Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Mhiji 23:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an absolute mess. All it is is a bunch of illegible gibberish about some girl named Jacinta. Meldshal 42 12:06, 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. Sr 13 05:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes in French grammar and spelling

poor sourcing, unencyclopedic style, little content Makerowner 03:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIt's just a list of common errors in French usage, rather trivial ones at that. An article about real usage controversies in French --the feminisation of titles, spelling reform, anglicisms-- would be well worth writing; but this isn't it.Rhinoracer 12:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. These are mistakes, not controversial issues. JJL 15:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT-- I "voted" above to delete, but upon reflection I am unsure. The subject itself seems to be encyclopedic, the execution is incompetent. However, is that a criterion for WP:AFD ?

I don't think so, and thus I change my judgement to NEUTRAL. However, if this article survives the AFD process, it will need very extensive work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. I encourage the article's creators to contact me on my homepage. Rhinoracer 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of common spelling mistakes in French? No. Very misleading article title, by the way. Otto4711 15:03, 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 Speedy delete as spam. I'm keeping the talk page as the OTRS note might be of use in the future but the page suffers from POV problems so deep we might as well delete the whole thing Pascal.Tesson 01:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca dru

Apparently self-promotional material. Notability hard to discern. Haukur 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete copyright violation of her website. So tagged. --Haemo 00:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is pretty good though. --Haemo 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment speedy deletion because of copyright violation is not an option. See the talk page. Permission has been given and logged via OTRS. MECU≈talk 01:08, 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. —Kurykh 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal (Professional Wrestler)

Article of a non-notable individual. A professional wrestler who’s only worked for small time indy federations without achieving anything of note. Fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jauerback 15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Darrenhusted 16:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without a name, its hard to consider him notable. This isnt Don Callis, who was "The Jackyl". Jackal wrestler Missouri returns lots of hits, but I cant figure out his name from them. John Vandenberg 07:50, 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. —Kurykh 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary of Madlax

Delete - Clearcut violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 22:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clear-cut case. --Haemo 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cool, I didn't know about that rule. %) Just make sure you delete ALL plot summaries out there, not just this one. ;) --Koveras ^☭ 07:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in large part because it is redundant to List of Madlax episodes which contains the same information in a more encyclopedic fashion. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Potato dude42 04:25, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, related articles deleted by prod. NawlinWiki 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Summer TBL season

Contested prod. Tri-State Beirut League is already up for deletion, and the other associated pages are PRODded but will probably have to go through AfD as well. Non-notable "league" for non-notable "sport" with non-notable people and no references, and it hasn't even begun yet. Corvus cornix 22:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I read the entire article and still don't know what sport this league plays. --Evb-wiki 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They play beer pong. Corvus cornix 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreational league, as for any other sport (though the nature of this sport makes it even less notable than usual, I think). It's somewhat amusing that this "tri-state" operation involves participants in only two states, however. Maybe after a few matches they look like three states. Deor 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no source, created by User:Tristatebeirut as possible WP:COI violation. Not sure whether it's a recreational league or a hoax (nothing on Google [1] except Wikipedia), but should be deleted either way. PrimeHunter 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 07:02, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.I.T.

Speedy Delete tag removed, but no WP:RS provided. Google search found none. Four ghits, but just MySpace, etc. This article fails WP:BAND. Evb-wiki 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally fails notability guidelines and is probably speediable. --Haemo 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music. Cricket02 06:13, 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, entirely original research --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paintball_Strategy

This is almost entirely a strategy guide. Primarily, Wikipedia is not a how-to and also not original research. Also, the notability of paintball strategy is worth questioning. Duckster 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiBooks. --Dhartung | Talk 01:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dhartung's suggestion. --Milton 20:21, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Dormand

Text (and external) link confirms that the player has not played a match in a professional league, and is thus non-notable. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 22:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article states that he never played first team football for Birmingham City, and he has played in non-league football since, so therefore fails notability.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:14, 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 article was speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zanacon

Totally un-notable. In fact, the page is only a picture! Definitely needs to be deleted. Thanks, Meldshal 42 22:06, 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: you can call it nonsense or absence of context or lack of notability but in any case this quite obviously does not have its place on Wikipedia Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Feista

