ("DMC satisfies many desirable criteria, but is simpler to explain and implement than many other voting systems with similar benefits.") contains too many weasel words. Therefore, this article violates WP:POV and WP:AWW. Yellowbeard 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note none of those links are to a "self-published book", "personal website" or a "blog". And given that the Voting system article specifically documents that important work in this area is done on mailing lists by hobbyists I dont see that your objection holds water at all. And what in that description counts as weasle words? The list of desirable criteria for a voting system are well known (and mathematically grounded). The only thing in that list that IMO could be considered POV is "simpler to explain and implement". The presence of a POV quote does not a deletion make. Demerphq 11:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OOps, one of the links is to a blog, so consider reference 4 eliminated. Demerphq 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference 1 refers to a wiki; references 3 and 6 refer to posts to mailing lists; reference 4 refers to a blog; references 2 and 5 refer to an election software that has neither been published in any journal nor been used by any organization. Therefore, my criticism is valid for all of your references.
    Also the claim that "important work in this area is done on mailing lists by hobbyists" is rather only an opinion than a fact. "Important" according to whom? Of course, according to these hobbyists! Yellowbeard 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that important work cant be done on a mailing list? And a wiki on electoral systems doesnt qualify? Something must be used by an organization or published in a journal to be considered worthy of mention on Wikipedia? If so then if something only happens on the internet then it can't be referenced on wp... Which seems ridiculous to me. Demerphq 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what I am saying is that simply being on some wikis, blogs or mailing lists doesn't automatically qualify for getting a Wikipedia article. Yellowbeard 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to fix POV, is this better? xmath 10:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The new formulation is in no way less POV. Yellowbeard 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, why? It now explicitly states with which methods it shares a similar criteria-list (which are objective criteria, not subjective) and it makes a concrete comparison of complexity (rather than a vague "is simpler", though a quick look at Schulze/RP vs DMC makes it pretty obvious it *is* simpler anyway) xmath 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think I should partially revert it. While it also has lower algorithmic complexity it's not what I'm trying to convey there. It's simpler in *description*, giving it a better chance at public acceptance. I'll see if I can somehow phrase that with care.... xmath 12:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, the sentence "Al Gore is a very handsome, intelligent, and honest guy" is POV. When the sentence is changed to "Al Gore is a very handsome, intelligent, and honest guy compared to George W. Bush", then this sentence is still POV, even though "it makes a concrete comparison". Yellowbeard 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is "handsome" an objective criterion? Can you support the "intelligent" and "honest"? Is any of this relevant for comparing presidents? I'm comparing DMC to similar competitors based on objective characteristics that are relevant for voting systems (including simplicity, so you can explain it to people). You make it sound like you can't do any comparison without making it "POV". xmath 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what I am saying is that a "concrete comparison" isn't automatically NPOV. For example, is the statement "IRV satisfies all criteria that are satisfied by the Borda method, plus some additional criteria" POV? Who decides what "all criteria" means? The Borda supporters? The IRV supporters?
    You write that "DMC satisfies a list of voting system criteria very similar to that of the Schulze method and Ranked Pairs". But who decides what "very similar" means? The DMC supporters? The Schulze/Ranked Pairs supporters?
    You write that Definite Majority Choice "is simpler to describe and has easier implementation [than Schulze or Ranked Pairs], because the elimination process is done on candidates, rather than on comparisons between pairs of candidates". However, with the same justification you could say that Definite Majority Choice is more complicated because "DMC takes as input ranked ballots with approval cutoff." Yellowbeard 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, good points. Though saying "in no way less POV" was a bit harsh, I certainly tried to make it less POV. The thing I'm trying to convey with the criteria is that they're basically methods in the same "league"... being monotone, cloneproof, LIIA (As opposed to different methods that go for incompatible criteria, which makes comparison much harder without getting into religious wars about which incompatible criteria are "better"). This means that practically the methods can be expected to give similar real-world performance, differing only in awkward corner cases.
    The approval thing doesn't actually complicate the ballots if you use truncation or grades, but you're right that the simplicity in producing the winner comes at some cost. Let me again see if I can get all this across in an NPOV way, since simplicity is what sets DMC apart from its competitors, and is important so you can easily explain the election result to people (which I'd have a harder time doing with Schulze). xmath 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is the only Wikipedia article about an election method that has neither been published nor used anywhere. If this article isn't deleted then Wikipedia is changed from an encyclopedia to a discussion forum. Yellowbeard 20:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been published on mailing lists, in various forms, the first time over 6 years ago, and isn't being "discussed" anymore... it's done as it is. As Demerphq pointed out, a mailing list is a not an uncommon medium for advances in voting theory. For comparison, where has the Schulze method been "published"? The pdfs linked to look like self-published to me. It just got more attention because it was an advance in satisfying criteria, while DMC keeps the same criteria but with greater simplicity. xmath 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mailing lists are not reliable sources (especially when they are neither restricted nor moderated). Yellowbeard 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Unless this voting system is in use somewhere, or has been published and reviewed in a scholarly manner, then it isnt suitable for Wikipedia. Without quality reliable sources, how can the reader know that this voting system did not exist prior to "March 2005", perhaps under a different name? John Vandenberg 06:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bosherize

    [edit]

    seems to be either a hoax or something made up in school one day Fredrick day 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was: Only one editor is interested in this subject other than its author, who is intimately tied to the subject and has made virtually all the edits to it. The article is still biased and lacking sources. If an uninvolved editor chooses to rework it later, fine, but for now this is being 'deleted because it is advertorial. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dynamic Software

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

    Spammy article by WP:SPA. Deleted as non-notable / advertorial, userfied, and speedily moved back to mainspace by the original creator. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: * the creator is User:Akc9500, AKC is listed as one of dynamic software's corporate domains, the contact name is Al, User:Akc9500 says on his user page that he is Al. This link says it all. So: this article is self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like spam to me too. Propose delete. --Gavin Collins 12:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gavin, I just started re-writing this article one day ago and reposted it last night. It is my sandbox and is redirecting here. Admins saw the old article as not having enough info. I did the redirect so that I could get input on the proper writing of this; Now you say it looks spammy. Could you suggest a way to improve the article instead of suggesting it to be deleted? I never get things correct this way. I want to write a good article. There is good deal of software this company produced and I would think it should be included in Wiki. I would appreciate help not, suggesting it for deletion, the article is currently being expanded upon and not even complete.

