Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 20 June 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy deleted as non-notable bio. Capitalistroadster 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nijel Walls

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

Appears to be about a 15 year old and how good he shoots basketballs. Not notable. I added a {{db-bio}} to it which was removed. I've never brought an article for AfD before so I'm not sure if this is what I was supposed to do. daveh4h 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyi-Leo

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

I listed this for speedy deletion as an ad (the "Registered" mark is a giveaway), but the CSD tag was removed by another user without comment, so I bring this here. Corvus cornix 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The reason the registered mark was included is because the name of the dog breed "Kyi-Leo" appears to be registered by the original breeders ... Mrs. Linn - for the sake of securing the name from other uses. However, since there is no alternative name for the breed I had to refer to its actual name and decided that including the registered mark was only appropriate ... not an advertisement in the least. Since it is the name that is registered and not the breed itself, how then do I refer to the breed without the legalities involved? --Davmid055 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot a online sources are available and it could easily be argued that all dog breeds are inherently notable if they survive beyond the initial ancestors. CIreland 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Many notable products have the R tag. (In spite of the behavior noted below)DGG 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the ed. who introduced this page has been trying to speedy other articles in apparent response to revenge for it being first speedied, and then listed here. I've removed the tags and given him a strong warning. since modifed DGG 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note In response to the allegations that I was posting speed deletion tags out of revenge for having my article posted for such, I honestly wasn't. I read through the deletion policies thoroughly and read that we are encouraged to "Visit a Special:Randompage and jump into the rabbit hole!" to get involved with Wikipedia. So I did, and found articles that blatantly meet the speedy deletion criteria. It was nothing to do with revenge and I was only trying to get more involved in Wikipedia by bringing to attention some other pages - nothing to do with my own. I apologize if this was inappropriate but I do not believe I was doing it in bad-faith. --Davmid055 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that "speedy keep" is an indication that you feel that the nomination was a bad faith nomination. Do you really believe that? And, according to the MoS, Wikipedia should not use the R tag. Corvus cornix 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a clearly mistaken nomination, and used the Speedy just in response to that--not that I thought anything remotely like bf, --I simply treated it as an error, and consider a speedy keep suitable for correcting an error. I may have been influenced by your prior use of a speedy tag on the article. I'm glad to be corrected myself about the use of R, but a single-character MOS error is no reason to delete,DGG 21:30, 22 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. --Coredesat 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forza Motorsport 2 Car List

[edit]
Forza Motorsport 2 Car List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of cars to feature is too trivial and in depth for encyclopedia. Just listing the car manufacturers in the parent article - Forza 2, alongside a suitable external link would suffice. - hahnchen 23:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide --Haemo 23:44, 21 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. Sandahl 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Williams ninth studio album

[edit]
Robbie Williams ninth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced, unverified, and speculative article about an upcoming album that apparently won't be released for at least a year. Tabercil 22:43, 21 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. --Coredesat 05:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IFrogz

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

Reason: Fails WP:NN. No ascertation of notability. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. I don't know what else to say. YechielMan 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've explained my action here on User talk:WalterWalrus3. YechielMan 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Expos

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

No other defunt team has its own article, this shouldn't either WalterWalrus3 22:19, 21 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. --Coredesat 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superwookie

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

Non-notable unsigned band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Having supported Marillion once does not make them notable. John 21:31, 21 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. --Coredesat 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Jones (editor)

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

Doesn't seem notable, especially if the fellow is leaving his job at a (rather minor) newspaper to work for a local council. Possibly a vanity article; created and sometimes edited by registered users who have created or worked on no/few other articles. Neale Monks 21:22, 21 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. --Coredesat 05:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon miscellanea

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

trivia fork, just stuff that was spun off the main article into it's own. Should not have been on here in the first place, doesn't need it's own article. Just pure junk trivia. Biggspowd 21:10, 21 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 - on second nomination. --VS talk 15:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata trivia

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

trivia fork, there should not be a page full of trivia on this just because it was "too long for the main article", then it shouldn't be there in the first place. Biggspowd 21:07, 21 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 05:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Survivor statistics and trivia

[edit]
List of Survivor statistics and trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a bunch of odd statistics and facts and is ultimately fancruft. This violates various WP policy, including WP:NOT. Should not have its own page. Biggspowd 21:01, 21 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: Redirected to Make Me Famous, Make Me Rich by Clarityfiend. Non-admin close by Flyguy649talkcontribs

Make Me Famous Make Me Rich

[edit]
Make Me Famous Make Me Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is an identical article Make Me Famous, Make Me Rich that not only uses the correct title for the game show but also has more information CaseyIsDShiz 21:07, 21 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. — OcatecirT 05:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground trivia

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

Just a page full of trivia, previous AFD was over a year ago, before policies and such came into place about articles full of trivia. Violates several policies and should not have it's own page. The fact that it starts with "this is info not important for the main article" explains enough to me. Biggspowd 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above Rackabello 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of the detail in the page could be worked into a main article, but has been hived off to keep the main article size manageable. Yes the article could be better titled/worded/organised, but just because something is less important than something else does not make it unimportant. DrFrench 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is not a valid reason to keep an article. The whole "the main article was too big, let's put cruft in it's own article" argument is pure junk. Biggspowd 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for dismissing my argument as invalid purely becasue it doesn't concur with yours. I did not suggest "the main article was too big, let's put cruft in it's own article" or anything of the sort. Please be more careful in future, thank you. DrFrench 13:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge - perhaps by integrating the most relevant information on this page to the main London Underground page, and/or simply copying the external link given at the bottom of this page. Andrew (My talk) 23:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge despite its title, not all of these bits of "trivia" are really trivia - some seem part of the description of the system (e.g., how deep is the deepest station seems a normal statistical thing one would expect in an article about any subway/underground system), some are real trivia (which stations contain no letters in various foodstuffs like lobster and walnut) and ought to be axed. If the London Underground article is too large (however that gets defined) to keep the pertinent portions a London Underground statistics may be a better name once the real trivia are gone. On an ironic note: if the London Underground were some fictional universe we'd have little issue in keeping many of these tid-bits as "plot details", "statistics" or "minor characters" (minor stations?).... Carlossuarez46 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as London Underground Statistics and remove the cruft (including all allusions to lobster and mackerel). There is good stuff here that shouldn't be lost. Capmango 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but prune (remove all the useless cruft, keep the statistics etc.) And oh, yes, rename to something like what Capmango suggests. (We shouldn't have "trivia" articles.) -- Ekjon Lok 01:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most to the main London Underground article, or to the line, station or rolling stock articles if applicable. Most of the items are not simply items of trivia but reasonably significant information about the system. Some things which are of zero consequence (e.g. "St John's Wood is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'mackerel' (as the word Saint is not spelt out). Pimlico is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'badger', at least until the proposed 2010 opening of Hoxton, which will then be the only station containing none of the letters of either word. Wapping is the only station with no letters in common with 'lobster'. And Redbridge is the only station without 'Walnut'!") needs to go. There is no hurry to do this however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and others. There have been a number of TV documentaries made purely on Tube trivia - ghosts etc, so the subject qualifies as notable in its own right, I would say. Johnbod 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but get rid of all the rubbish about ghosts. Lugnuts 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The London Underground is, in my view, of sufficient importance and influence to warrant sub-articles and since there is a lot of trivia which is referenced and notable merging it back to the main page would make that page unweildy. I would not be opposed to it being renamed London Underground Points of Interest or suchlike. However there is a cleanup required - linguistics are of no significance and although haunting is a notable and (some would say) common phenomenon on the London Underground, specific intances need to be referenced. However a deletion debate is not the place for cleanup discusions, here we should only be concerned as to whether or not the content is notable and I contend that it is. A1octopus 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete We don't need to have every bit of info on wikipedia, and this is a totally indiscriminate list of info. Most of it should be scrapped, and if anything is of any value, there are other articles it can go to. Dannycali 20:03, 29 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-masu! Sr13 05:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyoro~n

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

Short stub about an obscure internet meme that few have likely heard of, no reputable sources. Fails notability under WP:WEB. --Potato dude42 20:56, 21 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. --Coredesat 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Center for Spiritual Living

[edit]
San Diego Center for Spiritual Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, written in an advertising tone (e.g. "CHANGE YOUR THINKING, CHANGE YOUR LIFE"), only sources are their website and other Wikipedia articles Rackabello 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. remove the Change your thinking change your life, because that is a bit spammy. However, the article is based on examples of others within wikipedia, which is why it also references other articles in wikipedia. Additional necessary references for the material contained in the article are being added. Cookcorec 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC) C. Cook-Core 6/21/07 — Cookcorec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment This group was originally the "Downtown Community Church" It's said to be part of "United Centers for Spiritual Living" aka "United Church of Religious Science" whose main article is Religious ScienceDGG 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Man, we really need notability guidelines for churches. This could well be notable as churches go, but the only news hits for it are community calendar events, so under general NN requirements it fails. Capmango 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This church is notable in that it is the first Religious Science church to incorporate ministers from all three major Religious Science organizations, UCRS, RSI, and ANTN as practicing ministers at the same time. The three organizations have been in discussion on how to merge the teaching and educational requirements for several years, and this church is the precurser to that end result. It is also one of the very few churches/centers in a highly urban setting. It is part of the City of San Diego revitalization program to bring families back to the city. Dr. Gordon Bishop, who founded the church, was the President of both NewSchool of Architecture and Holmes Institute for Consciousness Studies at the time. Holmes Institute is the seminary for Religious Science Ministers through UCRS/UCSL. It became an accredited institution through his direct efforts based on his vast experience with state and private schools. This church is also notable in that it brings world-renown metaphysical leaders and teachers to the City of San Diego. This church is active in community outreach to the downtown area, where million-dollar condos and wealthy residents live side-by-side with rampant homelessness and poverty. It is an educational center where no one is turned away for their personal belief system. Should that information have been included in the article? C. Cook-Core 26 June 2007.
  • Delete I see no reason why this article (that reads like a brochure) should be included. No external sources are presented to show that this church is notable per WP:ORG. Maybe a paragraph about this church could go in an article on Gordon Bishop (who may meet WP:BIO)... — Scientizzle 19:39, 28 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 redirect. Non admin closure, should have been done when the person made the redir. Kwsn(Ni!) 03:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street cast members

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

Duplicate of List of characters from Coronation Street without the characters. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:34, 21 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. Anas talk? 01:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Grzegorzak

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

Fails WP:BIO criteria of notability for athletes, unreferenced, only one google hit, probably hoax. Visor (talk · contribs) 20:26, 21 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; there is no sourced information in this article that can be merged anywhere. --Coredesat 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Psychedelics in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Collection of unrelated instances of psychedelics in fiction. While some content belongs at the individual articles, there is no overarching structure to this article, and there are no references to allow any useful analysis. --Eyrian 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as indiscriminate collection of info. Useight 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with other articles about psychedelics or narcotics. Since drug abuse is a major concern in education and law enforcement, a familiarity with drug culture references isn't silly, nor is a list of drug movies trivial. When strict censorship laws come back to America, we'll need to know stuff like this when we want to be on the town's Board of Censors. Mandsford 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate list of trivia and directory of loosely associated topics. The items on the list are unrelated to each other past what is in most instances a passing reference. Otto4711 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for obvious reasons. --140.254.225.30 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sr13 05:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy

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

Semi notable figure who strongly objects to the existence of the article SqueakBox 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He is notable as a movie producer. And several of the movies he has produced have been notable. So I'd argue that he passes WP:BLP (and more so than Daniel Brandt), which would argue for a keep. However, we've got the other side of the issue. Is having the article more detrimental to the project than having it is for completeness? I'm going to have to think on it... Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy produced Natural Born Killers and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? There's got to be plenty out there about him, then. Might be a stub now, but that's an unquestionable indicator of notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with comment Are we discussing whether the article should be kept or not because of notability or because (apparently) the subject objects to it? If he is notable, as above editors have said, there's really nothing we can do, is there? I thought only marginally notable people were allowed to ask for the deletion of their article.--Ispy1981 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Non public figures. He isnt Oliver Stone! I dont doubt that he has some notability but not enough to be a public figure like Oliver Stone or Bill Clinton, if he wasnt unhappy with his bio there would be no notability or other reasons to delete but IMO his strongly stated desire that he doesnt want the article and his not being a public figure is enough reason to delete, and I also think given he doesnt want the article here the very least we can do is put it top the community to see if the article is wanted or not, and yes we absolutely can vote to delete the article, and IMO without having to invoke IAR, SqueakBox 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His impressive filmography list clearly (and easily) establishes notabilty according to all our notability criteria. Davewild 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: an extensive filmography is not a condition establishing notability. The first source in the article, from Reuters/Yahoo, makes a strong case for notability. If similar articles exist, I'd say his notability is undeniable; if not, I'd say he's borderline enough that his preference should be taken into account. -Pete 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Don Murphy is notable. The difference between this and Daniel Brandt (which is what SqueakBox is alluding to) is that Daniel Brandt actually wasn't notable as an individual. Don Murphy is and just because he doesn't want his bio posted is no reason whatsoever for us to delete it. I strongly suggest a speedy close for this rather pointless AfD. ^demon[omg plz] 22:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd strongly oppose a speedy or even an early closure given the vehemence with which the subject doesnt want the article here and his comments that could be construed as legal threats. I want us as wikipedia to at least be able to say "the community have spoken on this one" which a speeedy or early closure would not allow, SqueakBox 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should probably recuse myself due to past difficulties with the subject regarding the article (and that of his former associate, Jane Hamsher). There's plenty to find regarding that in WP:SSP and WP:ANI, but without double-checking, I believe that Murphy resolved all that via OTRS and promised to limit himself to one account and behave. He formerly objected to one particular part of the article that referenced one particular incident in his life (which is easily googled), and that was taken out as a concession to WP:BLP. It's his cross to bear that he's almost better known for that instead of his actual production career, but that was a long time ago and his career is now bigger than ever, so as much as he desires privacy, it's absurd that we can't document the notable public parts of his life such as his career producing well-known films. In short, I would believe the "detrimental" part if the only purpose of having an article were to cover that one incident, but covering a notable film production career certainly isn't "detrimental". As for the question of notable material, his NBK-related activities are documented in half-a-dozen books as well as full magazine profiles, interviews, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- the person is notable. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm sure JD Salinger would also prefer not having an article. DS 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really understand how you can call someone like this "semi-notable". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REMOVE I guess as a lawyer I think he is probably right. The law clearly bifurcates between PUBLIC Individuals (who still retain a right of publicity) and private individuals. There is a standard ( I would have to look it up) that divides the two, but this person is NOT famous, I don't know what he looks like and I don't even know what a producer does. Sure he is Notable by our standards, but I think HIS pov is that he is a private person and as such entitled to private person legal protection- which is pretty strict I must say. Then it becomes a question of who is responsible for what is posted on here- the site or us. Because this guy has the resources. So if we gather accurate, publicly available information he would have zero claim (unless we sold ad space in violation of his right of publicity). But the moment something is up for even a minute that is wrong, and he can establish damages, even if he lies about it, then a liability is created. If the Foundation will pay it then fine- otherwise I would just delete it and let the grouch go on his way. HemoGoblin 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— HemoGoblin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (As noted above, the subject has a history on our site of using sockpuppetry and legalistic threats.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "knowing what someone looks like" is a reasonable standard here. I mean, Giuseppe Garibaldi is pretty clearly notable, even though most people don't know what he looks like (I certainly don't). As for the rest of your comment, I think that's more of a structural issue with Wikipedia itself than something that should be considered with regard to this particular article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I am concerned that DHartung knows so much about the circumstances herein, enough to know about HemoGlobin and everything. Murphy complained on his talk page about a sixteen year old Transformers fan stalking him for months on Wikipedia. If DHartung is that person then he should not be expressing anyt opinion, since he is the cause of the problem. DanHeartsNone 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC) — DanHeartsNone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy keep This guy has encouraged his fans to vandalize Wikipedia--one of them (or Murphy himself) even created a public account for this purpose. I even recall where he created an account himself and was immediately indefblocked for legal intimidation. Don Murphy, the person making the objection, has a history of incivil behavior and personal attacks. Moreover, he has also posted personal information about a user on his site (since deleted, but the damage was done). Bottom line--the objection is in bad faith, making the basis for this nomination invalid. Blueboy96 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DanHeartsNone's account was created just today and has made very little edits to any topic except this.--Ispy1981 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: I'd like to encourage folks not to request a Speedy Keep or WP:SNOW this. While I believe the article should remain, I trust the good faith in which the nomination was made and think a speedy anything (considering how contentious the subject) would cause big problems. Let the discussion happen, there's no need for an aggressive timeline. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Removal I worry about what Hemoglobin wrote. Under the DMCA don't we have to take down stuff if given notice and if not the server and site is liable?? Who backs us up if this joker sues? He has clearly stated that he doesn't want to be repped here. Why not just give him what he wants?CleftPalate 05:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC) — CleftPalate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The DMCA doesn't apply unless we're violating copyright or describing certain methods of breaching copyrights. It doesn't apply here. If the article subject sues over the content of the article, WP reverts anything libelous, as it has done in this case, and relies on the first amendment and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act --Aim Here 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless it's new policy to remove subjects that are "notable" by WP standards but the topic demands that the article be deleted. If that's the case, the "policies" and "guidelines" of this website are going to be even more blurred to an ever contradictory trainwreck that ultimately will render them meaningless (if they aren't already). --Oakshade 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assume someone is looking into possible sock puppetry with respect to users CleftPalate, DanHeartsNone, and HemoGlobin. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CleftPalate was blocked for violating WP:U (specifically, the section about names that refer to medical conditions). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin cannot fail to take these allegations into account, though even if considered legitimate these new users dont change the overall consensus as it is right now, SqueakBox 17:52, 23 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. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Napoleon in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of unreferenced trivial mentions of Napoleon's portrayals in fiction. Adds nothing to the reader's understanding of society's perspective on Napoleon. --Eyrian 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the notability of the subject of the article is not in question in this nomination. It is the suitability of the pop culture article that is under discussion, not the suitability of Napoleon. Otto4711 00:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is pretty poor at the moment, but the subject has massive potential. Johnbod 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This needs editing and some paring, but the basic structure for arranging these allusions thematically is already there. It definitely needs to be expanded with references to other appearances of Napoleon in fictions that no longer count as "popular culture", such as War and Peace. Indeed, Napoleon's absence in the works of Jane Austen probably merits a paragraph. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this is clearly a list of indiscriminate trivia in disguise. This is essentially a directory because #1 states that entries that are not made famous due to the association with this figure. Furthermore, per WP:NOTE, if one wanted to write about Napoleon in an encyclopedic context, it would involved citing attributable sources that provide significant coverage about the figure in popular culture. Personally throwing together details that are indiscriminate in nature is a synthesis of the so-called argument for Napoleon's impact in popular culture. This isn't a logical 1+1=2 argument -- we the editors do not judge a figure's lasting prominence by saying, "Napoleon was mentioned in a Seinfeld episode!" As editors, we are not supposed to be the original presenters of a topic using indiscriminate details that mean nothing when they stand alone. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 22 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 05:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendbot

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

Potentially created by a person with a conflict of interest, no independent sources. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:17, 21 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. --Coredesat 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Portland, Oregon in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Large collection of unrelated and irrelevant trivia. They only sentence that is referenced belongs in the main article (where I have moved it). --Eyrian 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Before I !vote I'd like more information. The article was split off from Portland, Oregon in August of 2005 [6], probably to serve the purpose of the keeping such trivia out of the Portland article. Many of the items can be added to the proper categories such as Category:Oregon writers, and deleted, but I would welcome suggestions on a possible page rename and other cleanups. Though other stuff exists isn't a great argument, I'd like to see some examples of similar culture-related articles that are better written. Is something like List of fiction set in Chicago acceptable? Some of us have talked about moving this content to an article about Oregon culture in general and expanding it. Latr, Katr 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re:References--If the individual articles mention a connection to Oregon, is it necessary to also cite the source in this list/article? Latr, Katr 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the point. The problem is that uncited entries are caught between the two halves of the trivia pincer. If it's unreferenced, either there's original research making analysis, or there's no analysis, in which case there's no relevance ("this location was featured in a film", by itself, isn't relevant). --Eyrian 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Eyrian on this point - it will be a valid question if we decide to keep the pages at all, but for now it only complicates the decision…let's leave this for latr. -Pete 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eyrian, can you please reply to my point about keeping the discussion centralized? It's very confusing having it go on in three separate pages. Is this AfD necessary at this point? I have no problem with an AfD if it results from the discussion, but at this moment it seems to be unnecessarily complicating the decision process. -Pete 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think centralization is necessary. This article as it stands needs to go. If people want to refactor it into the appropriate articles (via categorization, lists, etc.) that's fine, and they've got plenty of time to do that. The refactoring can be discussed elsewhere. What needs to be be discussed here is whether this current article should stay. --Eyrian 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per healthy and productive process currently underway at discussion pages noted above. It seems to me the nomination springs more from a desire to make a point than to improve the encyclopedia or the collaboration that supports it. -Pete 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you, there's no point I'm trying to prove (though, incidentally, what do you think it is?). I think this article doesn't add anything to the encyclopedia, and just serves as a list that accumulates trivia. It's regrettable that people have invested a great deal of good-faith effort in this, but it's simply not an encyclopedic entry. --Eyrian 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: Having re-read WP:POINT, let me clarify that I am not accusing Eyrian of disruptive editing, nor am I basing my vote on that policy. Though I generally dislike the invocation of this policy, I guess this is a case of ignore all rules. The article serves an important function merely by its existence, by making it possible to divert disruptive edits from newbies that would otherwise provoke unnecessary disputes. Thus, it allows us to both be more welcoming to newcomers, and keep important articles like Oregon and Portland, Oregon relatively stable and spam-free. I believe that is enough to justify the existence of the articles, but some of the content justifies it as well: the Portland connections of some items, like Beverly Cleary and The Simpsons, are significant and widely-reported. I agree that the article could use some improvement, but strongly disagree that its current flaws justify deletion. -Pete 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Better here than there" doesn't work as a reason for keeping an article. As I now watch Portland, Oregon, I'll gladly volunteer to excise trivia as it attempts to creep in. --Eyrian 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the Portland connections of The Simpsons and Beverly Cleary, and a number of other subjects, are notable, being the subject of stories in reliable sources. I'm curious - is there another article in Category:Lists of films by location that you might recommend as a model for improving this article to an acceptable standard? I really don't see a problem with the article that would come close to justifying deletion. It's far from perfect, but it can be improved - and IS being improved. -Pete 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, put those pair of small things in the main article. Two entries doesn't justify a spin-off article. Further, since when is "wholly unreferences" not an argument for deletion? --Eyrian 23:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Putting a couple of items in the main Portland article would be fine, but it wouldn't solve the problem overall. "Notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia" and "Notable enough for inclusion in the Portland, Oregon article" are different standards, and there will always be items that meet the former, but not the latter. Where exactly the line lies will always be somewhat controversial, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
              • "Wholly unreferenced" is a red herring - references for many of these items are already cited in the linked articles; I'm not sure there's consensus about whether they should be repeated in the list, but if you think they should be there, just move them over - problem solved.
              • Once again - are there other articles/lists that you think could serve as a model for this page – or do you believe that all the items in Category:Lists of films by location should be deleted? -Pete 23:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & delete despite its title, this is not really a popular culture article as we're used to here in Afd land. This is a mish-mash of famous people from Portland (merge to the main article, or the arts subarticle, or have a see also and categorize them, perhaps), books associated with Portland (delete; in 2 I checked because I doubted the association, no reference to "Portland" was found in the entire article, so whatever association is probably nonexistent or tangential at best, like the author lived there), a bunch of films shot in and around Portland (for the ones where Portland wasn't just passed off as "Springfield" or some unnamed burgh, a new list for List of films by location category mentioned above might work), the TV section is a little of the famous people mixed with real trivia (gosh someone on some show thought she was going to Portland), music groups from Portland (merge to the main article or the arts subarticle), songs with Portland ties (delete; the only song with an article's only tie to Portland is the band's ties). Carlossuarez46 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but maybe rename to Culture in Portland, Oregon.--JForget 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have added 16 citations for some of the more notable items on the list. I believe these citations demonstrate that the list is not merely a bunch of trivia about Portland, but provides an introduction to numerous subjects that tell the story of Portland. In this way, this article is very different from, say, "Ferris Bueller in pop. culture." Elliott Smith has been described by a mainstream publication as not only reflecting, but adding to the history/culture of the city; similar things have been said about Chuck Pahlaniuk, and others. I reiterate my strong keep vote, on the grounds that it's a pretty good article that is getting better, on an important subject. -Pete 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as the current title is misleading. A list of people with a common defining characteristic is encyclopedic, especially if their connection to the culture of the city is given context. For instance, what I know about Portland is limited to a subset of these artists. This is a legitimate subtopic of Portland, Oregon (though putting it under #Arts and culture seems more fitting; or Oregon if it gets expanded). There is a dedicated editor working on it, so no need to worry about maintenance issues. –Pomte 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopediac list--SefringleTalk 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, as this is more of a list than an article. Then listify, merge and categorize as necessary. I agree that the article as it stands is a mishmash of lists, but lists in and of themselves are not unencyclopedic, so this should be split into several related lists per Akhilleus, with content merged with other articles or categorized and deleted as needed. Almost everything on these lists can be referenced as having a Portland connection, those things that can't be or are true trivia (characters passing through the place, etc.) can be removed. Knowing most people who vote keep in Afds do very little of the suggested work, I pledge to make sure the prescribed work gets done. Katr67 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still feel that the issues of whether and how to rename the article, and modify its content, is better left to the article's talk page, where it had been under discussion for several weeks prior to this AfD nomination. Why rush it, and why make the decision on a page (here) where many Portland-oriented editors may never go? I think we have this under control. Current proposals include "List of fiction set in Oregon" and "Culture of Oregon." If you want to join the discussion, I request you do so over there. -Pete 05:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. There is no independent, secondary source to determine just it means to define New Oregon in popular culture. There are various apparent criteria offered in the article such as: (1) If you're born in Portland, Oregon and have done something great, you can be listed, (2) The great things that you've done, even if they don't take place in Portland, Oregon, can be listed, (3) Movies that have been filmed, even in part or inconsequentially, in Portland, can be listed, (4) Passing mentions in the media are worth noting, and (5) Music by people from Portland or music written for Portland can both be listed without worry. There is no criteria to sort and clearly define these items beyond a list of indiscriminate trivia, determined without attribution of significance by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to keep up with the discussion, or alternately take a look at the article before commenting on it. There are currently 16 citations, nearly all of which concern themselves with the individual's (or the work's) connection to Oregon (as opposed to merely mentioning it in passing.) There's no rule against your cherry-picking the poorest examples, as you did above; but a better option would be to help us weed them out. The presence of some inconsequential items is not a reason to delete the entire article. -Pete 18:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have found no arguement withint this discussion that even remotely makes me consider this article worthy of deletion. All the arguements I've read for deletion are based on personal preferences of how they would like to see wikipedia run, non-binding guidelines (not policies), and frankly, utter nonsense. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:15, 28 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 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night At Church

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

This appears to be a walled garden of articles about a band and its albums, none of which provide any evidence of qualifying for our relevant inclusion guideline. Some of the album articles claim to have been recorded for a notable record label, but I can find no actual evidence that this occurred. JavaTenor 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Magic Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Night At Church VI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Center Space (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 Speedy keep, bad faith nom as stated by User:Otto4711. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier_Marching_Band

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

Does not meet any criteria WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles Bassgoonist 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Makes assertions of notablity including being the youngest Division I-A college marching band. I also note that WP:MUSIC is a set of guidelines and not policy. While the article needs work, the subject is clearly notable in my opinion. I note that this is the 3rd time you have nominated this article for deletion today and the 2nd marching band you have nominated via AfD today. -- Upholder 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Upholder. Wildthing61476 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage in sources such as the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star [7], Washington Post [8], and Roanoke Times [9] bolsters notability under criterion 1, as well as extensive coverage from the UVa school paper, the Cavalier Daily [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. The band has also performed with Al Cheznovitz and The Temptations (incidentally, I think these might need to be mentioned in the article). Mr Bound 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will repeat what I said at the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band: The fact that the sourcing in the article is a bit short does not mean that there is no notability. I would suggest to the nominator doing a quick, easy Google search to improve the sources rather than saying to hell with it and requesting the deletion of articles that don't come out of the box in perfect shape. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this attempt at pruning notable organizations whose articles do not meet his or her quality standards is misguided at best. --Dynaflow babble 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it's a marching band does not mean it's not notable. What's next, drum corps noms? Kwsn(Ni!) 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr. Bound. Edison 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, speedy close, suggest blocking the nominator - this is a bad faith nomination made in furtherance of a point because the nominator is upset that a marching band article he wants on Wikipedia got deleted. Note in the deletion review the comment If you are to delete this article, you may as well go and delete all articles from any band in any college. This nomination is a deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and the nominator should be sanctioned for it. Otto4711 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am editing this following closure because I misattributed the above quote and it's important that be noted at the site of the attribution. I stand by my belief that this is bad faith and point but the nominator didn't post the quote in question. My apologies for the error. Otto4711 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nom per User:Otto4711. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan_State_University_Spartan_Marching_Band

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

I see no significance. One source that isn't even accessible anymore. Bassgoonist 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep From the article:

The band has played for five U.S. Presidents, performed at four Rose Bowls, two World's Fairs, and one World Series.

The Spartan Band has toured the United States extensively, appearing in concert and on football fields in San Francisco, New York City, Dallas, Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Orlando, St. Louis, Denver, New Orleans, Pasadena, Salt Lake City, El Paso, Tokyo, Tucson, San Diego, and Washington, D.C.[1]

If that isn't notable I'm not sure what is. Wildthing61476 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Sudler Trophy awardee, the primary athletic band for Michigan State university, former Good Article canidate, part of the Michigan State University topic series, has pubished albums... it's also listed in the MSU navigation template. -- Upholder 19:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't even exist. Bassgoonist 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really trying to assume good faith here, but this information is easily verifiable. I also noticed you have marked a number of Division I-A marching bands for speedy deletion as well. This is a very well known and award winning band. Wildthing61476 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen all the criteria, only a partial list. Now that I've seen it, it does appear this particular band does fall within those criteria. Bassgoonist 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC) However, the only criteria it meets is "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources." Notice it says sources, so we need sources. Bassgoonist 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Could do with a little stronger sourcing, but notability really isn't in question here. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. 140 year old organization at a well-known school. It has received plenty of coverage. The fact that the sourcing in the article is a bit short does not mean that there is no notability. I would suggest to the nominator doing a quick, easy Google search to improve the sources rather than saying to hell with it and requesting the deletion of articles that don't come out of the box in perfect shape. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this attempt at pruning notable organizations whose articles do not meet his or her quality standards is misguided at best. --Dynaflow babble 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:N and WP:A. Added some references. The 300 member band, founded in 1870, has played for 5 U.S. Presidents, performed at 16 postseason bowl games, at two World's Fairs, for one baseball World's Series, and for nationally televised Thanksgiving Day professional football games. They won the 1988 Sudler Trophy[15] awarded by the John Philip Sousa Foundation, which recognized them as a band of "particular excellence that (has) made an outstanding contribution to the American way of life," and "demonstrated the highest of musical standards and innovative marching routines." Even thjough WP:MUSIC is not a policy, the national travel and performances for over 50 years, and the winning of the Sudler award satisfy WP:MUSIC.Edison 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, speedy close, suggest blocking the nominator - this is a bad faith nomination made in furtherance of a point because the nominator is upset that a marching band article he wants on Wikipedia got deleted. Note in the deletion review the comment If you are to delete this article, you may as well go and delete all articles from any band in any college. This nomination is a deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and the nominator should be sanctioned for it. Otto4711 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am editing this following closure because I misattributed the above quote and it's important that be noted at the site of the attribution. I stand by my belief that this is bad faith and point but the nominator didn't post the quote in question. My apologies for the error. Otto4711 00:46, 22 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. No source has named it "Integrity". Pure crystal-ballism. – Sasquatch t|c 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity (Britney Spears album)

[edit]
Integrity (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is just a copy and paste of Britney Spears' fifth studio album. There are all sorts of rumours about this album, and we've been quite strict here on the English Wikipedia about keeping them out. There have been several rumoured names, none of which have been backed up with sources, and I and other editors have removed such unsourced rubbish from the article many times.

(Other language Wikipedias, such as the Galician Wikipedia and the Turkish Wikipedia, have not been as diligent. I've just removed several bogus names from gl:Britney Spears, tr:Britney Spears, fi:Britney Spears, and pap:Britney Spears.)

The simple truth is that Spears has not given this album a name, yet. She is currently running a competition to allow the fans to pick a name. I suspect, given that I've already had to edit out unsourced claims that this title won, that the creation of this article is an attempt to stack that poll. After all, news organizations are already citing Britney Spears' fifth studio album as their sources for information on what is happening. (See this badly researched article by Angela Russell published by Associated Content, Inc., for example.)

When Spears picks a name, as a result of the competition or otherwise, we can rename Britney Spears' fifth studio album to whatever name it turns out to be. But that time has not arrived yet. There is and will be no requirement for this copy and paste duplicate at this title. Nor is or will there be there a requirement for a redirect. Uncle G 16:54, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt roche

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

Corporate bio-spamming. Has some sources, but I don't think they show notability. NawlinWiki 19:21, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Saab

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

not notable under WP:Bio Geraldk 19:06, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Rohr

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

Entry appears to be complete nonsense -- Slimfish 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XDEATHSTARx

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

Non-notable band, no sources, reads like a band bio (I mean like the one they'd write for themselves) -N 18:41, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Space colonization in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page contains an open-ended list with no defined criteria for inclusion. Content substantially duplicates that of the {{Astronomical locations in fiction}} suite of pages. RandomCritic 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of editors have spent a lot of time on this? I must be looking at a different list, all I see is a relatively small list with little content other than links to other articles. It was compiled by about a dozen editors in less than 50 edits. I have seen articles deleted that were started in 2001 and had over 5000 edits. This is nothing. 172.189.19.219 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly note: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles." The list is deletable, but not because it violates WP:OR (there's virtually no research at all, let alone OR) or WP:NOTE (the topic of space colonization is certainly notable); it's deletable because it's not the list it claims to be (it is in fact "list of random space stories somebody liked"), and the information it should convey could be easily contained with the Space colonization article, IMHO. RandomCritic 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These reasons are good, too. I am not opposed to prose articles that depict a certain entity or concept in popular culture, based on the significant coverage of secondary sources. Obviously, though, this article does not attempt to do that at all. It's just a list of trivia. I would have no problem with attributable sources describing most depictions of space colonization as realistic or unrealistic or whatever common traits have been seen by that independent perspective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 22 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. —Kurykh 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli El-Chantiry

[edit]
Eli El-Chantiry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The WP:BIO threshold is provincial level for elected councillors to merit an article. A city councillor is well under the bar. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being a city councillor does not preclude satisfaction of WP:BIO. I agree the article needs more sources, however. Evouga 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I notice that you tried a unilateral amendment to Wikipedia:Notability (people) that was smartly reverted. That underlines that city councillors are not considered inherently notable. The way forward is to take the issue to the talk page of that project rather than trying to establish notability through AfDs. At present, without reliable secondary sources, the article fails WP:V. Bridgeplayer 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Councillors of cities of over 100,000 residents (which means major cities) are notable. The city population in this case is nearly 900,000 (metro area 1.2 million)--JForget 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO is clear - why should the standards be relaxed just for Canadian cities? Here in the UK every city and district council has over a 100,000 catchment. The options are either to consult on a broadening the standard or to establish notability through secondary sources. BTW you say "Councillors of cities of over 100,000 residents (which means major cities) are notable" - where is the guide line that says this, please? Bridgeplayer 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Councillors for the largest cities are notable enough to deserve articles. Davewild 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are disagreements on this point, but I believe pages such as this should be retained. CJCurrie 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge with Ottawa City Council. WP:BIO: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Unsourced claim to being a 'prominent' local citizen is insufficient demonstration of notability. Canuckle 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After four years on council and two years as a Wikipedia bio, his three-sentence claim to fame can easily be accomodated on the current-members section of Ottawa City Council. I think that's the best way to handle these city councillors of questionable notability: a brief description on the organization's page. If it gets too lengthy, then they get their own standalone bio. Canuckle 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Key politician in a major/capital city, therefore practically guaranteed to receive significant news coverage which should be added to the article (which is still declared a stub) - therefore notable. Deletion would also be discriminatory given that all Vancouver and Toronto councillors have articles. Dl2000 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's non-sense to think about deleting this article. He's a very well known politician in the Ottawa region, with much enough news coverage (which, in my opinion, should not even be a factor). Also, I agree with what everybody has said precedent. --Deenoe 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability of local elected officials depends in part on the size of the locality; it is not automatically established but is also not automatically precluded. JamesMLane t c 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of current and historical news coverage. John Vandenberg 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Vandenberg. GreenJoe 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have to draw the line somewhere, or every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to have his own Wikipedia article. Unless they've done something to make the news outside of their hometown, city councillors should not have their own article. RedRollerskate 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete the others. I don't think they are ever mentioned in news outside their own city. If any are, it will be because of other notability. I thought I was an inclusionist, until I heard these arguments--the other ones have it -- every councillor in a city over 100,000 are N,--known in the Ottawa region -- and so on. I do not think most NYC councillors--my own city-- are notable outside of NYC, and I wouldn't include them for even the largest cities automatically. The guy for my district has no notability outside, or at least none demonstrated. A failed Congressional candidate, like many of them elsewhere. I tried 6 others, and they are noteworthy mainly for the politically biased WP articles, most positive, some negative. DGG 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not an inclusionist if you are part of the minority who supports an article deletion. BTW, New York City councillors are definitely notable. One doesn't need media attention outside their city to be notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, everyone has different views on different topics. I tend to have a higher bar for local articles. WP is complicated. DGG 02:40, 27 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 06:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Buffington

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

Non-notable UNIX administrator and podcaster for a non-notable podcast which has already gone through speedy deletion. Corvus cornix 17:42, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of Me

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

I can't find any information on a series by this title anywhere, which leads me to wonder if this is something made up in school one day, unless the title is misspelled or something similar. JavaTenor 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Connolly

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

This biography appears to be of a non-notable individual. Only one online reference given that does nothing to establish notability, and the other reference is not online, and certainly doesn't satisfy the multiple non-trivial references part of WP:BIO. With all due respect to the man, I'm not sure he's any more notable than my grandfather is. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Asserts notability. There's no requirement that a reference be available on-line; for a composer of hymns who was most active in the '50s, and in Australia, seems reasonable that most references that would establish notability would be offline. Capmango 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not kidding. A composer of hymns that are sung throughout a country is notable. A composer who was active in the 1950s, even one whose hymns are still sung today, would be hard pressed to come up with sources to attest to that notability. But that is a WP:V problem, not a WP:NN problem. But verifiablity is concerned with information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Unless we have reason to believe he's just pretending to have written hymns, then we should just mark the artivle with verify and be done with it. Capmango 21:04, 21 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, if someone has a good merge target fine, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a clear one. RxS 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filterset.G

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

This article does not assert notability, which would be difficult to do in any case. Filterset.G is simply a set of filters -- one among many -- created for the Firefox extension Adblock and its variants. As such, it does not adhere to WP:NOTE. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adblock is the most useful thing on the web. If it was a choice between wikipedia and adblock, I'd choose the latter. Nick mallory 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that last part was meant as a joke. Seriously, it seems like Filterset.G would be reasonable as part of the Adblock page. Capmango 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a comment about the notability of Adblock, it's a comment about the notability of one of the many filter sets available for it.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough! MERGE to adblock page. Nick mallory 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is the first popular filterset (probably the first but I could be wrong on that); definately the most notable. A merge is inappropriate, as it is supported by other browsers (i.e. not via Adblock or Adblock Plus). John Vandenberg 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, notability was asserted before the Afd as the first popular filterset for web browsing, and the article had some sources. The default assumption should not be that an article is unverifiable; the default assumption should be that sources may be found and added when one looks, or failing that, tags can be used to request sources. I have included some more references, and there are others, even if they are trivial. John Vandenberg 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That cannot be the default assumption, because it cannot be disproved. "First popular filterset for web browsing" would be an over-specific intersection if it were actually true. 81.104.175.145 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What cant be disproven? "The first"? or reliable sources? "The first" can be disproven by mentioning any other filtersets that could have comparable notability and/or date of creation. The nonexistence of reliable sources can be established by looking and asking, which is then followed by removal of the unsourced facts. John Vandenberg 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The default assumption (null hypothesis) must be falsifiable. The assumption that "sources may be found" cannot be proven false, because no evidence can possibly be presented to support it. The default assumptions that an article is not verifiable and not notable can be proven false, since evidence can be presented to refute them (verification in the former case, meeting the WP:N criteria in the latter). In all cases, the burden is on those who claim that an article is verifiable or its subject notable to demonstrate so. 81.104.175.145 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Afd is not intended to be a forum for proving things. Opinions are given, and either there is a clear way forward, or there isnt enough information at hand or consensus cant be reached. The default assumption is that we can keep an article, and delete it next week when new evidence comes to hand. see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This is the best all round strategy for growing the encyclopedia. wrt to sourcing, our Verifiability policy allows "Any edit lacking a source [to] be removed" ... please feel free to either tag or remove any part of this article which is not verifiable. John Vandenberg 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seem to be making several mistakes here. (1) You appear to be taking this personally and specifically. I'm not trying to get at you, and I'm not trying to suggest that you are specifically wrong in this article. I am merely pointing out an error in your logic. (2) If AfD is not a "forum for proving things", then one should not be asking for proof. (3) You seem to be reading the words of WP:V without understanding them. Wikipedia is not a system of laws, and our rules are to be read in their spirit, and not their letter. (4) Without wanting to needlessly throw accusations around, it seems somewhat less than kosher to be trying to handwave around the debate by glibly saying "if you don't like it, edit it out". I'll assume that was well-meaning advice not quite coming out right as opposed to an attempt at misdirection. It is true that opinions are offered, but we do rather they are backed up for others to evaluate them (and maybe use the information to re-evaluate their own). To deal specifically with this debate, nobody has suggested why a merge is inappropriate - after all, blacklists have been around almost as long as bureaucracy itself. Any combination of "firsts" in this article would by necessity be over-specific. 81.104.175.145 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I haven't been taking it personally; I took exception to the way you initially put it (i.e. "The default assumption is that an article is unverifiable and non-notable in the absence of evidence to the contrary") as I expect the reader to verify the text in an article irrespective of what evidence is provided that it is verifiable and notable. I also feel it is appropriate that someone who contributes to an article should also get their feet wet on the topic and do a search or two. If the nominator believes something is not notable and guidelines dont make the outcome clear, then I think it is reasonable that they also can define what (in that general topical area) is notable in their opinion.
    (2) My comment to RandomHumanoid was a round a bout way of saying that it would be good to know what is older or is more notable, in his/her opinion. It wasnt intended to be an ultimatum. It goes without saying that my opinion is subject to change if more info is provided; obviously I shouldnt have said anything.
    (3) I think I understand WP:V correctly, but if you think otherwise, a direct email would be welcomed (honestly).
    (4) It was more than a bit tongue in cheek; the point I was making is that prior to your last comment, you were not talking about content, we were going around in circles, so would you kindly come to the point.

    Merging with something like DNSBLs has been in the back of my mind, but they are usually server side rather than client side, so the target audience of the article is quite different. The Windows web proxy anonymisers also have filter lists IIRC. John Vandenberg 01:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi John, two things. First, I am a "him." :) Second, I'll try a brief search for older filter sets as they certainly existed so I'm hoping some reference to them is locatable. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And more generally in response to many of the comments above. In the article, the burden of proof is on the editors to establish notability. There, a claim such "this is the first filterset ever" without a published citation would be a violation WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Here however, we are simply discussing notability and it doesn't seem to me that WP:NOR even applies. Nonetheless, the article does not happen to claim notability, but I will make a quick effort to find something that came earlier, just to put the matter to rest.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 15:50, 28 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.

Subsequent request 4/7/2008

[edit]
  • This article seems like nothing but a chance for FiltersetG + Adblock plus creators to snark at each other in the Criticism section. The entire article seems to have left behind the NPOV concept. It is not notable, in the same way that any of the other millions of software products out there are not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree - having my blog post quoted here as the ultimate wisdom certainly wasn't my idea. I was simply disappointed with the way Wikipedia was misused. Also, the "snarking" is very old, Adblock Plus and Filterset.G simply go separate ways nowadays - and have been for a long time already. —Wladimir Palant, 16 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.171.11 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan 'Doc' Holiday

[edit]
Ivan 'Doc' Holiday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject does not appear to be at all notable. Only links are a few nn websites. The Evil Spartan 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that COI is not cause for deletion.
  • Weak Keep for now Notability is clearly asserted in the first sentence, and throughout the rest of the article. The article was only created today, so if we're not happy with the references, tag it with verify (as well as tagging it with autobiography and peacock), and let somebody fix it. If they don't fix it, then send it here. Delete I should have looked at the history more carefully. If author removed notability tag w/out addressing it, then due process has happened. Capmango 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Book appears to be self-published and only available on his web site. He's not claiming to be notable as an author, he's claiming to be notable as a bouncer. The process, as I understand it, if an article asserts notability but lacks sources, is to tag the article with verify. I do not have significant experience in the bouncer subculture, so I don't even pretend to know what makes a bouncer notable. Capmango 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this guy looks like much more of a long shot for notability than our hymn writer. Capmango 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get 7 Google hits for "Ivan 'Doc' Holiday", one with Arsenault included, and 40 for the book. No Google News or Archive hits. Unless my Google-fu is failing me, I can't see the "recognized worldwide" bit being backed up whatsoever. Delete unless someone can come up with good sources to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, WP:GHITS. But on the other, you're probably right. Capmango 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Ivan 'Doc' Holiday : I believe that I am a point of discussion. My book the bouncer's Bible is self published and used to sell on the Barnes and noble website till B&N refused to send me money due. If you follow the links http://www.clubsystemsinternational.com/year_archive.html/2002/apr02/holiday.htm

there you will find an article written on me in 2002. I have sold 5000 copies of my book and DVD worldwide. If you would like, I can email you copies of reviews from diffrent sources. If you like I will send you a copy of my DVD & Book for your review. If there is any dispute regarding my credintials, I will gladly email a copy to you. If you would like I can have MENSA verify my membership. I though that since Geoff Thompson was listed here I would join as well. If a person has his book and DVD sold from 10 diffrent countries on earth, this would be considered "worldwide" or damm close. Do you seriously believe that a person with my reputation would put his shit on the street without being able to back it up? As I told Barnes & Nobles, I am not going to have my life story/book tossed in some 99cent bargain bin...If you wish to delete me that is fine I don't want to offend anyone...if you want verifiable sources just email me at "holiday888@yahoo.com" and I will email the information to you. thank you. Ivan Doc Holiday

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
List of songs featured in Vanilla Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - as with a number of recently deleted lists of songs from movies or TV shows, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs on the list do not gain notability from happening to have been heard in a film. The list tells us nothing about the songs, the films, their relation to each other or the real world. The article Vanilla Sky (soundtrack) for the released album exists and this is to a degree redundant. Otto4711 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I was too vague and I apologize. What I meant was...could the songs be incorporated into the article about the movie instead? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I assume (didn't check) that the list was part of the Vanilla Sky article, and was pulled out because it is so long. It shouldn't be deleted, but I think it should be put back in the movie article, even if it is kind of long. Capmango 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be some information attesting to the songs in relation to the film before a merge is considered. If there are reliable sources that discuss the process of selecting the songs, the effect of the songs on the narrative, etc. then great, merge it. But a bare list of songs that are heard in the film is no better in the film article than it is on its own. Otto4711 21:27, 21 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. NawlinWiki 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-State Beirut League

[edit]
Tri-State Beirut League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local league which may not even exist. Appears to be advertising, very few google refs (5 total, 2 of which are Wikipedia), no reliable sources, and the page was made by User:Tristatebeirut, who probably has a conflict of interest. This was a PROD contested by User:Tristatebeirut. AW 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by User Tristatebeirut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (list may not be complete)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets and roads celebrated in music

[edit]
List of streets and roads celebrated in music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - leaving aside the POV and OR inherent in deciding that a street was "celebrated" in song, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The list captures songs from across every era, genre, theme and style that have nothing in common with each other than they're about a street or mention a street. Very similar to previously deleted lists for songs about or mentioning geographical features, towns or cities. Otto4711 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and expand/merge per Capmango's suggestion of creating an article about streets in songs --172.133.145.96 20:04, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etheria Plot Summary

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

Delete - Clearcut violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 16:17, 21 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 and add a redirect per WP:LOCAL. --Coredesat 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T. Benton Gayle Middle School

[edit]
T. Benton Gayle Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable, Un-verifiable middle school. --trey 16:15, 21 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 deletecore. --Coredesat 06:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scenecore

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

Neoglism, I think. None of the "further information" links at the top actually mention the term. The "references" are mostly WP links. The one external site that is actually in the ref links is hardly a WP:RS, and does not even mention the term anyway. TexasAndroid 16:15, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.A.M.E

[edit]
G.A.M.E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, does not pass WP:CORP. A google search on "Dark Phoenix Publishing" -Wikipedia returns only 20 hits, almost all myspace pages. Creator of the page appears to be the founder of the company. See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire: Undeath v.1 DES (talk) 16:12, 21 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Jaq

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

All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed. All in all, the character appears to be a hoax—for example, Randy Jaq could not speake to Nute Gunray in Star Wars: Empire at War as Gunray had been killed before the game takes place. All users were given more than a week to find reliable sources for this character, but were unnable to do so. Arwen Undomiel talk 16:07, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire: Undeath v.1

[edit]
Vampire: Undeath v.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable computer game, apparently only recently released. A google search on "Vampire: Undeath Game "Dark Phoenix" -Wikipedia" gets only 13 hits, and not all of those are about this game, and none of them seem to be independent reliable sources with non-trivial discussion of it. Other searches got more noise but no more signal. Also the creator of the article is User:Mykal lakim who seems to also be the creator of the game, so there is a WP:COI problem here too. This was tagged for an A7 speedy, but A7 does not apply to games, software, or products in general, and IMO it should not. DES (talk) 15:59, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross

[edit]
Mystical Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a NN group that doesn't even exist yet according to its article. All the pertinent historical info on this group when it did exist is already in the article on its defunct predecessor (Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross). MSJapan 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of an article previously deleted via an AfD). --Angelo (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onome Sodje

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

Page was re-created after being deleted as it was non-notable, Sodje has never appeared in a fully pro league. Previous AfD is here Jimbo[online] 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Directive (retrospectives)