    I wrote this looking using the Microsoft article as an example, so if you think this is spammy, would you say the same about the Microsoft article?

    Thanks! akc9500 5/27/07 9:35am Eastern Time.
    Comment- The wording and tone of the article appear biased. It uses a lot of praise qualifiers in its text. Also, I see it has 2 primary sources, and 2 secondary sources, yet those sources arent cited in the text, they're just mentioned (and nearly impossible for a reader to verify, as the secondary sources do not contain links to content). A good way to do sources in an article is to place a <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>, or whichever template you wish to use, inline after the material that needs citation, and then add <references /> in the references section and it will link them there with footnotes automatically. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    wizzard2k - I used your example for the references, thank you. Your method works much better.

    I also tried to change the tone of the History so it does not appear to be bias. I did not intend it to appear that way. I just noted one of thier products won awards. I removed some of the reference.

    I hope I addressed your concerns. If you have any other suggestions please let me know. This is my first wiki article, maybe I should have started with a different topic. --Akc9500 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JzG - This article was removed and placed in my sandbox. I worked on it and copied it back into the NameSpace, even before I had time to write a discussion page to ask for advise you nominated it for deletion. It was my first article and I have been trying to not only write it but understand how wiki works. I would appreciate help with it instead of it being deleted. I believe I have addressed the issues. --Akc9500 03:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep- Article looks much better, and the author shows a genuine willingness to improve. Some additional sources have been provided to prove its notability, and with a few more, I think it should be just fine. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete per Snow. PeaceNT 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethics and the Christian RIght

    [edit]
    Ethics and the Christian RIght (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Orphaned article, not edited since creation in September 2006. Original research. Emeraude 10:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete and redirect to The Works (Queen album). PeaceNT 05:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tear It Up

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

    The song called Tear it Up by Queen has never been released as a single by the band. The user doesn't cite the sources where he got that information (which is false anyways). He mix a track listing with a Bonus DVD that makes total nonsense. Also he doesn't add charts positions and has uploaded Andrew W. K. cd sleeve for a Queen song. I have two links to prove that Queen didn't release Tear it up as a single:http://www.queenpicturehall.com/singles/index.shtml and http://www.pcpki.com/queen/singles.html VincentG 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not-a-keep. -- saberwyn 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. W.marsh 12:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Service A Exeter

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

    I found this and about 10 others with the prod reason as: wikipedia is not a directory, merge info with Stagecoach Devon. They all had {{hangon}} tags on them, which means that the prod should have been removed. As this is a contested prod I just went ahead and bumped all 10 of them to AFD. I am neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 12:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The other articles are:
    Service B Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service D Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service E-F1-F2 Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service G Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service H1-H2 Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service K-T Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service PR2 Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service PR5 Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service R-S Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    —— Eagle101Need help? 12:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion should also probably include:

    Service P Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Service 55 Devon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    I know that bus lines vs. bus timetables and related issues have been discussed before. I am not familiar with previous debates, so I am also neutral on this one. Serpent's Choice 13:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bus route information does not appear in any other encyclopedia, I see no reason why these should be included, unless some of these routes have attracted attention at least on a national level. And I'm not being influenced at all by the fact that the picture of the A bus is taken in one of the most ugly locations in Exeter, a city I'm quite fond of, having lived there for 4 years. JulesH 16:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment an editor has posted his opinion on the deletion at Talk:Service A Exeter. I've copied it below for reference. JulesH 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm contesting the deletion of the Stagecoach Devon related articles, including his one because: ok its not a directory, its not meant to seem that way. When you go on google and type in buses, exwick, exeter, you get in the first few results a wiki article on it. So people know what bus goes where in Exeter. The same as London, they have all the London route on their own page, so if you're proposing this for deletion,why not London??? This is just utterly ridiculous, and im sensing the proposer may have omething against Exeter. !! Thenthornthing 10:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing my !vote to Summarise and merge to Exeter or, failing consensus for that emerging, delete per the reasoning of User:DGG at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Projects relying on primary sources. JulesH 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable bus services CLW 18:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - bus routes come and go, an individual route has no notability outside those people who catch that bus, i.e. next to none. Give it twelve months, and each route will be rerouted and/or renumbered and nobody will care about the previous setup. - fchd 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete buscruft. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I am the original prod proposer. My reasoning is given above, thanks Eagle 101. Before I nominated them, I sent a test AFD which can be found here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Early_Morning_Special_Service_Exeter. Regarding the authors "sense" that I have something against Exeter: please assume good faith; please also get your senses tested - I have nothing against Exeter, and may well propose deletion of London bus routes if they are as unencyclopedic as these ones are. Any sourced information on these pages can of course be merged onto Stagecoach Devon. 99of9 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the right place to find this sort of stuff is on a bus company's or Passenger Transport Authority's website. This sort of information is liable to go out of date; the operators have an incentive to keep it up to date. Our editors may well not do so. If there are similar articles for other towns they should be deleted too. Peterkingiron 00:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable, and too volatile - as these seem to only have one person contributing content (as opposed to content cleaning) they will rapidly go out of date if that person stoped editing. Internet users who want this info shouldn't be looking here, bt on one of the many UK travel web sites where alternatives will also be listed. --C Hawke 06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It is a better idea to merge all articles into a list called "List of bus routes operated by Stagecoach Devon", or something like that, since it is easier to update.--Kylohk 16:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to Jack Bauer#Bauer Family Tree. WjBscribe 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bauer Family

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

    This article is an orphan, is ridiculously short and uninformative, and doesn't seem all that useful. I was going to suggest merging it to Jack Bauer, but the information is already there so the merge is not needed. --Bachrach44 14:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]
    Timeline of trends in music (1990-1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_trends_in_music_(2000-present). This article seems to suffer the same problems. Its been tagged as unsourced since Feb - not surprising as the article lacks a single source. As it stands its total original research Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Similar to the last AfD, I think there's an encyclopedic topic here somewhere, just that this might not be it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This reaks of original research and is no more than a list interspersed with various comments --PrincessBrat 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - If every Wikipedia article that contained mainly original research was deleted, Wikipedia would be pretty much empty. I was just reading this article and learned some interesting stuff from it. If it contains OR, clean it up. It isn't hurting anyone Wikipedia's credibility by being here, since the majority of its articles are made up mostly of OR. Once (or if) Wikipedia reaches the stage where nearly every article is featured, and articles like this stand out, then I'll be more sympathetic to the deletion of articles like this.--Azer Red Si? 15:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I havent got time or patience to tidy articles like this up. Its an indiscrimiate list with comments interspered which makes in part makes it original research. Lots of artciles on this site should be deleted but until they get nominated we cant do anything about that can we. anyways who is going to search for this sort of article directly? No-one. Also this article for it to be read at all would require having links added to laods of other music pages and that would take a very long time for someone to do. --PrincessBrat 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:HARMLESS and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you mean? --pgk 16:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thankfully neither of the above are policy, because they don't make any sense. If something is truly harmless, then there isn't any reason to nominate it for deletion except to be a WP:DICK by destroying others hard work. And, yes I agree that "other crap" does exist. So why aren't the deletionists nominating the "other crap" (which includes about 1,500,000 of Wikipedia's articles) for deletion as well. It doesn't make sense to just randomly pick articles for deletion based on sources, and whatever policy there is that endorses this is policy in name only, since it isn't consistently enforced. Either enforce this policy consistently (and therefore delete the majority of Wikipedia's articles), or do away with it's status as a policy.--Azer Red Si? 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. For almost three months, there has been a request to add references and none seem forthcoming. Even if deleting articles like this empties out Wikipedia, I think it's the right thing to do. Displaying no information is better than displaying inaccurate information, or unattributed information. If we stripped the original research from the article, sentences like "Cui Jian and other performs hold the largest rock concert ever in Beijing, bringing Chinese rock all the way into the mainstream; it comes to dominate the Chinese music scene" would become "Cui Jian and others hold a concert in Beijing"; "Rinken Band's surprise success led to the second wave of Okinawan music" would become "Rinkin Band plays Okinawan music". Then, the article would be an indiscriminate collection of information, still requiring deletion. Sancho 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Why would this page need references when everything it says simply points to other pages which will obviously confirm their being here? If I link to Kurt Cobain for his suicide for the year in which it occured, why would I have to include another reference when one if probably included in the article itself? Conor 16:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Is Kurt Cobain comitting suicide a "trend"? Part of the problem here is not that necessarily individual events did/didn't occur, it's if it counts as a trend, that's purely the opinion of the person adding it. What is the standard for inclusion? Where are the cites which define these things to be trends whilst all the other things which occurred in music aren't trends? --pgk 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Conor's observation is worth considering. The problem, I think, is that that fact about Cobain is an exception. Most of the article consists of opinion and personal observations. If they truly are trends, then they should be sourceable. Unschool 10:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete conceptually a problem, unless there are reliable sources defining what counts as a trend, the overall content is nothing more than the opinion of the editors of the article i.e. it is original research. Amounts to little more than an arbitary list of things which did/didn't occur. --pgk 16:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Here are the two criteria for deletion listed in Wikipedia's deletion policy that deal with lack of sources:

    • Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources - doesn't apply here, because the information in the article is notable, and users have said that sources supporting info in the article are found in other articles
    • All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed - we haven't had the chance to try, since the deletionists just want to have the article deleted rather than give editors the chance to find sources--Azer Red Si? 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You have 5 days while this AFD is being considered. If you can add a reasonable number of sources in this period, the article will probably be kept. I'll certainly change my !vote if the article is improved. JulesH 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cough Any sources need to avoid becoming a synthesis of other information. Also, WP:NOT indicriminate lists of information. You need to find sources that discuss trends in music for the period not just a bunch of facts because that's not what the article is supposed to be. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While this is a topic we should have, I think razing the article and starting again is probably easier at this point. JulesH 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But will you and the other deletion supporters be willing to do it is what I want to know.--Azer Red Si? 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I think I just found a simple solution to all this controversy that I assume no one will have a problem with. The real issue here (at least for me) is that if this article is just deleted, all of its content will be lost. If there were a way for non-admins to view past revisions of deleted articles, I wouldn't be so concerned, since the content could still be accessed and salvaged if possible.--Azer Red Si? 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut and paste, store in a text file on your computer. Then if you merely want to look at it, you can. If you want to try and build a better article, and if it gets deleted, let me know and I'll userfy it for you to work on that article. (Though note don't ask until you are ready to work on it, not a free web host so if you aren't going to actively work on it, it'll be deleted again). --pgk 07:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Done All now listed at AFD Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete, no secondary sources. -- lucasbfr talk 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wajas

    [edit]

    prod'd it which was removed - I cannot find any mentions of this in the sort of sources that we expect to find according to WP:RS, just various mirrors of the wikipedia article and various forum posts. Delete as NN. Fredrick day 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All things within this article can be confirmed with the FAQ section of wajas. I see no reason for it to be deleted, I myself am a member of the site and can find no immediate errors in any of the information provided.Aupa 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    so what? what that does prove? that this site exists? yes we know that. What policy based reason can you cite for keeping it? --Fredrick day 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Keep - As of now, the FAQ's section of Wajas is messed up and as a result is difficult to navigate. The goal of this article is to provide a more organized resource of information. It is also to help people who are interested in the website find out exactly what it entails, as it is more unique than most virtual pet sites out there.