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

Non-notable concept with no assertion that it is used outside the one cited source. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks to me like it references an article that no longer exists. Concept clearly doesn't merit its own article anyhow. Capmango 22:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Who is Norm Kerth? "Regardless of what we discover, we understand and truly believe that everyone did the best job they could, given what they knew at the time, their skills and abilities, the resources available, and the situation at hand." That's it? Bad enough that the name is unoriginal (think Gene Roddenberry), but even if the name wasn't plagiarized, calling this a "prime directive" is egotistical. Mandsford 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not speedy. The context is pretty simple to figure out - project management and evaluations following a project. I assume that it's "Prime," because in software projects (and any other kind of group retrospective analysis) assigning blame is a discussion killer. Yet it happens a lot. So setting a guideline like this makes sense. (I mention the previous just to indicate that figuring out context on this isn't all that hard.) I suppose you could speedy it under G11 for apparently advertising the book, but I'd recommend against that. Since it was nommed twelve minutes after creation by a first time contributor, it could well be a stub that the creator intends to build on. (Or not...) I don't know how notable this particular concept is, and would agree that if it reaches normal end of AfD that it be deleted on WP:N and WP:NEO. LaughingVulcan 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, context is poor, notability even worse.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above, i.e. Piotrus. Debivort 18:33, 23 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. Anas talk? 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Barbera Award

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

I tried prodding this, but it was opposed by an anonymous editor. This appears to be a joke page. Note that the wording is quite similar to that of Emmy Awards, even the listing of the presenting organizations (see the first revision in case this changes). By a random resume on the web[22], Hanna Barbera Awards may actually exist, but I'm not convinced this article actually describes the real thing. No reliable sources, and no sources at all to back up the description of the award. Delete NickelShoe (Talk) 15:14, 21 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, default to keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Wager

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

For all I could find out, this composer fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. He has written for notable newspapers, but that doesn't make him notable. He has published one record, with "Menschenfreund Records", a minor label founded by himself (go here, click "Punk Rock Journal"). The article's original author is User:Huwonproductions, and Huwon Productions is at least closely related to the subject [23]. I cannot completely exclude notability since I do not have access to the sources listed under "futher reading". Google books gives one hit; however, in view of the apparent COI, I rather doubt that these sources contain substantial coverage of the subject. Perhaps someone can verify. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:11, 21 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 even with consideration as to the multiple voting by two or three editors no consensus of action was determined - article kept. --VS talk 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday of alpinism

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

Content was forked out of Francesco Dionigi after that article was put up for AfD. This is an attempt to circumvent the AfD process --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a completely different article based on a noteworthy calender date of a special event - two different subjects with no relationship of any particular point of view being common to the two. They happen to have common denominators that couldn't be helped in producing the new article. See Talk on the article itself. My understanding of something being "forked" would be that the same point of view is being carried over, which is not the case here. If there is a "point of view" on these subjects I believe it might be closest to:
  • Aside from the forking issue, there's no indication that the "Birthday of alpinism" is a notable concept. Is it celebrated by anyone? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has multiple reliable secondary sources. Evouga 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The general idea at that AfD was that because this is notable, the small amount of material on the Diongi could be merged into here. This is a celebration of a major work by a major author. DGG 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That AfD is ongoing, and hasn't resulted in any consensus yet. This wasn't a "merge", it's a content fork created yesterday. I don't see how it can be acceptable to create a content fork during an ongoing AfD. Furthermore, the creator claims that this article is about "a noteworthy calendar date". That's not the same thing as the poem! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is an interesting bit of info, but I don't see how it needs its own article, particularly one as badly named as this one. Merge it to alpinism and/or Petrarch. Brianyoumans 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Alpinism per Brianyoumans. There's no reason we need a "Birthday of sport/product" article for every single thing that has ever been invented. -- Plutor talk 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The phrase only exists in Wikipedia and its mirrors. All the references are to the original works of Petrarch and of other citations of that work, and none using this phrase of concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (probably). I vote keep as a separate article depending on whether this phrase was used before or is newly coined. There's nothing here that says it is established; if that information is added then it seems perfectly notable. Doug says "...has been designated." When and where? Rigadoun (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps that is not the correct word to use here. Mostly what I have found is the word "regarded". Designated and "regarded" are different words with similar meanings. "Designated" perhaps would mean something closer as being "offically documented" - and the word "regarded" should be used here instead. If you feel this is more correct, go ahead and change it.--Doug talk 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we have any reliable sources that call this date the "birthday of alpinism"? I don't see any; the only source in the article that used something close ("the birthday of the alpine") was a German language website hosted in the Czech Republic, the article cited a version machine-translated by Google. That wasn't a reliable source, and I removed it. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The secondary sources attest to facts about Petrarch (all of which are or ought to be in his article). Nothing attests to the "birthday of Alpinism" (and Mount Ventoux is not a difficult climb); the closest is Burckhardt, and that's really the birth of Romanticism. A novel synthesis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Septentrionalis above. No need to merge in my opinion; Alpinism redirects to Mountaineering, which already contains the relevant information about Petrarch in the the "History" section. Deor 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My original suggestion was to name this for the poem/letter, which as a major work of world literature will have abundant references. I'd still prefer it. I agree the present title seem a little lame. DGG 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What makes this article separate from the articles of (say) Petrarch or mountaineering is the idea that the anniversary is notable. That seems to be original research. Bucketsofg 12:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - disgusting attempt to circumvent other afd. The phrase "birthday of alpinism" does not seem well-used, if at all, so don't redirect. All the content is in the article this was originally copied from so if its going to be merged that should be discussed at that afd. This should just be deleted. Savidan 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - several additional references has been added to the article pertaining to this event and Petrarch being the Father of Alpinism.--Doug talk 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the additional sources provided in Doug's edit [24] uses the phrase "birthday of alpinism", so they do not justify the existence of the article. In addition, several of the sources seem to fail WP:RS. This site is just plain wrong; Petrarch did not climb "all the way to the top of the Alps." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a different name for the article is in order: "Father of Alpinism." Couldn't tell you if he went all the way to the top or not, however these sources seem to talk about his ascent of Mount Vertoux by Petrarch and his companions and brother. Can you be more specific as to which sources you feel are not correct? Is it Morris Bishop's book of Petrarch and his World or Jacob Burkhardt book Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy or the Famous First Facts? Did you research these in the library to see?--Doug talk 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another name that might be even more appropriate would be "Birth of Alpinism." As noted by Morris Bishop, "Probably by design, for Petrarch had a great sense of anniversaries, he planned the ascent for April 26, 1336, exactly ten years from the day he and Gherardo had left Bologna." Also Bishop noted Petrarch as "..."the first modern mountain-climber", therefore this date would be as its "birth" and Petrarch as its "father." Its noteworthy because this date is known as the start of modern Alpinism - the sport of mountain climbing just for the sport of it. This was not done as such, before this date.--Doug talk 18:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much what I was saying all along - that "Birthday of Alpinism" and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism" has been in these articles for the last 3 years (in addition to European Wikipedias in German, Italian, and French) - however now that we have done this additional research it appears that the exact wording of "Birthday" can not be attributed to a well known author, which the date itself can and Petrarch being the Father of Alpinism can. Therefore this would be a great opportunity having this article and linking to it from these many other articles to explain the "birth" as a significant event (which has many references to show it). I think Birth of Alpinism is an appropriate renaming.--Doug talk 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I started this article on the "Birthday of Alpinism" many of these other articles have since been tagged for a citation source of this quote plus "Father of Alpinism" that has been around for 3 years with no source. This now is a great opportunity to Keep this article and not only use it for the citation repairs for these many articles, but as a link also. These other articles then can just be edited accordingly as Birth of Alpinism just by dropping the part "day". Then all these other articles on Petrarch, Mont Ventoux, and Mountaineering (and possibly others) can be linked to this new article with a full article explaining everything with references accordingly as to why this is significant.--Doug talk 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential names for this article could be
      • "Birth of Alpinism"
      • "Birth day of Alpinism"
      • "Birth date of Alpinism"
      • "Day of birth of Alpinism"
      • "Start of Alpinism"
      • "Beginning of Alpinism"
      • "Genealogy of Alpinism"
      • "Origin of Alpinism"
      • "Inception of Alpinism"
  • With the many citation tags now in all the articles that have "Birthday of Alpinism" and "Father of Alpinism" there are potentially now about a dozen links that could be make to this article explaining everything. These two items are inter-related, so links coming from either to this article would be appropriate. There would be potentially many more links anytime there is a reference to "father of mountain climbing" or "start of modern day mountaineering" or "environmental history" and similar topics.--Doug talk 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite the contrary - it now has over a dozen very reliable sources from various references. No reference to Wikipedia itself. This would now be a great opportunity to fix all the citation tags in these various other articles asking for references for "Birthday of Alpinism" and "Father of Alpinism" by just linking to this article. Both those topics are well covered in this article with many references. Yes, these quotes have been around for 3 years in these articles, however now there are citation tags requesting references. This article solves that problem, especially if the new name were Birth of Alpinism. This is a great opportunity then to clean up all these other articles that have had these quotes for 3 years. If this article were renamed to Genealogy of Alpinism then it would become a very large article with many items related to the history Alpinism.--Doug talk 12:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have time to go through all of them now, but it appears that all of the sources that Doug's added are websites, largely tourism/mountaineering websites, that don't meet WP:RS. In addition Doug, why do we need a separate article on this concept, when it's mentioned in Petrarch, Mont Ventoux, and Mountaineering, and citations can be given in those articles? Why is "birthday of alpinism", or whatever you want to call this content fork today, a significant, notable concept worthy of its own article? Are any of the articles you've turned up exclusively about Petrarch's climb as the beginning of mountaineering, or is this just an incidental claim in articles that are about another subject? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that "Birthday of Alpinism" is an entirely different subject altogether than the person Francesco Dionigi.Yes, most talk about Petrarch's climb as the beginning of modern mountaineering known today as Alpinism. Most of the websites sources are on Mountaineering History. The many book reference sources are on the significance of the event. Petrarch's adventure of this ascent to the top of Mont Ventoux is considered a turning point in Western civilization and a milestone in human history generally. There are over two dozen sources in the article showing the significance of this major event. There are so many sources that reference it as the "Birthday of Alpinism" that I believe it would be proper just to leave the name the same as it is now. If anything to make it a little more clear and the potential of a much larger article, renaming to Genealogy of Alpinism would be good. Have you checked out the library reference sources? Another interesting point is its significance in the man-in-nature concept and environmental history.--Doug talk 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the links you've spammed the article with fail Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, and in fact most of them are mirrors of Wikipedia; this one repeats the text from Mountaineering#History; so does this, this, this, this, . The reference to Petrarch on this page is from a jumbled copy of the text from Mountaineering#History. Same here and here. This is a thinly disguised rewrite of the Wikipedia article. This one doesn't load, nor does this one. This one is a modified version of the Wikipedia article on Petrarch--it says so on the bottom--and that's the article you're using as the evidence that Petrarch is considered the "father of Alpinism"?
    • This tourism site at least is not a copy of Wikipedia, but it doesn't meet WP:RS either. Same here. This timeline of Petrarch's life simply notes that in 1336 "Petrarch climbs Mount Ventoux", with no mention of the event's significance, or the exact day. This article devotes 2 paragraph's to Petrarch's ascent in a much longer article. This paper also briefly mentions the climb in a much longer account of Petrarch's career.
    • This is truly abominable sourcing for an event which you've just claimed is "a turning point in Western civilization and a milestone in human history generally"--and what is the source for this particular claim? Why it appears to be Thomas Hochstettler's inaugural speech as the president of Lewis and Clark College. As we all know, speeches given on such occasions never involve hyperbole, nor do they ever magnify relatively trivial events into turning points in world history for the purpose of illustrating the values of the new administration. (In any event, the speech is not about Petrarch's climb, no matter what claims it makes about its significance. The climb is merely an illustration of the speech's larger theme.) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some of those sites you mentioned are a "modification" of Wikipedia articles (from this being in these other articles for 3 years), so that's why I have provided many additional External Links referencing these same facts as well as many reference source books from the library showing the "Birthday of Alpinism" and Petrarch as the "Father of Alpinism". I have provided several dozen references showing these facts, so even if some of them you don't like for whatever reason, there are others you can rely on. One example on this list is the location of a Petrarch Museum that references this, however there are still many more. As you can see finding references and sources to back this up is not hard to find. However let's say there are 20% of these that you don't approve, that still leaves 80% that can be relied on (leaving dozens of references). You can always find some reason for any reference that you could disapprove it for some "technicality". The point here is that there is much referencing these facts of the "Birth of Alpinism" being April 26, 1336, and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism." Just because there are some references you don't like personally that you may disapprove that doesn't make the rest of them not valid references. It just means some you don't like personally, which could then later be removed if other editors also don't like them. That would still leave dozens of very reliable sources from library reference books, to encyclopedias, to newspaper articles, to university papers written by professors in the field. Let's let others look over these several dozen references and if ultimately there are some that several editors disapprove, then just remove those. The article is still a very viable significant and notable event in history that has influenced mankind in all kinds of ways for nearly 700 years as is demonstrated by these many references. The article name could stand as "Birthday of Alpinism" since there are so many references showing it.--Doug talk 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very confident that any webpage that says the "birthday of alpinism" is April 26, 1336 and Petrarch is the "Father of Alpinism" got this information from Wikipedia. Most of the webpages you've cited are copies of Wikipedia content, often exact copies of text from Mountaineering. Circular referencing does not justify the existence of a Wikipedia article. As for books and magazine articles, you haven't shown that any call this day the "birthday of alpinism", nor have you demonstrated that in any of these references, Petrarch's ascent gets more than a passing mention. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about that. This German page (the author of which has published regarding mountain climbing) identifies Petrarch as the "father of alpinism" and calls April 26, 1336 the "birth hour of alpinism" (making it clear it's not a "birthday" in the sense of something celebrated on anniversaries). But I don't see why these claims need their own article. The fact is mentioned in the articles on the mountain and Petrarch. If this particular climb has so many details that it really needs its own article, it should be Ascent of Mount Ventoux, or more specifically Petrarch's ascent of Mount Vertoux, per Septentrionalis. Rigadoun (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for finding that page. My German is not very good, but I agree that the page you've found is not a copy of Wikipedia's content. However, I stand by my comments that the English language websites that call this day the "birthday of alpinism" are copies of Wikipedia's content--just compare the sites I linked above with Mountaineering#History and you'll find that most of them are copying the exact wording of the Wikipedia page, while some have reworked it slightly. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The additional references I provided does not have the exact wording of the Wikipedia page. Take for example footnote # 4 which uses the wording "beginning of alpinism". Also footnote # 7 uses the wording " birth of alpinism and Petrarch its father. " Then there is footnote # 8 which says " "the first recorded Alpinist" (which is in Morris Bishop's book, Petrarch and His World which I pointed out in the lead of the article). That is why I am suggesting to rename to Birth of Alpinism, since this is what all the references seem to reflect. The reason for the article is to show the significance in influencing the human intellect and philosophy. This is referenced in the first item in External Links with "Humanism" linked. The second item shows its influence as the potential intellectual precursor of Columbus crossing the Atlantic. The third item points out this "birth" as influencing the role of mountaineering and human quests in general. There are several more to follow with an analysis of the letter and its philosophical significance as the last one. So you can see from here it is not only just the start of modern day Alpinism but has influenced intellectual thinking for nearly 700 years, all related back to this event of the "birth."--Doug talk 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and rework into Origins of alpinism or something like that. The concept itself is preposterous and apparently original to this article. However, much of this content could be worthwhile in the right context. The idea of the "birthday" may not warrant inclusion, but it does seem there is some kind of notable creation myth around Petrarch climbing that mountain. Of course, an "origins" article should be much broader than that, but it would be appropriate as a portion of it. Everyking 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Birth of Alpinism. I am not confident that any webpage that talks of the "birth of alpinism" as April 26, 1336 and Petrarch as the "Father of Alpinim" obtained this information from Wikipedia. However some of the sites may be "modifications" of articles that have been around for the last 3 years with those expressions. Since you asked if Petrarch's ascent on this date was the beginning of modern mountaineering, you can now see that it was. Also you can see now it is a very significant event since many people talk of this event to this day (almost 700 years later) and its influence on the human intellect and philosophy. I have removed those references that you feel are Wikipedia modifications and replaced with others. Perhaps also a renaming to Birth of Alpinism is more appropriate, since that is exactly what the article and its references are talking about. Did you check out The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy by Jacob Burkhardt where he describes Petrarch's ascent as the first time mountain climbing had been undertaken just for the sport of it? Also did you check the reference of Famous First Facts: International Edition where it credits Petrarch for writing of the first account of mountain climbing of importance? Did you check out Morris Bishop's book, Petrarch and His World where there is a long chapter titled "The Ascent of Mont Ventoux" and what I pointed out in the blockquote in the lead of the article? Morris Bishop calls Petrarch the first modern mountain-climber. Also Garrett Mattingly in his book Renaissance Profiles refers to Petrrch as being the Father of Alpinism, which also is in the lead. In the lead of the article also is Quadrant Magazine's article as it relates to environmental history and the man-in-nature concept. Since I just recently made several improvements, this new article (perhaps under this new suggested name of Birth of Alpinism) now is an excellent basis for others to contribute.--Doug talk 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming to Birth of Alpinism I believe to be most appropriate, instead of say Ascent of Mont Ventoux. The reason being that it is the beginning of modern day mountaineering, not just one event of a particular person climbing a particular mountain. As I already pointed out, it has a relationship to personal growth and self-knowledge as well as human quests in general. This event has special significance far beyond a single ascent to a mountain top since it is the beginning of many intellectual ideas, not just modern day mountaineering. The event influenced much Western Civilization thinking. This material, which can be obviously expanded considerably, deserves its own article.--Doug talk 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional reasons why I feel Birth of Alpinism is the most appropriate name is because it most precisely fits the article concepts and fits exactly with the associated reference wording:
      • "of discovery"
      • "birth of alpinism
      • "birthday of alpinism
      • "birth hour of alpinism
      • "new Renaissance (rebirth) spirit"
      • "beginning of alpinism"
      • "the first mountaineer"
      • "first recorded alpinist"
      • "pioneer of sightseeing"
      • "first modern mountain-climber"
      • "beginning conscious perception of landscape"
        --Doug talk 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to whomever takes on the task of closing this AfD. Doug has been very industrious in adding sources to try to save his article, but the sources he's adding are either of poor quality or provide only trivial coverage of the so-called birth of alpinism. For instance, this EU report only mentions Petrarch's climb on one page of a 160-page document; in this book Petrarch's climb is an anecdote mentioned briefly in the introduction but not in the main body of the text. Sources such as these should not overcome the already apparent consensus that the subject of this article is best covered in existing articles such as Mountaineering and Petrarch. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has not been a consensus that the subject is best covered in another article. It is obvious that with this much material on this subject by so many different quality references that it should be its own article. This is a major event in human history as these many sources show. The references should definitely be checked out as they will show are very high quality reliable sources. The references will stand on their own as being of significance and importance pertaining to this material and article. There are over 4 dozen high quality library references that show the importance of this major historical event. Just by reading the article itself one can see the historical importance of this as a breakaway point from the "Dark Ages". This event is the mark of the beginning of the new humanistic "Renaissance" spirit. This event has influenced the human intellect much in philosophy and other areas (i.e. humanities, mountaineering, religion, human endeavors, goals, natural science, environmental science, social sciences, etc) for the last 670 years since the event happened. To this day it is talked about much, especially in higher education. The only change I recommend is that the name of the article be changed from "Birthday of Alpinism" to "Birth of Alpinism" by dropping the word "day." This material would then apply to many articles and these other articles would link to this one because of the relationships. If I can come up with this much material on the event and it meanings, imagine how large the article will become when other Wikipedians get involved. I see the article splitting again into other parts because of its increased size that will develop with the future contributions by others.--Doug talk 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's some more "checking out" of the references:
    • Burckhardt's The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy devotes a paragraph to Petrarch's ascent in a larger discussion of the "Discovery of the Beauty of Landscape". That's trivial coverage of this "major event in human history."
    • Preface to Rudolf Steiner's Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age ([25]). The article implies that this reference is by Rudolf Steiner, but the preface is actually by Paul Marshall Allen. The ascent of Mt. Ventoux occupies one paragraph of this preface, and Petrarch is only mentioned in one other paragraph. This is trivial coverage in a long introduction which is giving the reader the background for the subject matter of Steiner's book, medieval and early Renaissance mystics like Meister Eckhardt, Nicolas of Cusa, etc. This illustrates the real significance of Petrarch's climb--it's an anecdote that appears in discussions of other subjects.
    • This New York Times article discusses Petrarch's climb as a foil for the author's own climb of Mt. Ventoux. Once again, trivial coverage. The NYT article also notes that "Jean Buridan, a Parisian, left an account of climbing Ventoux early in the 14th century, just before Petrarch." So the claim that this event is the "birth(day) of alpinism" needs some qualification. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I discuss more of the article's sourcing at Talk:Birthday of alpinism. Executive summary: the sourcing is very poor. --Akhilleus (talk)
  • Its interesting that for an article that Akhilleus feels is an article that needs to be deleted and the material is not sufficient material to become a full blown article, he "improves" it by removing major parts he feels are not good for the article - making major improvements to the article! Or is it that he does not want others to see the version of up to June 29 before he edited out major portions that I previously put in with extensive references. If the material is bad and the references not good, then why not let others (not emotionally involved with the article) see this material and let others judge for themselves. Since he has made all these "major improvements" to the article and given extensive reasons why the material is not good for the article, apparently his vote has changed to Keep - since he wants to make many "improvements" to the article because he feels the article deserves to be a full blown article. I am assuming this is what he is doing in removing these major parts, that he is just "improving" the article. Otherwise he is hiding this material and censoring the material from others because he feels the material is outstanding references. He has made 8 major "improvements" to the article since yesterday, apparently since he wants to Keep the new article, since I am assuming good faith that he is not censoring this material from others to see. He has studied the article for days and the refereces extensively since he feels the new article deserves this much time for improvements. He obviously wants the new article to get these excellent improvements, since his vote has now changed to Keep as a full new article. These "major improvements" (removing over 6000 bytes of information) are far more work than one would normally do just to add a section to an existing article - so obviously he wants to Keep it as a full new article of its own. Since his vote has now obviously changed to Keep, then we have mostly Keep votes. I am willing to let the article stand as it is now with all these excellent "major improvements" - and my only other suggestion is that the name change to Birth of Alpinism for the new article.--Doug talk 13:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a break. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deal! Edit in good faith and assume I am editing in good faith. Trust me on this one: you are not interested in bowling (I'd bet the farm on it!). And I am still a little puzzled as to what Francesco Dionigi has to do with mountaineering. Let's agree to let this article be Birth of Alpinism and let the community of Wikipedians edit it to their heart's content. Keep in mind, I have not edited any of your articles that you started (that I know of), however do edit articles you work on (but not take away any of your edits, just further improvements). Deal?--Doug talk 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I love bowling. If you think that Dionigi has nothing to do with mountaineering, why did you fork Birthday of alpinism out of Francesco Dionigi during an AfD? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point exactly - Dionigi has nothing to do with mountaineering! Francesco Dionigi (a person Petrarch wrote a letter to in 1336) and Birth of Alpinism (beginning of modern day mountaineering for the sport) are two completely different subjects (which happen to have similar references in some cases).
In Wikipedia:Content forking it points out: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." This means the same subject. Also under "What content/POV forking is not" in the section "Related articles" it says: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork." Birth of Alpinism (beginning of the sport of mountaineering) is an entirely different subject than Francesco Dionigi (a person Petrarch wrote a letter to in 1336). They only contain some information and references in common with each other. Two entirely different subjects. Therefore there is no POV brought over, since there is no common POV.
Bowling: Great, I also love bowling, been doing it for 30 years and you? So then you know all about Automatic scorers? (since you made several edits to it)
The only reason I bring this up is because many of my articles I started you either nominate for deletion or tag for improvements or that they don't have adquate references. It seems pretty coincidential, since we have been debating this article. So happens that I worked for Brunswick as an Electrical Engineer in the 1970's and helped develop this specialized computer for the bowling industry. So I guess in this case, I would be considered "the expert" on the subject.--Doug talk 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bottomline then is that we are in agreement that your vote has changed to Keep, since you made all those "major improvements" to the article itself indicating your vote is "Keep" the new article. Do you then agree the name for this new article should be Birth of Alpinism? If your vote is still Delete then I assume it is alright with you to put back all the material with the multiple references that was already there at zero hundred hours 29 June. Since you are saying this is bad material with bad references, then by me putting back this material you removed it only would reinforce your point by allowing others to see the material with the extensive associated references. Obviously you can't have it both ways. I can only assume that you made these "major improvements" to the article because you feel the article itself deserves this. I will not assume you are censoring the material and editing the article in such a way to make it look bad so that it gets deleted. If the material you took out makes the article look bad and you want the article to be deleted, then why not allow this material to stay in the article. I will assume you are editing the article in good faith and want to Keep the article as a new article. I will assume that the reason you made these "major improvements" by deleteing major sections and multiple references is to improve the new article. If I don't hear back from you today, then I will assume you approve my putting back these large sections of extensive material I already had there 00:00 29 June that you removed with the dozens of references associated with them.--Doug talk 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • stop putting words in my mouth. I've already said that I think this article should be deleted, because it was created as a fork to evade the AfD on Francesco Dionigi and because its subject receives only trivial coverage in reliable sources. I removed material from the article because it had been stuffed full of terrible sources, including sites that were obvious copies of Wikipedia's Mountaineering article. I would not recommend reverting my changes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what you are saying is that your vote is Delete? Why then are you editing the article, since you feel the material is bad material. If it is in fact bad material, then it would be in your favor to allow others to see this material. You are saying then that you are not censoring the material and shaping the edits in such a manner to make the article look bad so it gets deleted? Why don't you want your edits reverted, unless of course you are in fact improving the article. The only reason you would edit the article with "major improvements" with these major deletions is if you want to Keep it as a new article?If you think the material I added up to 00:00 29 June (that you removed) is bad material, why not allow others to see it? That would be all in your favor!! Of course, anyone that wants to see this major deletion and see what the article looked like before you made these major deletions can of course just look in history at 00:00 29 June to see all these major references you removed. You are not censoring the material, are you? Why then can't I have this material in the article? Why have you then edited out these major references? What's the purpose? If the article is "stuffed full of terrible sources" then you are making improvements to the article. Why are you making major improvements to an article? The only purpose I can see is if you want to Keep it as a new article, since you would not be censoring the material from others to see. You have to decide if your vote is Keep or Delete. If it is Delete, then I should be permitted to have the references and the extensive material you removed - since in your words it is "terrible sources" anyway. This way then others can check this out to verify if it is such or if it is outstanding reliable sources that I contend. Let others verify themselves! If it is Keep, then decide if Birth of Alpinism or "Birthday of Alpinism" is the most appropriate name for the new article. I think the best name is Birth of Alpinism?
      Since you have edited out these major references, then the problem is solved and it is a Keep vote from your part to be a new article - is that correct?
    • As I have pointed out above per policy, this article is not a fork. Your definition of "a fork"? Need details, please. If the only real reason for deletion is that it has the same POV as Francesco Dionigi, then that problem is also solved. It obviously is not. Francesco Dionigi is a person Petrarch wrote a letter to. Birth of Alpinism is the beginnings of the sport of mountaineering and the philosophy aspects related to it. These are two completely different entities and subjects with completely different points of view - not even close to each other. The article on Francesco Dionigi was deleted because most of the editors felt that he was not notable enough for an article. Please explain to me (details) your definition of "a fork" - since I know what Wikipedia's policy is as I have pointed out above. Neither is a fork of the other.--Doug talk 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Akhilleus says that "this article should be deleted, because it was created as a fork to evade the AfD on Francesco Dionigi. I have asked his definition of "a fork", however have not received an answer. Wikipedia'a policy I pointed out above of Wikipedia:Content forking. It says that articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the same subject" (perhaps in the policy the word "same" should be added). I did not do this. Wikipedia further says what a content fork is not: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." My two subjects are definitely different and distint topics.