    This website is popular, though not yet internationally. It's not some little cult or clan site with a few members. About 25,000 accounts have been created, assuming if each person created a second account as well, which would not be counted toward the total.
    No original research is here. This can all be verified. All of my information was obtained from the website itself and user-made walkthroughs. Later I will cite them when I get the chance. Also, this completely complies with NPOV. Opinions cannot be found anywhere.
    Any other reasons why we should delete this? -- Hot Dog Wolf -- What's your beef? 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That it does not have any sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS and that "because the original site is a bit of mess so we want to put the instructional guide on wikipedia" is not a policy I am familar with? --Fredrick day 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm.. Why can't we keep the article? I might be a little.. un-professional, but I don't see any reason why we can't keep it here. Some people might want to know what Wajas is exactly. Alot of people either Google it or check it on Wikipedia to see if it appears to be any good. And err.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the WP:RS page, it says "This page is a guideline, not a policy" or something along those lines. I'm pretty sure this is reliable. I personally also play the site, and all the information do match what I've learned so far, from reliable guides that have been published on the site itself and on fan sites. -- Anonymous

    well I like this page, its been very helpful and its not like the page is a mess or anything. also its not like wikipedia has any reason to delete pages that only apply to a few people. if that were the case you could take this down and every foot long page on super heroes and comic books with it. -- Anonymous

    WP:ILIKEIT. - anyone got a policy based reason for it to remain? --Fredrick day 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is really a nicely written article, and so one may wonder what harm it does to Wikipedia. I will try to explain to the creators of the article why many of us are voting delete here. Well, we need to draw the line somewhere, or we should allow nicely done entries on every website, or any online community. The document describing what Wikipedia is trying to do is the official policy called What Wikipedia is Not. Specifically, Wikipedia is not an Internet Guide: "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." This is why the important criteria for keeping an article is that we need non-trivial coverage in intellectually independent sources. This typically means news coverage, or mention in books about internet phenomena, and so on. I hope this helps explain why we can't keep this otherwise very nice article, Merzul 21:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete as clearly non-notable. Sr13 08:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hillhead primary

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

    Notability/importance not asserted. A quick google search doesn't really yield much outside the ordinary for every other elementary school on the planet. Prod removed by page author with no explanation. NMChico24 17:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Withdrawn. PeaceNT 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David MacMichael

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

    Non-notable person. Prod was contested with the suggestion that the article be taken to AfD, so here we are. The article was created in January '06 and still has very little content (just three sentences). MacMichael's supposed claims to fame are that he is a member of a group that is just barely, if at all, notable, and that he is a critic of the Iraq war (which puts him in the elite company of just about everyone else these days). Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn The article has been improved and numerous sources have been presented. Good job by those (especially Commodore Sloat) who helped establish MacMichael's notability. Bad job by Oakhouse, who didn't assume good faith despite the fact that we have never interacted before, and has no reason to suspect bad faith. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - please read I've filled in some of the information on the page; it could still use some work, but I urge those voting "delete" to take another look. Also, notice that this google search -- which searches for "David MacMichael" and "CIA" but excludes all pages mentioning "VIPS" or "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" still comes up with over 18,000 google hits. I realize google hits are not definitive, but surely such a large result gives lie to the claim that MacMichael is only notable for his association with VIPS. csloat 01:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Also see the Talk page for a list of about 40 sources in mainstream media discussing MacMichael prior to 1990. I found many many more from post-1990 of course. csloat 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • csloat's edits completely transformed this article and my impression of MacMichael's notability. I was mildly in favor of keeping it before, but given his activities during the Reagan administration (particularly the fact that he was the key witness before the World Court on the question of the mining of the Nicaraguan harbor--which was a hugely important, unprecedented case) I think he now easily passes the notability test and I'm therefore strongly in favor of keeping this article. I hope some who have voted delete take a new look at the article and maybe reconsider their position--the facts have fundamentally changed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Notable individual who has been discussed in several reliable sources; he's clearly only being nominated for AfD for extreme POV reasons. He's cited in CNN, Z Magazine, Time Magazine, and he has appeared in several videos. A quick look at Lexis/Nexis reveals that he was a commentator in the Washington Post on September 28 1984 discussing having left the CIA, and that he was a key witness in the Iran/Contra hearings (see NYT September 8 1985; the Guardian October 8 1985, for example), and that he was an investigator for the Christic Institute -- all of this establishes notability beyond VIPS. Certainly it should be added to the article -- that's a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. csloat 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't nominate the article for POV reasons. I nominated it because it's a shitty article on a non-notable subject. Please assume good faith. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article may be "shitty," but the subject, as I have proven above, is certainly notable. csloat 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You haven't proven anything. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have proved that the mainstream media considered him notable in articles going back twenty years. Sorry if I seemed to be questioning your faith, but it is hard to believe someone familiar with the evidence would call this individual non-notable. csloat 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The CNN link mentions him as one of 6 people who signed a petition. Notably, 3 of the other 5 were deemed worthy of a short sentence describing them in the article, while MacMichael was not. Z Mag is an extreme-left fringe magazine, and does not qualify as "mainstream media". Clintonesque 04:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • For heavens' sake, look at the 40-some articles listed on the talk page, some of which are completely about MacMichael, and printed in the NYT and other sources that cannot be described as "left fringe." It's ludicrous that you would go to the Z Mag and CNN articles to make a point that is completely demolished by other articles (not to mention 18000 google hits). csloat 07:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's hard to assume good faith when your reasons for deletion include calling the VIPS article "barely, if at all, notable" when it has overwhelmingly passed three AfD votes with flying colors, including the third which was proposed by you but which was judged a Speedy Keep. Simon12 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was judged that way by a non-admin. I still don't think the group is notable, and that doesn't mean I'm acting in bad faith. Not everyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Come now, it was a non-admin with over 18,000 edits, and it's not a violation of policy for non-admins to close a keep, so I don't see what you're getting at there. The first two AfD's for VIPS were utter failures--folks voted overwhelmingly to keep the article. Both of the first two AfD's were closed by an admin. Given that, it's pretty unsurprising that the third time around ended in a speedy keep closed by a seasoned non-admin editor. So far the community consensus has been that the VIPS article is notable, and that's highly relevant to this discussion, which began with the assertion that it was not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - much improved. Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Delete article is essentially promotional - a place to put a link to truthuncovered.com Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - then the article should be improved, not deleted. It is shameful when people use AfD when they should be using the talk page of the article or RfC. csloat 18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Csloat 68.91.252.148 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)— 68.91.252.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Weak keep, seems notable; however do note I was canvassed here by the IP above. Abeg92contribs 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Nothing in the article or the arguments here establishes notability. That he was mentioned once in 1984 in a newspaper article discussing his departure from the CIA does not establish notability - on that basis virtually any person alive would be notable. Clintonesque 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "Virtually any person alive" did not depart the CIA or have articles published quoting them. And I mentioned three articles from the mid-1980s (not one); he also testified to Congress and was considered a key witness in the Iran/Contra hearings. Below is a list of six articles I found from 1990 and earlier; these are just in "Major Papers" in the Lexis/Nexis database; others can be found on Infotrak, as well as categories like "Magazines" and "Transcripts"; and I haven't even begun to look through published government documents. This guy is certainly notable (but the article needs to be improved, I fully agree with those who are criticizing it). csloat 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Virtually any person alive leaves a job for another, and often has complaints or disagreements with his former employer. Working for the CIA is not, in itself, and more notable than working for Ford or GM. Clintonesque 04:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Someone who quit Ford or GM very publicly and got a write up in the NYT and Washington Post after quitting, then went on to represent Toyota in a lawsuit against Lee Iacocca in the World Court would certainly be notable. I've got over 40 articles on this man from reliable sources; the arguments for deletion here seem less and less credible by the minute. csloat 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep While MacMichael may be notable, the article at present does not assert notability very well. Csloat makes a good case for notability in his original comments above, but these facts need to be in the main article, not just in this AfD discussion. Simon12 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeleteStrong Delete Not notable outside of VIPs. --Tbeatty 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. See "more talk" section of talk page for discussion on this vote change.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Keep per nom's request. --NMChico24 18:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Three ghosts of Batman

    [edit]

    contested prod - fan-based name for group of NN badguys coupled with a handy dash of "this is going to be important in the future, honest guv!" crystalballism. Fredrick day 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    SETTLED - TO BE MERGED, CAN AN ADMIN CLOSE THIS? --Fredrick day 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was No consensus. WaltonAssistance! 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus Christ as myth

    [edit]
    Jesus Christ as myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    POV Fork of Jesus-myth hypothesis&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Which should all be represented in one article, à la Creation-evolution controversy. That you can't manage to place both into one article is not Wiki's problem, it's yours, and it does not warrant the article split. Hell, if either one were turned in as a term paper, you might get a D for actually turning something in, but since the issue is not covered fully in either article, a D would be considered generous. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if this "The study of such elements is often, but not exclusively, associated with a skeptical position toward the historicity of Jesus. The claim of a purely mythical Jesus with no base in history, popularly known as the "Jesus-Myth theory", goes back to David Strauss' Life of Jesus (1835) and is now rejected by the majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity.[1] For a discussion of the question of historicity, see historicity of Jesus" is supposed to represent why this article is not a fork, but if it is, it fails miserably. In fact, it proves the opposite. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;
    • POVFORK of what? WilyD 19:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This quote is from the presplit version of the article. It was not authored nor advanced by anyone who argues against the deletion of Jesus Christ as myth. It was authored by persons below who in fact are in agreement with Jim on the deletion long before this article split. Use of this quote reflects a profound misunderstanding of the debate that led to the split originally. jbolden1517Talk 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, POV fork. I note jbolden gives as his entire keep argument that its really hard to keep the two articles already in existance in decent shape, as crap keeps creeping in and making them very long. I fail to see how adding a POV fork to siphon the crap off to helps in any way. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete per KC and nom. But should then have a redirect left since it is a likely search term. JoshuaZ 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete . POV fork of an ongoing debate. Get rid of it and integrate any useful material into Jesus-myth hypothesis and/or other suitable articles. Perhaps someone should save the content on a subpage of the talk page for this article so it can be referenced after deletion, if indeed that's what happens. ... Kenosis 20:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete blatant POV fork. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if you POV-fork an article that is discussing the POV of a group of people, don't you end up with an entirely new article on a different subject? That looks to me like what we have here. I don't think the new article's a particularly good one, for instance it presents the hypothesis it discusses as if it were proven fact while it is in fact disputed, and its title is rather confused -- how is this distinct from Jesus-myth hypothesis? I'm not sure. But assuming it is distinct (which I'm not sure sure about, hence the fact I'm not !voting) I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with having a separate article about this similar but distinct viewpoint. JulesH 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: JulesH raises an interesting point. I think it may have to do with the presentation of it. "Jesus as myth" fails to call it a "hypothesis" in the title. The use of "hypothesis" in the Jesus-myth hypothesis article states the putative nature of the topic and admits more explicitly that it's a hypothesis. Thus the title of the "hypothesis" article is by its title more explicitly NPOV, but no less of a POV fork. So the disctinction is more subtle than I had first thought, and is one of redundancy and having more of a "ring" of POV than the "hypothesis" article. Given a strong enough argument that the extra article on "jesus as myth" has a separate justification for existing, I may change my vote to "keep". But on this insight just provided by JulesH, I'm inclined to suggest consideration of a "merge-into Jesus-myth hypothesis". ... Kenosis 21:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh now I see why everyone sees that as "obvious POV fork". Sorry I didn't even think about the titles. Well can we all agree to just change the names of the titles? The titles are similar but the subject isn't (hence the reason for the split). jbolden1517Talk 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment No one uses the term "hypothesis" so why should we? The theories are not hypothetical (they exist but are not widely accepted) caveats do not need to be added to the article title. All that is necessary for NPOV is to make sure there are comments in the lead informing the reader that this is a marginal view rejected by mainstream academia - which is exactly what the original Jesus as myth article used to do. Sophia 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Jbolden1517's comment (just below this thread) that the articles "arrive at different conclusions" settles the issue fairly definitively. That is, in essence, a way of saying "I disagree with the consensus approach of the other article and will create my own new article that arrives at different conclusions". As it appears the Jesus-myth hypothesis does not arrive at conclusions but instead already reports the material and controversy relevant to this topic, I stand by my vote of "delete" on the basis of being a POV fork. if there is a legitimate argument to be made for inclusion of additional materials or additional viewpoints relating to this topic (e.g., ancient Egyptian views of the topic and other such historical perspectives not involving, as Jbolden says, "20th and 21st century ... atheist[s]" ) the argument for inclusion should be made on the Talk:Jesus-myth hypothesis and, if appropriate, included there. .. Kenosis 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. What the heck is wrong with everyone here. Can we AGF for a second. The articles don't arrive at different conclusions, the authors arrive at different conclusions. The articles aren't even addressing the same topic. This is like saying that automobile is a POV fork of train jbolden1517Talk 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever notice that AGF is most frequently cited by those who have made edits (or splits) in such a manner as to suspend the assumption of good faith. Hmmm... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another good example of AGF on bolden's part: "(removing mickey mouse (lets see if this was really about the intro)) " &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- First off I think the article is obviously good enough. So I'm going to argue against merge since delete is plain silly.
      1. For 2 years issues of historicity have interfered with issues of mythicism. Doherty/Wells/Price/Robertson... material has improved little since late 2005. That's in spite of the fact that both published and internet resources have probably doubled since then.
      2. There is simply too much material for a single article. With little overlapping content Historicity = 56k, Jesus-Myth = 36k, Jesus as myth = 37k. (see WP:SIZE#A_rule_of_thumb)