  1. The first distinct topic is Francesco Dionigi is a person. He was an Augustinian monk, a Professor of Theology, a close friend of Petrarch, and Petrarch's confidant. He was also a priest and had the title "Father." His patron was Robert the Wise (King of Naples, a.k.a. King Robert of Anjou). It was determined that this person was not notable enough for an article to be written up on him.
  2. The second distinct topic is Birthday of alpinism - a calendar date of April 26, 1336. Besides being the start of modern day monutaineering, it has special philosophical meanings. Francesco Dionigi has nothing to do with either of these.

Akhilleus continues to edit this article, however says his vote is to Delete the article. By doing these "major improvements" it gives an indication however his stance is Keep. He says I can not edit his edits: "I would not recommend reverting my changes." In the process of his major edits he has removed several of my key points that are key references to the article itself, which of course will make the article look like it should be deleted (since there are not adequate references). Some examples that were removed from my edits of 00:00 29 June that I feel are key points that should be allowed in the article are:

  • The wording "The sport of mountaineering began in the Alps and is the reason for the term alpinist - meaning mountain climber." Referenced then with encyclopedia reference as footnote [10].
This is important since it shows how the word alpinist came about and what it means.
This then relates to the reference of Morris Bishop where he calls Petrarch "the first mountain climber" - which is referenced in his book at page 104.
  • He won't allow a key passage from Petrarch himself as reflections he made of the ascent as he noted in his letter The Ascent of Mount Ventoux:

"Yes, the life which we call blessed is to be sought for on a high eminence, and strait is the way that leads to it. Many, also, are the hills that lie between, and we must ascend, by a glorious stairway, from strength to strength. At the top is at once the end of our struggles and the goal for which we are bound. All wish to reach this goal, but, as Ovid says, ‘To wish is little; we must long with the utmost eagerness to gain our end.’” Niccolò Machiavelli perceived plainly that the struggle against necessity required that an individual have excellence and freedom as primary life purposes."

  • He has removed key references from 00:00 29 June that back up the article theme of "birth of alpinism" and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism", some which have not been determined or noted in the article itself as originally coming from Wikipedia. Also there was another editor above that even challanged this thought ("Rigadoun"). Examples removed that I feel should be as references are in my 00:00 29 June edit:
History of First Ascents
Mountaineering History
Mountaineering Definitions and Statistics
Mountain Climbing News
Mountain Climbing History
Mountaineering History
Petrarch: The Grandfather of Alpinism
Petrarch: Books and the Life of the Mind
Location of a village where there is a Petrarch Museum and Monument identifying that April 26, 1336, is known as the "birth of alpinism and Petrarch its father."


--Doug talk 12:20, 30 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. It appears that there is general consensus here which says that this list is indiscriminatory, Original research and subjective, and these arguments have not be refuted appropriately by the keep arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video games that have been considered the greatest ever

[edit]
Video games that have been considered the greatest ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, section 9:

Statistics.' Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

This article is a list (even though it's not a "List of"-article), consisting of statistic, arranged loosely without any assertion of notability. →AzaToth 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No brainer. Totally subjective, can not be properly cited because of such issues, and inherently unencyclopedic. --Durin 15:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit I find this to be a good source, a page that needs to be kept, granted it needs mass overhauling, it still needs kept. There is statistics and there is no possible way to list all the games people conisider/considered great. The best way is through official awards, game magizines attempts, and polls or perhaps even wikipedia. Eventually enough people will edit the artical adding games and sources this will become reliable for finding at the very least good games, which I guarntee users of wikipedia will want. The name does need edited however, it is in my oppinion to long and not centered around the main idea of the artical, least not as good as it could be with a shorter name. We should be talking about the top rated more or less but there is no way to definitivly say "the greatest ever". All and all keep and edit. Asharon 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The preceding post (signed Asharon) was edited by an IP and neither userpage nor talkpage nor contributions exist for a user Asharon (as far as I can determine). Is there any policy on signing posts as such? Merely curious, 74.134.255.99 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original post read:
"Keep and edit This is a good source to find top rated games, however the artical is misnamed in my oppinion, it should be top rated or somthing of the sort. The author does back up info it just needs to be edited. Asharon 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Despite the signature, the original and modified posts were both made by 71.59.247.46. Assuming good faith, I'd say that this is a newbie who doesn't know how to sign posts, and doesn't know that you're not supposed to edit posts, even your own. I say don't discount the opinion based on this breach of the rules. Jaksmata 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The concept has some merit, and there do appear to be well defined inclusion criteria to this list. However, given the sheer quantity of entries - due both to the large number of competing sources for the pronouncement of "Best Game Ever" as well as the often annual change of said pronouncement in any given source - the distinction of having been considered the best game ever has been diluted to a matter of trivial importance. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely POV, different people are likely to consider different games to be "the greatest ever". It's like a personal essay, and hence should be gone.--Kylohk 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is premised on incurable POV. Otto4711 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as I'm actually a bit shocked such a well-referenced article that a previous debate voted to keep would even come up on this again. Borderline speedy keep. --164.107.222.23 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I love the concept of having a list of really good games, there's no way this article could ever meet Wikipedia standards. The name of the article itself implies POV. If there was a published list, from a well known source, with secondary sources showing its notability, that would be fine. Compare, for example, Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. That list was created by a magazine well known even outside its genre, and the list has been critiqued by other well known publications. Jaksmata 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again as mentioned this article would never meet Wikipedia standards and has a lot of POV content. Definitely needs to be deleted. Xtreme racer 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article does not contain anything at all encyclopedic. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a report. Extremely POV, biased, infringes WP:NOTE and several issues on WP:NOT. NSR77 TC 19:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article is outrageously biased towards Nintendo. Very little content is featured on the Playstation Two, and virtually no content on the Xbox. Nothing on the Next Gen. systems, either. NSR77 TC 19:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article Television Shows Considered The Greatest Ever just came through AfD, with the result of keep; same arguments apply to this article. I think the formatting of the TV article is a lot clearer than this one, and should be looked at as a good model. I agree that the video game version has gotten a bit muddled and should be cleaned up.Capmango 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice the important difference in wording: it's not "Television shows that have been considered the greatest ever", like something was number 1 once. Here its a muddle of ancient history (by video gaming standards), current (or sort of current) sources, and the list can only grow because once considered the greatest it fits the list "have been...". Therefore, the comparison with the tv or film articles is inapt. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subjective. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of video game scores. If Edge or similar did a "100 Greatest Games" feature, it would be fine to include it. CloudNine 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edge did to a 100 greatest games feature. The #1 choice was Ocarina of Time. That is mentioned in this very article, so why are you voting to delete? Capmango 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Admin I'm wondering how many folks voting for delete actually looked at the article, given the number of arguments that it is "totally subjective". From the title it would appear so, but like its sister articles for films and TV shows, it is actually an objective summary of notable sources that chose a greatest game ever, which is a very different thing. Capmango 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but help me understand what you think is subjective. Is it that the sources themselves have been subjective in choosing their games, or that the article is subjective in choosing the sources? The winner of the Oscar for best picture is subjective, too, but we still list them in articles. Capmango 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read it. Delete and bury in a lead-lined casket. An ad hoc collection of non notable fluff; correctly referencing such fluff does not prevent the whole thing amounting to bollocks. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Keep and retool as per User164.5 and Campango. After reading the article, I see that it is well-researched and based on the opinions of the gaming magazines, rather than the author's opinion. Campango's analogy to the Oscars is apt. A list going back to the 1970s would illustrate the changing nature of the industry. The title should be changed to something less subjective-sounding. Mandsford 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - but it needs to be re-written as a list with a strong inclusion criterion. --Haemo 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV and subjective: and contrary to Capmango, the choice of sources is inherently POV and subjective too. Various zines come out with rankings, ratings, etc. for video games, and it changes over time. Even the article isn't what it claims - of what purpose to include 1994's best games when the same source in 2005 after considering also came out between 1994 & 2005 dropped all of 1994's games from its "greatest ever". In 1972, Pong was the greatest ever, but by 2005 it paled in comparison. Carlossuarez46 00:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article were about the video games Wikipedians think are the best ever, sure, that'd be pretty subjective, but this is about video games which have been accepted by several important, mainstream video game media outlets as having been the greatest (either by reader survey or by consensus of the editors). There's no subjectivity issue here since we're just reporting what the majority of notable video game publications and websites have said. Jeff Silvers 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Article seems to be organized in an arbitrary manner?—a list of lists, with poorly defined criteria for secondary sources that should be deemed worthy of citation. What it lacks in readability, it more than makes up for in superfluity to Wikipedia's goals. Per the Oscar argument, the Academy Awards are one source, not a haphazard collection of internet articles of varying notability. Cruft such as this sets poor precedent for future wikipedia articles. Validusername 10:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with just about everything you are saying here, but this is almost all an argument for clean-up, not for delete. There are good solid sources in the gaming world, and games are as big and important an industry as movies or TV. Capmango 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dosen't belong on an encyclopedia, (would you find this on Britannica?) POV, more of a list of game scores. Anyone can put thier favorite game on the list and call it the best ever. GreaterWikiholic 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Lots of sources and a good article. Also maybe rename to "List of video games considered the greatest ever"? カラム 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP - Some of these games have so obviously been considered the best ever that they don't even need sources, and the fact that sources are provided just proves the already obvious sentiment. This article is important factually, and unlike most of the people who say that this is fan rubbish (they are probably also non-gamers who no nothing about gaming), the games on here are FAMOUS in the gaming world. Zelda, 007, these are among the titles that NO ONE CAN DISPUTE, and there are many others, so this needs to stay to maintain the factual accuracy and comprehensiveness of this encyclopedia.Paaerduag 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see the problem. It's not POV, it's sourced, and it's interesting. Unless someone wants to go ahead and nominate every "list of X" article on Wikipedia for deletion, I don't see why this one would deserve special treatment. That being said, it certainly is improvable, but not being perfect is not a reason for deletion. -- Schneelocke 09:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A subjective list, with extreme bias, list can never be completed even if kept. Whispering 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per User:Whispering. -- Magioladitis 19:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reorganise. This is, however, a list that in and of itself may invite other violations--I can imagine it being hit by less mature readers who would insist Stick Figure Fighter 99 is the best ever and so totally better than Immortal Combat 43. As it is, it's an honest attempt to compile games that have been considered as such, and seems free of bias from the writer. The writer's sources may be biased in one direction, and as for an earlier question ... how can the latest (as of this time, PS3/Wii/XBox 360) games be listed, considering how new they are? The article is getting a bit full, though--some trimming would be better. As for being subjective..yes, it's an inherently subjective matter. At least this has multiple opinions, rather than arbitrary fiat. But it needs some more work! IL-Kuma 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably do a bit of a rewrite on it. We have a similar article for films [[26]] so I don't see why we should discriminate against videogames. Communisthamster 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, but edit. Shouldn't there be a best selling section? The Sims isn't even listed on this page, though it and the others in the series were top for many years.

  • Strong Keep There's other articles for books, films, and whatnot. Just revamp the article with specific categories, or something similar.
  • Weak keep It's probably a good resource for seeing what is perceived as making a game great and how those characteristics change over time, but it's largely listcruft and open to vandalism and OR. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge because it's a fairly obvious decision from an AFD process perspective. If you wish to remove the names individually from the merged list (which would nullify the merge from a content perspective), be my guest. YechielMan 11:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway musicals stars

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

Short list of the "most notable" Broadway musical stars. List was created in response to a category discussion [27] but this short, abandoned, and orphaned list does not seem useful. A list of actors who have appeared on musicals on Broadway should be quite extensive, and one appears at List of Broadway musicals stars. which was created around the same time and better serves this purpose. JJL 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I considered that, but there is absolutely no overlap whatsoever between the two lists--not a single name. So, I think they're using different criteria for inclusion. This one says "most notable" and the other says "most famous" and while I'm not sure what the distinction is, I was reluctant to merge. JJL 15:20, 21 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 Today we have a special offer: cut-price redirects. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCG 1260

[edit]
NCG 1260 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Title is spelled incorrect and article already exists under the correct title NGC 1260 T@nn 14:43, 21 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 redirected with nominator's assent. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And action. Evilclown93(talk) 10:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Iqbal Sacrani

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

Poorly formated, word for word duplicate of Iqbal Sacranie Rackabello 14:36, 21 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 so by default the article will be kept. DES (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Upton

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

No references establishing notability per WP:BIO, has been so tagged for nearly a year. Article seems autobiographical and strongly promotional in tone. Videmus Omnia 14:36, 21 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 given that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and there is no sourced information that can be kept or merged. --Coredesat 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Dr. Strangelove in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Trivia fork full of times said movie has been (or may have been) referenced. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to The Shining for precedent. Biggspowd 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, because this film has had a strong influence on culture and even appears in textbooks we used in college! Therefore, it is something students could find helpful as a reference for their courses. --172.133.145.96 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to take a good look at WP:USEFUL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of WP:USEFUL talks about when Useful is a valid argument. The anonymous user above seems to be appealing to it in that sense; and I agree with 172.133.145.96 in this case. Capmango 22:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took film classes in college too and in no instance would we ever have studied a list of every single time the film or a character from a film was mentioned in every other medium. Otto4711 00:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because a subject is notable doesn't mean a bunch of subarticles are suitable for here. 2001 and The Shining are also historically significant subjects, but those articles were deleted too. And a similar page about Star Wars was also removed. Biggspowd 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories aren't any more prominent than the popular culture articles are. There's no personal vendetta -- it's clear that many popular culture articles are biting the dust based on the rationale of multiple editors. Per WP:NOT#DIR, a list of items that are not made famous as a result of the entity is indiscriminate. If a book or a film was a direct influence of Dr. Strangelove, that would count, but a quote used from the film elsewhere doesn't warrant encyclopedic mention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by TexasAndroid (talk · contribs) per CSD A7 (web). Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyMozart.org

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

This website does not meet the notability criteria described by WP:WEB. Evilclown93(talk) 14:29, 21 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. If half of your article consists of "It is part of a development that consists of single dwelling homes", then odds are it doesn't merit an article.--Wafulz 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy road

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

Appears to be moderately-sized road in residential area with no notable features. There are countless roads of this size in any moderately-sized town/city. Note that this is based on article and road's Google Maps view. Fourohfour 14:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly, it is barely long enough to be a stub, and secondly, the title is gramatically incorrect. --Evilclown93(talk) 14:21, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Areas of Twin Cities Minnesota

[edit]
Urban Areas of Twin Cities Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject is covered fully in Twin cities and there is no reason of an article or redirection with the name Urban Areas of Twin Cities Minnesota to exist. Moreover, the article is orphan. Magioladitis 14:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a very short article, it's orphaned, it already has a merge tag, and it is covered by another article. I would have prodded this one, Magiladitis. Evilclown93(talk) 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Nips 16:34, 21 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. Chick Bowen 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese wedding

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

Everything on this page is already included in Chinese marriage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjwong (talk • contribs) 2007/06/20 22:17:17

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Kurtuluş

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oab729 (talk • contribs) 2007/06/21 03:32:48

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daren O'Toole

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

Non-notability, promotion of friends Daverotherham 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing the following related page because it was created at the same time in the same style for the same purpose: Richard Bisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Daverotherham 09:57, 22 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. --Coredesat 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efe Murat

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

The article in question does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Being covered in a national magazine is not enough. The national scrabble champions this year were featured on NBC, but are not an entry. Furthermore, Efe Murat, has only been published in high school magazines and failed to win a high school competition-The Princeton Poetry Prizee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oab729 (talk • contribs) 2007/06/21 03:32:13

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kavajava

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

This drink is a fictional drink that is occasionally mentioned in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. It is essentially a mixture of coffee and Kava. While it is possible to combine these two beverages I have no idea why anyone would. I drink both coffee and Kava but to mix the two would be terrible - the awful taste of the Kava would overwhelm the taste of the coffee. People do not drink Kava because of the taste, but for its effects. I'm happy to revert this afd if someone can actually show me a link to a real Kavajava drink. --One Salient Oversight 06:34, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Ferris Bueller in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

giant trivia fork for times that Ferris Bueller was mentioned or referenced. Various other movies with "in popular culture" articles have been deleted, including The Shining and Star Wars, among others. Biggspowd 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge, as a fair compromise to keep all the hard work that went into the article. --172.133.145.96 20:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlike similar lists for Day the Earth Stood Still and Dr. Strangelove, which I am in favor of keeping, this list appears to be at least 90% useless. This list does not help you understand how the film affected popular culture; the other lists at least mostly do. Capmango 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to the parent article, the most pertinent, important info.--JForget 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You worked hard on the list, but information like this actually detracts from a film that's clearly one of your favorites, and one of my favorites too. I think that's why this was not made part of the article on Ferris Bueller. Who wants to read a list of parodies and jokes about a classic film? You have the DVD, I'm sure... listen to the commentary, and count how many times John Hughes says that this was mentioned in other media... zero. Mandsford 23:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Addendum To your credit, you didn't take away from the main article by piling in a list of references like this. Having written another type of references-in-popular-culture list (and getting an unmerciful hectoring for it), I can see both sides of the matter. True, nobody is forced to read your list. On the other hand, does it pass the (non-Wiki) test of "was this more fun to write than it is to read"? Maybe a few (emphasis on few) of the best examples would be OK in the main article. (Note to administrators-- I hope that the policy of notifying the author of a proposed deletion has been followed. Not fair to author if it hasn't, and we debaters are should be addressing the author, not just trying to impress each other with our supposed intellectual prowess) Mandsford 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this article is largely a list of indiscriminate trivia in disguise. Per directory standards, most of the entries are not famous because they have a mention of Ferris Bueller (like Family Guy, which spoofs a range of entities too indiscriminate to record). Per notability standards, the topic is supposed to be explored through "significant coverage" that address the subject of Ferris Bueller in popular culture directly, instead of extracting it from the firsthand observations of the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 22 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 redirect to List of Trailer Park Boys characters. I am not deleting the articles in question, so any possible merges can still be performed. --Coredesat 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy (Trailer Park Boys character)

[edit]
Randy (Trailer Park Boys character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

MinorNon-notable character (WP:FICT), no sources. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Propose merge into List of Trailer Park Boys characters. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose a merger, there's no need to list the article on AfD first; just go ahead. --B. Wolterding 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SatyrTN with some explanation kept on the character.--JForget 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per maclean - agree totally. Eusebeus 17:14, 24 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. --Coredesat 04:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBackPro

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

Delete as non-notable software. PRODed for notability on 6/13, removed anonymously on the 14th. On 6/21, the notability cleanup template was also removed without comment. Karnesky 13:49, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Artemis in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - another indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics. The items on the list, drawn from multiple mediums, genres, themes and styles, have no commonality beyond happening to have a person or thing named "Artemis" in it, which may or may not be the goddess. To forestall the inevitable suggestion, oppose merging any of the information to the article on the goddess. Otto4711 13:41, 21 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. --Coredesat 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simone (porn star)

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

An IP editor nominated this one and a large series of others for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion over one day two weeks ago. That whole series of nominations was reverted, since many of the articles in the series were clearly notable per our standards, but this one seems to be a reasonable deletion candidate. The article doesn't show any sign of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). It's unreferenced save to databases. The IMDB and IAFD list a good number of films, but almost all are number 6, number 32, number 11 of unrelated, and not notable series, indicating nearly anonymous parts. The name is common enough so that when I searched, almost everything that came up was apparently unrelated. It looks like no one has written articles about this actress, she has won no awards, and has no apparent notable fan base. Even our article recommends that people recognize her by an unremarkable tattoo. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:31, 21 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 snowball keep. While the nom has points, a simple move in this case would save trouble. The rename fits within policy now, and the name is now a redirect. Non admin closure. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tawana Brawley

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

Per policy: WP:BLP. This policy was used to justify the deletion and merge of the article for Crystal Gail Mangum. If we are to be equitible in the application of policy, then the same should be done for this article. Tawana Brawley is only notable for one event, and elements are very similar to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. The information could be merged into the article for Al Sharpton or a separate article documenting the event and not the person could be created. —M (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: It has been pointed out that the article could be simply renamed. I think this is an excellent alternative to deletion and merge. It would remove the biographical aspect to the article (which would require inclusion of personal information not relevant to the case e.g. DOB, early life etc.) and be compliant with WP:BLP. I'm certainly not arguing for deletion because the other article was deleted but I'm looking at the application of the policy. Even the media has drawn comparisons between the two cases. —M (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable person and event; unlike the Duke case, this event is often referred to by her name. JJL 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it is interesting that this might be part of the reason that she has changed her name (in addition to converting to Islam). —M (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the same reasons given by JJL. I suppose the article could be renamed "Tawana Brawley case" or something, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. This case is most widely known by her name, as opposed to the Mangum/Duke case. Videmus Omnia 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming would change the focus of the article as biographical to being one about the case. She's only notable for one incident and the article reports mostly the incident, not the person. A well rounded biographical article would have to include personal information which is not necessary if you're reporting the event and not the person. —M (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Propaniac 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" is not a good basis for keeping a non-notable subject's article, "THERE WEREOTHERIMPROPERDELETIONS" does not justify yet another deletion of an article about a highly encyclopedic and notable subject which is fully in accord with all Wikipedia policies, including WP:N, WP:A and WP:BLP. The article could be renamed Tawana Brawley rape case. The New York Times alone shows 387 articles about the woman and the case [28] 1987-1998. There are at least 2 books about her and the case: "Outrage" [29] and "Unholy Alliances" [30] . A redirect to Al Sharpton would be wrong, because attorneys Alton Maddox Jr. and C. Vernon Mason were just as prominently involved in the false accusations against white officials, per Time magazine, 1988 [31]. The Brawley case remains important in the history of race relations in the US, and was frequently brought up in coverage of the false rape accusations against the Duke lacrosse players, and in other similar accusations of rape. Edison 14:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Crystal Gail Magnum honestly will be little more that a footnote to the Duke rape case, when compared with Mike Nifong, etc. As stated about there have been numerous publications about her, and countless amounts of news coverage. Wildthing61476 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Were there a "Tawana Brawley media sensation" article, I'd advocate a redirect, but there isn't. That being said, Edison is quite right: this case is overwhelmingly associated with Brawley's name, unlike the Duke case.  RGTraynor  16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per User:Edison's points. Someone needs to make WP:THEREWEREOTHERIMPROPERDELETIONS now, you know. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:20, 21 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. Anas talk? 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hala alyan

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

The article does not assert the notability of its subject, who fails WP:BIO. There are exactly only 20 Google search results for "Hala Alyan". —Anas talk? 13:18, 21 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 this is deleted. --Coredesat 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Bored

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

Does this really meet WP:WEB? As far as I can see, this article looks very much like an advert for the site, and its only claim of notability is a gold rating from TopTenREVIEWS, a website source which I am unsure meets the source criteria for WP:WEB itself. Delete, unless it can be demonstrated that this site meets WP:WEB. -- The Anome 12:57, 21 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. --Coredesat 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Boulevard

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

PROD deletion contested, so the page has been restored. But IMHO the reasons for it's PROD deletion still stand. Non-notable local road. TexasAndroid 12:53, 21 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. --Coredesat 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fujifilm FinePix cameras