      3. The break is logical. Each article makes different methodological assumptions and examines different issues. That allows the article to address the readership that the underlying books do and thus avoid WP:OR. A unified article (which may need to be written) would have to address a wider audience and thus can't focus on the specific theories in detail.
      4. Finally the older version (what I assume the deletion request is asking for) pre-split was loaded with POV in particular the Frazier editorializing throughout the article. Some of that is still present but its getting easier to remove the POV stuff post split. jbolden1517Talk 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Well looks like delete is an issue so:
      The authors in the Jesus Christ as myth range from Christian Saints (like Justin Martyr) to religious protestants (like Lewis) to new age types to atheists to liberal christians... They also range in time from the 2nd century to the current day. Most of them have a very supernaturalist bent. The authors addressed in Jesus-myth hypothesis are all 20th and 21 century and all atheist. They operate completely within a naturalistic, rationalistic and empiricist framework. They are addressing a secular audience and they can be reasonable classified as skeptics. That is:
      • different audience
      • different goals
      • different assumptions
      • they arrive at difference conclusions
      *: jbolden1517Talk 21:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to arrive at any conclusions - just report a subject in a NPOV and balanced way. This split makes it harder. Some material from this article does need to go back into the original Jesus as myth article. Sophia 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I still don't know what happened here. One moment there was an article, two days later, all the work was undone by three editors who to have decided to do it themselves without asking or gaining consensus. I'm troubled by what happened here. Orangemarlin 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- But the titles need to be changed. One should be called something like "Fictional Jesus" or "Unhistorical Jesus". The other should be called "Mythology and the Life of Jesus". The point of the split is to separate the discussion of two distinct questions. One is the claim that Jesus is unhistorical. The other is the claim that the figure of Jesus in the gospels contains material of a mythological character. These are separate claims. The supporters of the deletion keep repeating the mantra "POV fork" but seem to be signally unable to explain what POV is being pushed by this alleged fork. Paul B 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as POV fork. WP:NOR also applies big time. meshach 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? What original research? And what POV? Paul B 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a blatant attempt by three editors to force their POV on an article. They did not contact editors who spent time on the article. They did it with 1 or 2 days warning. These editors should explain why they did this? Orangemarlin 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What POV? Paul B 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just this side of not giving a crap about violating rules of civility to go truly ballistic. The three of you, Paul Barlow, jbolden and WilyDdbachmann made vast and POV changes to articles without consensus. You are driving your POV on this article, got rid of a lot of good, well-researched information. You have forced your own research onto the article. I think what you have done needs to addressed by admins. Orangemarlin 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat, what POV? Paul B 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, don't solve your content disputes via afd. I am trying hard to educate people that myth as the subject of mytography does not have the meaning of "made up" it has in popular usage. It is ironic that the nominator here should sport "In nomine rationis" on his userpage, you'd rather expect the sober treatment of mythology in the gospel would be attacked by fundamentalist piety, not by skeptical Darwinists. dab (𒁳) 16:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Whatever content disputes might be involved can be solved through the article talk pages and dispute resolution. Mythography/folklore studies of Christ are quite different from the Jesus-myth theory. Mythological interpretation of a figure, or faith, does not mean an assumption of falsity or an assertion that the subject is "mythical". It is an approach of sociology and anthropology. For example, mythography has focused on figures such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, however it is not disputed they were well-documented historical figures. While the title of the article is horrible and it needs to be mercilessly edited, its subject matter is quite appropriate. Treating the broader topic of folklore studies in relation to Jesus is not a POV fork. Vassyana 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've placed an "Original research" (OR) tag on the article, which would be in addition to the above complaints about it being a POV fork. The article presents a thesis, which is that stories about Jesus of Nazareth have parallels in other cultures and mythologies. That is quintessential original research. If there is in the future to exist an article of some kind that describes parallel mythologies to those involving Jesus of Nazareth, such an article would need to be based upon sources that describe such a thesis, not just on the WP editors' asserting parallels they think are obvious. And if there is a topic of this kind, the article would need to be appropriately titled to reflect such a topic. If the perspective being sought to include in an article is limited to, say, "Parallel myths to Jesus" (I don't at the moment know how this would properly be titled, or if indeed it can properly be titled) or some other genuinely separate topic thread, it would appear there may be room in this vast enterprise of WP for that and other perspectives. Unfortunately that's not what I see as being the primary source of dispute here-- but if it is part of the dispute, the solution is to find specific sources that discuss parallel mythologies and include them in an article that discusses parallel mythologies. Additionally, perhaps some of the research being done by jbolden and perhaps others could be put to use in helping out the sad state of the article on virgin birth and other specific myths that have been verifiably shown to be cross-cultural.

    As to the specific nature of issue that results in the article being a POV fork (also forbidden under WP rules, specifically WP:NPOV): Well, in simple language, when an editor fails to persuade the participants in an article that the material he or she seeks to include should be included, and goes off and starts another article on the same topic, it's either a refusal to accept consensus in the first article, or a POV fork, or both. Jbolden1517 has asserted that the Jesus-myth hypothesis (which, believe it or not, was originally titled "Jesus as myth") is overly focused on the viewpoints of "20th and 21st century ... atheist[s]". Pardon me, but if there is a strong case to make that additional older perspectives of, say, theists who also regard Jesus of Nazareth as myth, the point should, in my opinion, be made on the appropriate talk page and have some or all of the perspectives that are asserted to be worthy of inclusion put into in the relevant article on the topic, not create a new article. The main POV that is forked into this article is to restate the basic story of Jesus, stating right in the lead that it's been largely debunked, then proceed to draw parallels between certain aspects of the story of Jesus and other ancient mythologies.