[edit]
List of Fujifilm FinePix cameras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is simply a list of the cameras in the line. Most of the cameras on the page are either red linked or have no Wikilinking whatsoever. Delete as per WP:NOT as it is a collection of information. Plm209(talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is basically the same article with some minor differences:

List of Fujifilm products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Plm209(talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems that a category would better suited to contain this information. PCock 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do the job via a category. Several of the blue links are just redirects back to this list! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The list, as it stands, is certainly no encyclopedic content, it's just a product catalog. But my first thought was in fact a different one: What about the blue links in the list? They often contain descriptions of products (digital cameras), the notability of which has not been established by WP:CORP, at least I saw no sources cited. Would it not be better to merge these articles into the list, thus filling it with some (hopefully encyclopedic) content? (For me, that would make more sense than deleting the list and keeping the articles about non-notable products.) --B. Wolterding 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sort of thing just encourages people to write articles on each model, and I am pretty certain we don't want tens of thousands of articles on individual models of camera, printer, computer, etc. A description of a product line may be appropriate, if it won't fit in the corporate article; and a particular product can certainly be notable - the Apple II computer, for instance. This sort of thing is better maintained on the company's own website. Brianyoumans 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Unless you are willing to withdraw this nomination and then submit a group nomination for ALL of the similar lists this needs to be kept. The products for many companies have lists like this, List of products manufactured by Kodak is another example. Given the number of lists like this that do exist, they all need to be considered as a group. If these articles are deleted and not merged into the main articles, the material will likely return as sections in the parent company articles. Vegaswikian 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument here. Let's discuss this particular case. What would be the best option? Merging into Fujifilm does not seem appropriate, the article would grow too long. In my opinion the list should be transformed into an article about "Fujifilm digital cameras" by whatever name. But what should be done for that? Stubify? Merge content from elsewhere? Rewrite (who does that)? --B. Wolterding 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., and most of above comments. At the very least, this is borderline spam.--JayJasper 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm...as a list I don't think it serves a useful purpose but if it was renamed and expanded to something like 'Fujifilm cameras' or 'History of Fujifilm cameras' might it have a place? Something like Lumix. Agree that there are many many 'List of X products', which I'd apply the same argument to. In summary, Merge the 2 articles up for deletion, rename to one of my suggestions and delistify. Paulbrock 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I will be going on a personal campaign to remove many such lists from WP in one fell swoop over the course of the coming weeks. As such, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS will not apply (hopefully) after the overhaul. Plm209(talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 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; we cannot transwiki to WikiTravel due to an incompatible license. --Coredesat 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vadodara: Places of Tourist Interest

[edit]
Vadodara: Places of Tourist Interest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide; see WP:NOT Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 11:40, 21 June 2007 UTC)

If page like Tourism in London can exit on Wikipedia, what's wronge with the information for smaller cities. Kind regards, -- Baroda Boy 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I see what your point is, the two articles have a fundamental difference -- Tourism in London article is simply an overview of the tourism in London, and is really just an add-on to the London article, noting some of the historical places in London. Your article is much more indepth however, and is written in a similar fashion to a travel guide, which is not suitable for wikipedia. See no.2 here. Maybe that can answer your question. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 12:35, 21 June 2007 UTC)
But wait, there is a wikitravel, at wikitravel.org.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!dea Star Singer

[edit]
!dea Star Singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local television program with commercial advertisement that is likely to be only of temporary interest. Shyamal 11:01, 21 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 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis pro wrestler

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

Non notable wrestler. J Milburn 11:20, 21 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 after discounting the marked SPAs. --Coredesat 04:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TREAMIS World School

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

Before everyone gets hung up on the word school, please note that this is a commercial enterprise in India, the article was created and primarily edited by a single purpose account, there are fewer than seventy unique Google hits, and most importantly the artist's rendering that illustrates the article is the only picture I can find. I also cannot find any independent discussion of the school which does not trace back to press releases. If it has opened yet - which is not clear - it is evidently very new indeed. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that as a non-registered user my views here don't count, but since when did that stop anyone, so... delete. When the article was written, the author was asked to provide records and uncommercial it; he couldn't/wouldn't. Several editors have tried to get the info out of him with no luck; any tags asking for information are removed straightway. None of this fits with what I think your policy on deleting is, so I've doublechecked what the person above said and agree that there are no independent records. I also think the license is wrong on at least one of the pictures, but that's beside the point. Thanks. 86.147.226.186 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy or guideline stating that the views of unregistered users don't count. Your views are as important as the views of registered users. utcursch | talk 08:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable school, page reads like advertising. Also to the Anon IP, if you make a strong case your views DO count. This isn't a vote, but a discussion on the article. It's rare we have anon IPs who make constructive edits to an AfD, so this is a welcome change. Wildthing61476 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable nn spam, per Guy and Wildthing. Sarah 12:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. --Yamla 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam flavored COI. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides multiple articles about the school, including from The Hindu, India's largest English-language paper. All of the articles provided are about the school, not mere mentions. There is plenty of verifiable information, it just hasn't been integrated into the document as references. Minor rewriting and removal of puffery would make this a more than adequate article. I strongly suggest that anyone evaluating this article click and read all five of the newspaper article links provided. Alansohn 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having adapted User:Alansohn's suggestion, and looked at the school's web-site it is clear that this school cannot be notable, because it will nt open until July. Delete now, with liberty to start new article in 7-10 years' time, if the school has made any notable achievments. -- Simon Cursitor 07:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Alansohn. Given the comments I first saw here, I was pleasantly surprised that they had the news coverage they did get. The references indicate some news coverage, and even rewritten press releases involve editorial judgment from independent, (seemingly) reliable sources. If they're getting this press now, they'll get more later as well. Being for-profit doesn't seem like a relevant drawback in this case. Noroton 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Alansohn and Noroton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisingTide45 (talk • contribs) — RisingTide45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I've gone through the website and references. It doesn't say anywhere that the school is a commercial enterprise. I don't think it's spam; the article just needs rewording. I will volunteer to recreate it using the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.208.68 (talk) — 75.49.208.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep If you compare the March 26th version and latest version, there is a considerable improvement in the article. There are five references in English and considerable number of references in local papers (that are of no use to the English speaking crowd). All the sources are credible. The Hindu is one of the most widely read and respected newspapers of India. Economic Times has international presence. It is difficult to provide link to the TV coverage. Treamis is not a commercial enterprise. About 15 people living outside of India have contributed fund to establish this school. They are trying to bridge the gap in K-12 education between India and the west which is a notable achievement. The article is not edited by single purpose account. I see that nine people have edited the article. I have asked the school authorities provide me photographs of the building. They have assured me to provide them within a week or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsense999 (talk • contribs) — Commonsense999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - This article did not go off to the best of starts and still needs a lot of work doing to it, however the verification provided from independent sources suggests notability so I think this article is worth keeping. On the side note, can users please sign their comments here to prevent confusion. Thank you. Camaron1 | Chris 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now sourced. It still needs a good deal of clarification. DGG 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Anwar 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N by way of WP:CRYSTAL, as the school has yet to open. The sources appear to have relied on either press releases or aggressive marketers, as they read like promotional material and as the place is not even open yet, so I deem them unreliable. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reliable sources quite clearly state the school is being set up, and provide verification of most of the details. So the existance of the school facilities is not WP:CRYSTAL. The press related to the school clearly indicates it is notable; my guess is it is because of its planned curriculum, and because people like the Wipro president is on the advisary board[33]. John Vandenberg 06:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, independent sources do not exist for any of the information, because the school does not exist yet so the sole source for all information, repeated or not, is the school's management. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was that the tone of the sources indicate that the existance of buildings/facilities/staff/etc has been fact checked, esp. [34] by The Economic Times. Of course, all those things dont make a functioning school that has done anything notable, but notability is only a guideline. What is important is we can write a verifiable article here where normally that is difficult, and there are only 25 schools in Category:Schools in Karnataka. While not terribly useful here, there are Hindi sources too. The address of the school appears here, but that site isnt reliable. John Vandenberg 03:10, 28 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. --Coredesat 06:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Wild

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:39, 21 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. Anas talk? 10:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Velocci

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

Non-notable wrestler , signing a WWE developmental contract is in itself not enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 08:22, 21 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 (WP:SNOW). --soum talk 13:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rage (Wrestler)

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

Non-notable small time indy wrestler who’s never been close to working for a well known independent wrestling promotion. Fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because: it's another article about the same guyMPJ-DK 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Payne (wrestler) (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 redirect to cdb. I saw nothing I could merge that wasn't already there. Chick Bowen 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Data Base

[edit]
Constant Data Base (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Article is not notable, discusses a commonly implemented data structure. Would be better as a section in an article about programming theory or database theory. The largest part of the article is about Dan Bernstein's implementation of a CDB, in which case, it may be relevant to discuss CDBs there as well. A seperate article with little information is pointless. As such, this article does not contain enough information to establish notability per WP:Notability. --nenolod (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to cdb per Dhartung. (updated concept) --nenolod (talk) (edits) 08:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stub is not interesting to me at this time. I am against nominating the stub as part of this. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a specific database or library, but instead a design paradigm. This should be a section in an article about database design. I have yet to determine a good candidate for a merge, however. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair solution. I think this is what should happen. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Comment. Why does the cdb article also have an AfD banner that redirects to this AfD? Is cdb also coming up for deletion? Or was the idea simply to alert users that the little-sister-article was up for deletion? Is the proposal to delete both sisters? Or was it supposed to be a Merger banner? Initially I thought it rather startling that we would propose merging to an article that was also up for AfD. I also wonder which article "name" is more appropriate to be the base title for the Wikipedia - cdb or Constant Data Base ... or perhaps Constant database seeing as database is (or should be) the real name. Data bank is sometimes used as an alternative for database, but I seldom or never see "data base" used in proper authoritative sources. Bottom line: Something needs to be merged, redirected, and/or renamed, but to where? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 12:43, 29 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 and redirect to The Academy Is.... The other band members will need to be nominated in separate AFDs or sent to PROD. --Coredesat 06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam T. Siska

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

Virtually all content is unencyclopedic trivia. "prod" tag previously removed without justification. Hqb 06:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete this, because everyone else in the band has an article, and some aren't any better than this!!! So why should you only delete Sisky's????! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ziggy S. Darkside (talk • contribs) 18:39, June 22, 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. --Coredesat 06:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's Law

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

This saying has been around for 3 months according to the article, nowhere near long enough to have gained notoriety. I doubt whether there are any reliable secondary sources to prove notability. The whole article reads like an essay. Was originally tagged as speedy delete, which was rejected and changed to prod. This tag was removed without comment, hence my nomination. Kevin 05:55, 21 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 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Amazons in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Totally uncited laundry-list of trivia Eyrian 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sr13 06:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield High School (Wakefield, Massachusetts)

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

No proof of notability over other high schools. Prod contested, so created an AFD. Guroadrunner 04:48, 21 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 --Eyrian 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F@nb0y$

[edit]
F@nb0y$ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable webcomic. Link to original (very contentious) AfD. No new assertations of notability. Recommend delete, again. MikeWazowski 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies as Speedy Delete under CSD A7. --Eyrian 05:13, 21 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 06:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interdisciplinary art-science curriculum

[edit]
Interdisciplinary art-science curriculum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Captain Panda's PROD got bulldozed by the author. There's a likely conflict of interest and a clear violation of WP:NOR. YechielMan 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I misspelled academic.Bearian 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia needs an article on Interdisciplinary education, which has been around at least since the 1970s (I couldn't find one, maybe I need to try a different title), but no need for an essay specifically about art-science. Capmango 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capmango. John Vandenberg 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I submitted this article. My apologies for unintentionally "bulldozing" Captain Panda's PROD, but I misunderstood the instructions that state "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS." It's very true that there is little scholarly research on interdisciplinary art-science curriculum, which is why a Wiki on this topic is so important. My own essay, "Artists in Industry and the Academy," published in the peer-reviewed journal, "Leonardo", begins to define some of the contours of graduate studies emerging in this subject, including Ph.D. programs at Georgia Tech, U Wash, UC Santa Barbara, and Arizona State to name a few in the US. UCSB and ASU received IGERT grants to support their students. As a member of the Program Committee and Chair of the Education panel at the recent Creativity and Cognition conference in Washington, D.C. (June 13-15, 2007) it is clear to me that interdisciplinary pedagogies at the nexus of art and science are emerging internationally and that scholarship is beginning to emerge that specifically addresses curriculum, such as "Propagating Collaboration: An Instructional Methodology for Artists and Engineers" by Elif Ayiter, Selim Balcisoy, Murat Germen and Selcuk Artut at Sabanaci University in Istanbul, Turkey. This is notable and demands not only more research but greater public recognition. Moreover, it should not be diluted within the context of general interdisciplinary education or integrative learning, which could include joining social studies and science for seventh graders. Finally, it's unclear to me what it means for sociable media content to be "ready for prime-time"; indeed, such a concept could be considered to be antithetical to the very concept of sociable media. By supporting this article, Wikipedia will help the community engaged in developing and defining art-science curriculum to collectively define and share this field with the broader Web. Please note that I've expanded the entry to include lists and links of PhD and MA programs.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowedgeability

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

Prod rationale was "Coined word which is provided with a dictionary definition only. No entry for the item in Merriam-Webster. No sources, so the term cannot be verified." Deprodded by original editor, who initially provided a source at Urbandictionary, then a source at a site which is a broken link. Highly non-notable neologism, which I strongly feel should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 21 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 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joevis

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

Seems to fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on many levels. A check for references was not successful on google [35] considering this is claimed to be a online subject, if it was notable it should have hit big Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 21 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 There is no consensus here to move or redirect, but there is no ban on doing so as an editorial decision at any time. DES (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House at Riverton

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

This appears to be a non-notable book, by a previously unknown author, and essentially publisher's spam Grahamec 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep and possibly rename as book appears to be best seller in australia per link below.Balloonman 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on further inspection, it appears that they are the same book: [38]. Recommend that if the discussion finishes at anything other than "Delete" that the article at least be moved to the correct title. Lankiveil 10:05, 21 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 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in North Carolina

[edit]
List of films in North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate collection of information. An article about the film business in North Carolina would be encyclopedic. This is not. Corvus cornix 02:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second look, more than half of the articles in this category Category:Lists of films by location are "List of films set in ...". Maybe more should be checked out for possible deletion. Noroton 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very poor written article, unsourced except the link.--JForget 23:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quite different from films set in (which are keepers in my book). Because so much of modern film making is parceled out all over the place (special effects in California, filming in studios in North Carolina perhaps, but on location maybe in New York, editing in Washington state, etc., you get the point...) a film by where its made becomes a quagmire of most movies being "made" virtually anywhere and having little or nothing in common. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the title is worthy of an article and the article is brand new and might just improve. IMHO, to be a keeper, the article needs to list only films where significant parts were shot on location in NC, and it needs to tell what the location is, not just list the title of the film. Capmango 04:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that the title is worth keeping. Like others have said above, it's not clear what context it's supposed to be for. Films set in the state, or films shot in the state? These are not always one and the same. Furthermore, whose definition is it going to be to determine what a "significant" part filmed in North Carolina is going to be? Are flashbacks to a character's history in New Orleans acceptable? There's no set criteria for an indiscriminate list. It would be better, per WP:NOTE, to find significant coverage in detail about the topic, such as a book about North Carolina's presence in Hollywood, not a list thrown together by the editors themselves to synthesize an argument. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Better title would be List of Movies Filmed in North Carolina. List of Movies Set in North Carolina could be a separate article. Both of them would be good Wikipedia subjects. Capmango 04:45, 23 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. Anas talk? 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Lee Bleichmittel

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

This person was definitely not a U.S. Congressman, and can't be found on Political Graveyard either, so he might not even have existed. Basically, there's no proof of his existence and he was definitely not what the article says he purportedly was. Valadius 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Tedford

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

doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines; see Wikipedia:Notability (people); The person has been the subject of published - no references given in article, The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography (NO, imdb doesn't count). The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (NO) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (NO) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.(NO) Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products (Welch's doesn't count) Vectorsap 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What significant roles are you looking at? With the exception of his role as SPANKY (which was a minor role in the movie) he's roles are not significantBalloonman 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd support keeping him on the basis of his Welch's ads alone, to be honest, but the Little Rascals role cements it, not simply because of the prominence of the role, but because when I was a kid at that time, EVERYBODY knew who this guy was. He's that kid from Little Rascals and the grape juice commercial! It was a really recognizable campaign, I guess. Propaniac 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Emily Mae Young--Ispy1981 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: (coughs) If being the lead in a film that did $51 million domestic box office thirteen years ago doesn't pass WP:BIO, I don't know what does. That'd be a pretty decent box today; the grounds for declaring it a "non-notable" film escape me.  RGTraynor  16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP (joins RG in coughing) and delete this nomination. While I didn't recognize the name immediately, as soon as I read the article, it was "Oh, the kid who was Spanky on the Little Rascals movie". With all due respect, it does not appear that the nominator is familiar with the film, which was a big hit more than a decade ago. Just as one should become familiar with a subject before writing an article about it, one should be familiar with a subject before nominating it for deletion. I'm envious-- Travis Tedford was wealthier (at 18 anyway) and definitely more famous (at age 6) than most of us will be in our lifetimes. I'm glad to hear that he's living a normal life after having been a child actor. Let's look before we leap, please. Mandsford 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but the roles are just borderline enough for the weak keep, otherwise it would have been a no-vote or weak-delete.--JForget 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Spanky is the second most important character in Little Rascals, after Alfalfa. He's well-known for that role! He's also been in several other major films, as previously stated. The article does need work though. Ali (t)(c) 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though it should be kept, I'd argue against expanding the article. Tedford is no longer in show biz, has not sought the limelight (not even a website), is apparently a college student now trying to live a halfway normal life. Mandsford 23:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)1[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyright violation. --Coredesat 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-neural gel pack

[edit]
Bio-neural gel pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An in-universe, uncited technical explanation that does not attempt to explain, if any, real-world significance. More appropriate for Memory Alpha. Similar rationale and problems as these items. --EEMeltonIV 02:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree a redirect is better -- I did it a while ago, but it was recently reverted. Rather than enter into a back-and-forth as happened with M4 and Admiral Komack, figured I'd just bring it up here and reach a broader consensus. --EEMeltonIV 03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio Question This article was created 18 March 2006. The Memory Alpha article on B/N Gel Packs as of 4 January 2006 is a near word-for-word copy of at least the first two paragraphs. I recall from a previous AfD that MA uses a CC license variant that means we can't transwiki to them; is the reverse true? And it just seems like a copyvio to me and thus should be Speedy deleted if it is. Even if it ain't, there's nothing here that MA doesn't have, and so I'd then change to Delete if not speedied. Add sig: LaughingVulcan 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answering my own question, Memory Alpha CC License, specifies that material from there can be copied but not for commerical use. Wikipedia GFDL specifically gives permission for noncommercial or commercial use. Thus it is (AFAICT) a copyvio. LaughingVulcan 04:20, 21 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 redirect to The Academy Is.... --Coredesat 06:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carden

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

The article appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) and there are no reliable sources cited only the subjects blogs / live journals and various interviews in other blogs. Dual Freq 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep orRedirect to the Academy Is... the Academy definately is notable per the guidelines... and while the article is bad, WP:MUSIC 1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above" He is given credit for many of their songs. So he clearly meets it as well... but I agree, this is a reluctant keep at best.Balloonman 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasSpeedy Delete, invoking WP:SNOW, as there have been no objections to deletion. Naconkantari 04:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alodia Almira Gosiengfiao

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

This article had already been deleted as per a previous AfD discussion, and although this new version of the article has a few new bits of information, it is virtually a recreation of the one that has been deleted. All previous problems mentioned in the previous AfD discussion still stand. - Jigokushoujo666 01:49, 21 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 06:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm-Artists

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

Non-notable, tiny art site. Kargath64 00:59, 21 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. --Coredesat 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mertins

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

Failes WP:BIO Non-notable minor league baseball player. Once he makes the majors, his notability is assured, but being the 45th best prospect in the Royals organization isn't cutting it right now. Seems that consensus is being set on minor league players from AFD nominations on James Garcia and Blake Beavan. Montco 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually discussed on the Blake Beavan AFD---thus the inclusion of the link. With regard to North America's Major League Baseball. A player is considered notable if they have appeared in one game, minor league players are generally not notable. In other words, while the minor league in baseball is a professional league, there are literally thousands of people playing in the minor league---thus it isn't considered notable.Balloonman 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis d'Arnaud

[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Speedy Deleted under DB-G7 SirFozzie 06:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing VC-137C

[edit]

I just created this article in an attempt to have an article on both the Boeing 707's that served as Air Force One from 1962-2001 (SAM 26000 and SAM 27000). After writing a bit I wondered if it might just be easier to create two seperate articles on SAM 26000 and SAM 27000. Thus this page should be deleted as to not cause confusion and wasted space. Happyme22 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you probably want {{db-self}} or, more likely to use a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 02:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gilmore

[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Noonan

[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Smoker

[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Revere

[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Bumgarner

[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:BASEBALL minor leaguers are not considered notable...Balloonman 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Dumstorf

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

Contested speedy, I restored it after the article creator gave me references. Article on a kid who shot two police officers before committing suicide. However, Wikipedia isn't a crime log (which the sources available could only be used to write), and not every perpetrator of a crime is automatically deserving of inclusion within an encyclopedia, even if he commits suicide after the fact. Coredesat 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a news report. It seems that this is all that this article could ever be. Sancho 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:not"The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article."Balloonman 03:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note It was speedy deleted, but that was contested. Thus, it has to go through AFD---where it WILL be deleted. That is a forgone conclusionBalloonman 04:49, 24 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 In number those favoring delete, merge, and keep unmerged were roughly equal. The delete arguments were essentially based on lack of notability. The keep arguments showed evidence (less than a citation though) of media coverage, and of touring, either of which would, if substantiated, support a separate article. There were also claims of notability by association, that is of some members being independently notable, or having been in other, more notable bands. That often implies a merge, although it does not mandate one. There was clearly no consensus here, so the article will be kept by default. Noe that that neither mandates nor precludes a merge. If this is to remain undeleted, better sources should be added promptly. DES (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mors Syphilitica

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

Contested prod. Prod reason was "fails WP:BAND". I tend to agree, although it isn't a speedy A7 candidate. Daniel 07:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, after reading B. Wolterding's comments, Merge to Lisa Hammer. She already has the Mors Syph discography and a little info about the band on her page, and her and Doc are notable, but in pursuits other than music. Keeping a redirect won't hurt. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which criterion of WP:BAND do you believe it meets? - Zeibura (Talk) 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4, 5, and 6. Article does need sources though. Capmango 16:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 6 encourages redirection to the notable figure passing through. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the originator of the prod; I'll repeat the gist of my reasoning (examine the history and talk page for more). Non-notable band (clearly fails WP:MUSIC with flying colours), first albums all self published, no records with major (even for the genre) labels, the best that can be said is that one album was distributed not released by Projekt. Bigdaddy1981 22:05, 26 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 illustrated by some of the participants below, the article is an indiscriminate collection of unsourced information. The keep arguments have failed to appropriately address those concerns. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage

[edit]
Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is unsourced original research. It also violates WP:Note, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. Having a list of tribes, and saying that they once followed a certain religion is not encyclopedic.IP198 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article must not be deleted .The contents of the listing are an aggregation of links from many existing articles on Wikipedia . The charge of original research is also unfounded the listings and their links to their respective pages on Wikipedia already state the import of the article . There is no violation of WP:Noteas the contents of the listings already form existing and valid articles on Wikipedia . As regards the pretext of WP:SOAP it does not apply at all . As regards the charge of Lists wikipedia has innumerable similar lists ,including those to which .IP198 has contributed and I could substantiate . The issue of lineage is a valid topic for an encyclopedia Intothefire 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The racial background of the population of the Punjab is encyclopedic, but this article approaches it in a confused way and is not salvageable. Until I read this I assumed that it was generally understood that the Muslim population of the Indian sub-continent was mostly descended from Hindu converts, although there could be some Arab and Iranian ancestry. Trying to seperate this out by families or clans is subscribing to very dated notions of racial purity. PatGallacher 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep (Sigh) Two of the five books cited in the references show up on Google. The others probably exist but don't show up for whatever reason. I don't really see why we need to have a list of racial clans like this, but I hope the creator is not the only one who finds it useful. I think original research concerns can be resolved by referencing individual pages within the books where possible. YechielMan 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original research i was talking about is statement such as "The continued prevalence of these Hindu Surnames in spite of the trend to trace ancestry to Persian and Arabic sources is also indicative of strong tribal affinity and kinship among these groups." It doesnt make any sense to have this article as many Muslims of foreign descent intermarried with muslims who had converted from Hinduism. Its impossible to verify that a certain tribe is 100% descended from one particular group. IP198 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for underlying OR. Another title for this article could be "list of Pakistani surnames of Hindu origin" (which could very well be put up for AfD as listcruft). But although this article's body is no different from that title I've suggested, the article attempts to draw some sort of meaning or significance to this collection of surnames (without, by the way, citing each name as actually being of Hindi origin, although I understand that in theory the references at the bottom could have verification of such). I certainly feel that articles about ethnicity and cultural shift are important, but this is not really about either of those things...except in the mind of the author. -Markeer 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
1)The information on this article is from
  • reliable
  • Scholarly
  • published
  • verifiabe sources often used on wikipedia and
which have now been provided ,and will improve the article no doubt .
2) There is no original research here -The sources used are secondary, and tertiary .
3) Further links provided on this article to other wikipedia articles corroborate this article
4)The subject of lineage and genology and lists thereof of people ,clans and tribes is a valid encyclopedic article and similar articles abound on wikipedia.
5)As regards the books , which three would you like further details on .
Intothefire 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-There are so many more articles on wikipedia that would fit the bill for deletion considering the reasons I am seeing here ,for example List of Pakistani family names...I would imagine then that the same rational would apply to them as well .Take the case of List of Pakistani family names would the editors delete this article and other similar as well...I could provide a whole list from wikipedia . Intothefire 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per nominator? I guess you meant "Delete" per nominator. utcursch | talk 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, corrected now .Shyamsunder 18.18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article serves no identifiable purpose. Hinduism is a Faith NOT an ethnicity that the article suggests (i.e. Hindu lineage). It can also be argued should we have articles suggesting the druid "lineage" of many British clans? Many of the clans listed already contain quite some detail re their previous Hindu faith. I would also argue that the sources are ducious on some cases and misleading in others (see Awan talkpage for an example.--Raja 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator's concern is valid -- this is indiscriminate, poorly-sourced list. Besides, I don't mean what do we mean by "Hindu lineage" -- Hinduism is not an ethnic group -- it is a religious group that consists of several ethnic groups. The page numbers have been requested for "references", but none have been provided. utcursch | talk 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Utcursch 1)inline citations provided 2) page number provided as examples ..I could keep providing further , but you may like to also assess the depth page level simillarly of references provided on articles by those suggesting Delete here . Intothefire 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<comment moved on to the talk page, accusations do not relate to the AfD debate whatsoever> Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended

[edit]

Per the article creator's request, I am extending this debate for one week to allow a better consensus to form. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep based on YechielMan's arguments--they are almost all sourced out of an old survey, but this may still be the best reference. Eventually perhaps we'll have more articles on them. Section 15, Classic Cities of the Punjab Region belongs in another article unless more explanation is given--I assume the intended meaning is "cities in Punjab Region that have been notable for the historic Hindu presence or associations there".DGG 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:OK I am agreeable to rename the title of the page to for example Punjabi tribes from Indian origin .
    Lets have a constructive concensus building debate here !
    CheersIntothefire 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we cant rename it to Hindi origin, as thats a language. As for subcontinental, or Indian origin thats a problem as well as some of the tribes mentioned in this article, like Awan (Pakistan) claim foreign ancestery. Also Muslims of foreign ancestery have oftern intermarried with Muslims whose ancestors were Hindus.

Delete This article, nay list, is really quite stupid and to rename it Punjabi tribes from Indian origin would be facile, go someway beyond stating the obvious (yet at the same time be a bone of contention, especially in the case of tribes claiming Arab or Persian lineage) and thus to put it bluntly, the author’s suggestion is simply foolish.

Besides, when these tribes first formed a discernable identity, the concept an Indian identity did not even exist. So why attempt to classify these tribes as being of anything but Punjabi origin?

If one was to be pedantic, it could be argued that many of the tribes that the author lists could claim, for example, to be of Scythian, rather than Indian, lineage. But where does this leave other tribes listed by the author? The original title of his article is simply absurd. As others have stressed, Hindusim is a faith system and Hindus do not form a distinct ethnic group. Whoever stated that this article could serve as a model for a similar article listing British clans (in this day and age, of those who are religious, made up overwhelmingly of Christians) from Pagan lineage, in an effort to emphasise how ludicrous the author’s article really is, has hit the nail on the head. The author may as well go the whole hog and attempt to trace the lineage of these tribes beyond the point Hinduism was practised.

Whatever the author has to say about the material he has used to support his claims, the fact remains that he is making reference to opinions not facts, opinions that can be contradicted by material that is of equal weight. In the case of some tribes he has listed, a Hindu past cannot be denied (or at least is difficult to do so) and most of these tribes do admit to such a past, a fact that has already been stressed. But in the case of other tribes that proffer alternative theories as to their lineage, to categorically state, as the author does, on the basis of opinion rather than fact, that these tribes also have a Hindu past, is simply wrong.

The article is pointless. Most Punjabi Muslim tribes do acknowledge their ancestral origins (and in certain cases, there will always be a cause for dispute when it comes to this topic, though Punjabi tribes are not unique in this respect) but for the majority, it is the role Islam has played in shaping their culture, attitude and outlook on life that has continued to remain of relevance, which cannot be said of a distant past they has long ceased to be of any real importance to them. In other words, there is a good reason that these tribes came to be categorised as Punjabi Muslims in the first place.

  • Comment:

1)For each specific point of objection raised I have provided specific verifiable responses to fulfill objections. For example the Britannica.
2)I provided names of verifiable, neutral sources from books and citations.
3)No information is original research and much of it is corroborated by articles within wikipedia itself.
4)Hyperlinks on listings lead to wikipedia articles .
5)As to the issue of racial purity this is not mentioned any where in the article .
6)Hindu is defined as a person in wikipedia , see link .The term Hinduism is not used in the article ,therefore reference to and objection thereof to the word Hinduism is misplaced .
7)Is the contribution of an anonymous user and the intemperate language used valid on this debate.
8)If the article needs to be encyclopedic please inform criteria so that it may be improved, I am all for improvement. I have stated this earlier as well
9)From the time of this debate starting I have continuously improved the article based on fulfilling requirements of objectors , It seems to me that the objections are contributing to improve the article each day and this is good .

Cheers Intothefire 13:13, 29 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, assuming that the article can be expanded. Sr13 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contredanse (band)

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

Non-notable band. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete.--Bryson 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article indicates, they have toured several European countries, as reported by the band's website. Easily meets WP:MUSIC criterion 4.--Eyrian 20:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, criterion 4 is: "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." I would assume this means independent reliable sources. If the tour is meant to establish notability, somebody should have found the tour notable enough to write about other than the band itself. Sancho 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has written about them in English. It's a foreign band, which has no real presence in English-speaking countries. Please be careful of systematic bias. --Eyrian 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if you include reliable sources from other languages, but they are still needed. Sancho 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference. --Eyrian 22:12, 21 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 --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)

[edit]
Shepherd Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don’t understand what purpose this article serves. There is no assertion of this particular subway station being notable. Delete. --Bryson 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We have so far maintained the principle that every subway station is notable, because they are permanent structures and influence the neighborhood, and there is usually material to be found about inclusion in route changes and so on. As a beginner, I challenged this once or twice until I realised that the advantage of not having to debate each one individually was a fair exchange for keeping them all. "Permanent buildings" is a good simple criterion. Longer I'm here, the more groups of things we can keep out of AfD, the better. We have difficult problems to solve and major disagreements about policy, and let's not sweat the small stuff. DGG 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reliable sources, anybody? Also, how could this ever be more than a stub? Trying to squeeze an encylopedia article out of every "permanent structure" in the world is an exercise in total futility. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is not the solution. It might or might not make sense to merge, but the information - and a page, whether article or redirect - would stay. A while ago, I decided to test the theory that these articles will be "permanent stubs" with Grand Army Plaza (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) (chosen because there was a dispute over the name, not because it's a particularly major station). I was surprised at how much I was able to find. However, I just took a quick look for this one, and found almost nothing. Local stations on the IND Fulton Street Line might be a good target for merging if nothing more can be found. --NE2 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't even know why this article is even going through an AFD. I think it should be closed immediately, but I guarantee it will close as to keep. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Local stations on the IND Fulton Street Line per NE2. It exists, but so does the mailbox at the corner and the utility pole behind the house, and both are arguably as permanent as this subway station. If sufficient sources are ever found to create more than a directory listing/stub, then a stand-alone article coould be re-created. For now, it fails WP:A and WP:N. Edison 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Surprising at it may be to some, these stubs do grow into articles, given time. —CComMack (t–c) 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subway stations are notable and this one is very important in NYC subway system. --Oakshade 07:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade and others. 192.88.171.35 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on what Marc Shepherd said in the above comment. Even if this station ought to be deleted based on AfD criteria (and there's enough debate to indicate this is not an obvious thing), we should ignore the rules here. It would be sensible and in Wikipedia's spirit of consensus to suggest and develop a uniform plan for all stations on the project page as opposed to deleting some articles here and there. SliceNYC (Talk) 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subway stations. They are important nodes in public transportation, and have some history of their own (opening date for example). NYCsubway entry for this station here although it is a bit sparse. Keeping stations as separate articles is much cleaner than trying to merge them... merging subway stations on the same line seems like a great idea until subway stations on multiple lines throws sand into the machinery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With this particular station, and other local stations on the line, it's possible that all we can say is the location, the opening date, the configuration, and the color of tiles. I definitely agree that any transfer stations should be separate, and in fact the majority should remain separate. But some of the outer stations are "cookie-cutter" copies of each other with no real differences. --NE2 11:30, 28 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_21&oldid=1234127866"