    To sum up, this article, begun out of a content dispute at Jesus-myth hypothesis, is both a POV fork and virtually all original research, and should be deleted. Assuming it is sourced properly, I'm sure it's possible to find a new home for the material on parallel myths or analogous myths in other articles or in a differently titled article without violating these very basic principles of NPOV and NOR. ... Kenosis 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This timeline is easy to disprove. This is what the article looked like just prior to my first post to either of these two article [43]. You'll notice the material about the older theists is in there. Its in there in a confusing miss mash with 20th and 21st century theories but Kenosis's speculations about the history of the development of the article is provable false. jbolden1517Talk 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Roughly translated: "I created the new article first, then proceeded to argue incessantly with those others about the content of that other article." I think I do get the picture more clearly now, though it took me awhile due to WP:AGF. Mickey Mouse indeed. Have a nice day, OK? ... Kenosis 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh no again provable false. Here is the article Jesus Christ as myth prior to my first post on that article [44]. How about what the evidence does show rather than just making wild guesses jbolden1517Talk 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I now see that jbolden made his/her first post to that article after someone else [re]created it the very same day, March 24. Sorry. ... Kenosis 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a concerted attack to diminish the article. Moreover, could someone point to the discussion about it? Is there away to delete the forked article, and return back to the original Jesus as Myth article. Orangemarlin 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I largely agree with what Dab and Paul have said, including that moving the two articles in question would be wise. The split makes sense, and I don't see how it's a POV fork. As others have asked, what POV is being advanced? john k 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If that is a serious question then the answer has to be that finding the dividing line where mythical Jesus investigations become acceptible/heresy is difficult and prone to ambiguous (often religious based) decisions. The Jesus as myth camp does not spend all of its time trying to prove Jesus didn't exist as you can't do that. They do however spend a lot of time examining parallels, precursor and contemporary ideas, and the prevailing political and religious background from which Christianity and the writings about Jesus grew. For this spilt to work where do we put writers like Pagels, Thompson, Allegro etc? No one supporting this split has ever answered this question. I'm begining to think that is because they don't know who they are or have never read them. Sophia 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have again failed to state how this is a POV fork by again avoiding the issue of what POV is being represented. No one ever answered the question because no-one put it. However, there is no reason why particular authors have to be confined to one article. Many writers are mentioned in several articles. Sanders is discussed in many JC related articles, to give just one example. Paul B 07:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was put by me on the 26th and ignored [45] until I brought it here. I'm not saying the authors need to be confined - just that their work is intrinsic to both articles so deciding what goes where is a nightmare. Since you seem to ignore my posts [46] [47] I will repeat again that the POV being pushed is the Christian led idea that the "Jesus as myth" camp comes down simply to a question of whether Jesus existed or not. This shows a very "web-based" view of the debate as a lot of the on-line stuff is aimed at answering Chriatian accusations of the theories. This "historicity question" is also the point at which Christians cry "foul" as it is so central to their belief system, but the mythological lead up to it in works that I have mentioned shows this is just one aspect of most of the theories. Most Christians accept (coz it's so obvious it makes your eyes pop) that some stories surrounding Jesus have older mythological counterparts. Most non Christians will smirk at the "demonic imitation" and "pre-echoes" claims as looking pretty desperate. If we confine one article to a question of "Did Jesus exist" we basically have a POV fork of the Historicity of Jesus. Do I need to go on? Sophia 08:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dab replied to the post you refer to. Of the two I supposedly "ignored" neither state what the POV is supposed to be and one is the very post I replied to! The problem is that you seem to be conflating all non-Christian scholarship with the "Jesus myth" view. You appear include in the Jesus-myth school all scholars who discuss the development of Christian theology, doubt the truth of miracle stories and suspect that some aspects of the gospel narrative were either invented or distorted to make JC fit Biblical prophecies. That makes nonsense of the Jesus-myth concept. Either it is distinct from the mainstream view that he existed and that the gospels record his life (in a very distorted way) or it is not. This is far from being a Christian view. Indeed the Christian view is that JC is, as it were, myth ("the word") made flesh. I can assure you that Dab (who created the split) is certainly no Christian, but a secularist, as am I. Paul B 09:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply no problem
    • Thomson -> Jesus Christ as Myth since he does comparative work
    • Pagels -> I think she makes sense in hypothesis tied to the stuff on Nelson and Pearson.
    • Allegro -> In the article on Allegro. If he goes anywhere hypothesis.
    But that's my $.02. Others may have different opinions and that is what talk pages are for. Yes there may be problems on the boarder so what? Worse comes to worst we pick one and cross reference. jbolden1517Talk 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case.... Sophia 18:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So I assume. Truck and Automobile need to be merged since General Motors makes both jbolden1517Talk 18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, yeah. Profound. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Jesus-myth hypothesis is largely the original Jesus as Myth article, and deals with a fringe hypothesis. Jesus Christ as Myth deals - quite badly at present - with a much broader question of how far ancient mythology correlates to Christianity, in a much more mainstream way. Most scholars would hold that Christian traditions about Jesus were influenced to some extent by mythology - e.g. in terms of language like "Son of God", etc - but wouldn't see it as undermining the knowability of history so much as the mythicists. There's also the "Jesus as true myth" types . If the article were to try to deal with all these kinds of people, the Jesus-myth theory would (or, at least, should) be barely mentioned, per our Undue Weight policies. An article devoted to those kind of ideas can enable people to find this material much more easily.
    There is a need for some content on the relationship between Jesus and mythology on wikipedia. I don't think it can easily be fitted within Christian Mythology, although there is a case for that. My main problem with saying keep, leading to me saying week keep, is that I think the article as it now stands doesn't do this very well. I'm not sure how much force that objection should hold when it would be improved over time.
    (Please note: I haven't been following the details of this split enormously effectively). TJ 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    or turn it into a sub-article title "Parallels between Jesus and myths", anything is better than "Jesus as myth" Str1977 (smile back) 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep -- This article was good for my report. Exactly what I was looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.194.214 (talk • contribs)
    • Delete There was no consensus for this content fork, and I still have no idea why there are two articles on this subject. --Filll 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom. Guettarda 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The two articles don't coincide. Jesus Christ as myth deals with a raft of views on the mythological nature of Jesus. Jesus-myth hypothesis is a more specific article, dealing with just one facet of the phenomenon. The current titles tend to be confusing and need to be modified. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've been looking at the talk pages of these articles and I'm having trouble understanding the dispute. In particular, I don't think the POV/OR claims are very well explained. At any rate, these are separate topics: Jesus Christ as myth is about (scholarship on) parallels between the Jesus narrative(s) and other bodies of mythology, Jesus-myth hypothesis is about a particular theory that early Christians made Jesus up. These are different subjects, linked by the use of the word "myth." But they're using "myth" in different senses: in Jesus Christ as myth, "myth" means "traditional narrative about the gods", in Jesus-myth hypothesis, "myth" means "false story". Obviously this leads to a different attitude about the historicity of Jesus: generally, the scholars cited in Jesus Christ as myth take no position as to historicity, but writers who hold the Jesus-myth hypothesis attempt to prove that there was no real Jesus.
    These articles should be engaging different bodies of scholarship--Jesus Christ as myth should deal with the examination of Christianity from the perspective of comparative mythology, and there are contemporary, mainstream academic sources for this--the influence of mystery religions such as Mithraism on Christianity is intensively studied. On the other hand, the Jesus-myth hypothesis was the creation of 19th-early 20th century academics such as Bruno Bauer, but it is now a definite fringe theory, and its recent adherents are popular authors such as Earl Doherty, John Allegro, and Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. As currently written, though, there's a lot of overlap between the articles, probably left over from the split, so there's a lot of refinement to be done; but it will be easier to improve these as separate articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. WaltonAssistance! 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin O'Sullivan

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

    Delete- No reliable refs, sources; neither parent credited surnamed O'Sullivan; massive vandalism; impossible to ensure integrity of page - to know what's true or not IPhoebusApollo 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • To the best of my knowledge, mass vandalism has never been a criterion for deletion. If it were, we would have no article on George W. Bush, for example. A protection request would probably be more appropriate here than a nomination for deletion. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me rephrase -- I was wrong. The page was not vandalized. Rather, the entire page, every single line from beginning to end is a hoax, a gag - someone (User:89.243.198.48) has been laughing that it was not uncovered since April 12th. The ridiculous length of the text is but one giveaway, as are the lack of valid sources. Everything from his birth to his parents to his "National Service" to his "marriages" to the purported incident involving Laurence Olivier to his film career to "Sir Clint Eastwood" is garbage!!

    I mean, come on people: In March 2007 a controversial statue of O'Sullivan and his beloved poodle, Toto, erected on Hampstead Heath, was crudely vandalised. Although the perpetrators have yet to be caught, a British newspaper, The Sunday People, received an email claiming responsibility from a group calling themselves "The Hairs [sic] of Jonathan King". The group has also claimed to have been behind damage caused to a number of London statues, including that of Sir Peter Pears and of Lord Baden-Powell in Queensgate. Coincidentally, O'Sullivan himself was a Scout for three decades, though he developed a deep phobia about woggles in his sixties after an unfortunate incident in a damp tent which left him unable to DYB DYB DYB with conviction (which was later quashed). P'Sullivan's marriage to Hortense Grimaldi in 1972 made him distantly related to Rainier III, Prince of Monaco (born Rainier Louis Henri Maxence Bertrand Grimaldi). Technically - albeit by marriage - O'Sullivan was 147th in line to the throne of the principality and would have become, in the highly unlikely event of his succession, His Serene Highness The Sovereign Prince of Monaco, Prince Kevin I. Indeed, as the marriage to Hortense was never fully annulled, O'Sullivan often insisted on being referred to as His Serene Highness in bylines.

    Of course you have to read the page to realize this and those who haven't read the page should not be voting on it. This thing needs to be nuked ASAPIPhoebusApollo 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Great God in a bottle. Delete this utter heap of foolishness, or at the very least stubify it to what's verifiable - that he's a newspaper columnist.I don't think it'd even be close to repairable in its current state. If the subject's notable enough, then someone may recreate it in a way that it's not a complete joke. Sad, sad, sad that it's been up in this state for so long. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain for now – i'm gonna have a go at stripping down all the bollocks to only what's verifiable, then see if it's worth having or not. tomasz. 10:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedily deleted --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Existential instantiation

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

    This article contains two sentences; both are debateable. (I accept both, but I'm a Hilbertian, not an intuitionist.) If cleaned up, it would be a dictionary definition. No here here; delete Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep. PeaceNT 05:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's Not News, It's FARK: How Mass Media Tries to Pass off Crap as News

    [edit]
    It's Not News, It's FARK: How Mass Media Tries to Pass off Crap as News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Since this book has yet even to be published, it is hard to find any evidence for its actual significance. It's not exactly the latest Harry Potter, after all. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete. WaltonAssistance! 20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome to Percotran

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

    I can't find any evidence that this is properly published by a real publisher; it is not available on Amazon. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 08:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ciuciu

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

    Contested PROD: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a dicdef for a non-English word. Nick—Contact/Contribs 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. W.marsh 12:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Smilin Jacks Toys

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

    lacks notability, smells like an ad — for a small toy store Lars T. 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Withdrawn. PeaceNT 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherokee Heritage Groups

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

    Is this a list or an article? Or is just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? Unreferenced and unencyclopedic Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn - someone else's problem. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Significantly enhanced article with Cherokee Identity Materials. Please Consider keeping these materials in this article where they really belong based upon the subject matter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete Hipocrite and I are involved in a dispute with Mr. Merkey at Cherokee over the inclusion of groups not federally recognized as Cherokee tribes in that article (feel free to look through that pages discussion and Mr. Merkey's talk page). This page was created as an attempt by Mr. Merkey to compromise, reasoning that such material could go on WP, but not on the Cherokee article. However, this page is becoming a sort of POV fork, as he has removed content from the Cherokee article discussing these groups and put it here (regardless of the "Heritage" aspect of the disputed content). In my opinion, this fork does not help in our dispute, and has not been accepted by other editors at Cherokee as a satisfactory solution or even as a worthy place to add content. However, I vote weak as a sort of discount on my vote reflecting my bias due to our current dispute. Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk) 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an update, Mr. Merkey has been banned for being disruptive. I've proposed at Cherokee to move the forked material in this article back to that article. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see, he has been brought back, and the issue will (I hope) continue to be discussed. I am striking my vote until we come to a resolution. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference voorst was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_27&oldid=1234122003"