A textbook case of "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day", reads like a student boasting about a prank he performed. Unsourced, and very doubtful that any reliable and verifiable sources could be found. No google hits for anything related to the subject. Wingsandsword 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has a speedy tag on it. Also, the person with the biggest Fiestawhatever is named Robert Kuhn. The creator of the article is Kuhnrac. Looks like we're the ones being pranked. Speedy delete per non-notability.--Ispy1981 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I started to fill out the AfD criteria with twinkle, apparently somebody tagged it for speedy, so it wasn't tagged when I began to fill it out, I didn't know which CSD criteria to file this under or I would have named it for such. --Wingsandsword 02:35, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Duos

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's some big...uh, delete per WP:PORNBIO, although one could make a case for a prolific nature in the big boob subgenre.--Ispy1981 01:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning toward delete after re-reading WP:PORNBIO and reviewing the previous AfD. Mostly I am curious as to whether the magazines Bust Out!, Gem, Juggs, Score, and Big Boob Busen are notable. I kind of doubt that they are; if that's the case, then she isn't notable, but this is really not subject matter that I can claim to know anything about. I'm not sure that she could get by on the "prolific within a subgenre" claim; we've seen other porn stars of the same "subgenre" on here who had absurdly huge resumes, whereas this person seems to be more or less confined to the five publications that I mentioned above. Heather 14:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable.--cj | talk 06:44, 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. Bucketsofg 02:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rae

Apparently autobiographical (see editor's name); candidate for Template:nn-userfy? Tlesher 21:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COI not grounds for deletion, and appears to satisfy general notability guidelines (several news stories back in '04 about him being youngest DNC member -- Washington Post, PBS news, Milwaukee Sentinel, etc). Should be tagged with auto and verify but not deleted. Capmango 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as normally party functionaries are not notable, but he received some attention for his youth. I'm not convinced this is enough for an article, really. One appearance on NewsHour and some mentions in other places is pretty thin. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I found this via a search for something else, but I don't think it is grounds for deletion. There seem to be some good sources and it seems like a well-known person. I would say keep it. --MaryEllen Hanagan
:IP discounted

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhatung ↑. Notable for being a notable? Not. --Evb-wiki 17:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Sunshine Man 20:41, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo solis

NN role-playing group. AFD fans might want to check out this wall garden - I suspect most of those need firing off as well. Fredrick day 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this one is fancruft. But I see no evidence that the rest of the List_of_live_action_role-playing_groups are a walled garden; that does not mean "special interest". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they were claiming to be a LART. Delete per our verifiability policy, WP:RS, etc. Heather 14:17, 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 — Caknuck 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Graczyk

No original research.
Fails criteria of creative professionals notability (see WP:BIO\Criteria for notability of people):
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors: no
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique: no
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews:
  no, it has been mentioned Polish and foreign media presented Jan Graczyk`s sculptures but no source are given
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries:
  (a:) no (b:) had some individual exhibitions but there is no assertion for significance, notability and/or media coverage in the article (c:) no (d:) According to the article: The artist`s works can be found in private and national art collections (...), but no sources and no assertion for significance of these art collections were given. Visor (talk · contribs) 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I don't read Polish, so you can research this better than me, but common sense says this guy is notable, given the medals he has earned, the length of his career and the widespread galleries that display his work. Mark the article with verify if you want, and there could be a bit less editorializing in the text, but this does not at all appear to fall under WP:NN. Capmango 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Campnango. I don't get the part about original research-- did the author snap the photos? "Original research" is overused, and because it's not consistently applied, an argument that's no longer taken seriously. I'm not sure how else one writes an article about the latest episode of "Ghost Whisperer" (citation to the Journal of Ghost Whisperer Studies? Don't think so...). In this case, it's clear that the author translated the Polish article and added some other information not contained therein. Like Cap, I don't read Polish either, so I'm not going to be grouczy about an article about Graczyk. Mandsford 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He was a very well-known and well-regarded Polish artist, on the level of Henry Moore in the UK. A verify tag would be appropriate, but it's easily attributable and, because he's dead, the extra stringency of WP:BLP does not apply. --Charlene 22:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable article as per Galeria Ad-Hoc - an art gallery listed by

Official page of Warsaw]. Add links i.e. for "Warsaw uprising 1944" and the above reference regarding "Ad-Hoc" Gallery". greg park avenue 15:00, 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 Transwikied and replaced with a soft redirect to the wiktionary article. Redirecting to Zenigata Heiji would not be particularly helpful, as most of the inbound links to the page have to do with the various fictional currencies named after the Zeni, not the detective. Though giving the page an otheruses template might be. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 22:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeni

This article about a term was prodded, but had previously survived VfD. I'm moving it here as a courtesy to User:Irashtar, whose prod reason was: "It's a stub that contains no sources, and three completely unrelated paragraphs. the only reason the prior VFD was keep was to give a chance to make it a history of Japanese coinage." NickelShoe (Talk) 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Transwiki; Leave Soft redirect in its place - This page is a candidate for trans wikification, so do that then leave a soft redirect to the new page. --tennis man 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ — I've just linked Zenigata Heiji to&from Zeni. This article (zeni) should not be deleted. However, moving it to wiktionary may also be acceptable provided that the context of all existing links are maintained.--Endroit 19:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's been transwikified. Redirect to Zenigata Heiji per ↑. --Evb-wiki 17:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. « ANIMUM » 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CryingPuppet

Non-notable website. Virtually no hits on Google. Pekaje 20:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source other than the website itself. Fails WP:NOTE for web content.--Ispy1981 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rackabello 21:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB and WP:VERI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. ♠TomasBat 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:11, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Rosa

Contested PROD. Badly written article about a "fitness coach", no assertion of notability, no track of previous experiences as head coach. Angelo 20:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided, written in very poor English. On the evidence thus far, non notable.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any reliable info can be turned up to prove that he's made a greater contribution to Brazilian football than being a fitness coach which, let's face it, is about as notable as the club tea boy.... ChrisTheDude 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has also been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability had been made. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:45, 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 keep, for now. The consensus is actually to merge to the article on National-Louis University, but there is no section or article on the Polish campus. Once such an article is written, Ampersand magazine should be merged into it; if the notability of the magazine can be better established in the meantime, I imagine that it could retain its own article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ampersand magazine

Non notable academic magazine. See WP:BK\Academic books. Visor (talk · contribs) 20:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think magazines (like this one) marketed to audiences attending academic organizations are different than the academic research/discussion journals in WP:BK\Academic books. It's a three-day-old article, the only contribution by its creator, on a one-year-old magazine. Likely non-notable but I haven't made up my mind. Canuckle 20:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly notable but impossible to tell without independent sources attesting same. I would preferably merge to National-Louis University, but there isn't even a section on the Polish campus. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, under section Studenci. Actually, the Ampersand is a part of the official NLU website. See my comment below. greg park avenue 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable magazine, referenced by itself because it's a site of an official educational institution. Many issues on web, unbiased and unpretentious articles written in flawless English, without advertisements. greg park avenue 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the university; very few hits and no reliable sources make this quite similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Monash. I would love to see this stay; hopefully someone can find some independent Polish coverage. John Vandenberg 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to university per John.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge when there are also many independent references relating to Ampersand stating its notability like for example in Gazeta Krakowska (these are paid of course just like the archived articles in NYT are, that's why I didn't insert it into main text) or in GD&K group, which is founding the Ampersand? greg park avenue 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two are not many, and reference on their publisher hardly counts.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher, no publisher, still an entity independent from NLU. I used the wrong word - supposed to be not founding but financing; it means - sponsoring. That's quite a difference, wouldn't you say? greg park avenue 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources are in Polish and are, therefore, difficult to verify by English-language users on an English Wikipedia. It also hints of WP:SPAM and engages in crystalballism, suggesting WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources written in Polish do not necessarily spell WP:SPAM, WP:CRYSTAL or WP:COI. Please, explain where do you see hint at spam or conflict of interest in this article. Besides, my dear anonymous English-language user, where in an English wikipedia or in WP:RS stands that all sources must be in English? greg park avenue 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Polish are "difficult to verify." I did not say that makes it spam. "Editorial staff would like to stand between Polish and non-Polish speaking students as a unifying factor; to join them and enable them to understand one another better by publishing a magazine entirely in English. . . . In the 2007/2008 academic year, the magazine is going to expand nationally by providing its free issues at the universities, and English schools. There are also plans to cooperate with foreign colleges. The content is going to be more focused on business and political issues, as well as on the international affairs." This hints of spam and engages in crystalballism. --Evb-wiki 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:Verifiability: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. (emphasis added). --Evb-wiki 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind to explain that a little bit further in your own words? This is a business school, so they focus on business. Sounds healthy to me. Just like a law school would focus on law instead on let's say philosophy or Greek mythology. Them students are trying to understand each other with students from similar faculties in the other countries by publishing this magazine entirely in English and handing it out gratis. What's wrong with that? It's Europe's way. In America during college intermission you don't hitchhike to Spain or to Switzerland looking for new faces to exchange your new aquired skills with someone like you. You just drive your SUV to the parent's house or down the shore looking for girlfriends and spend time with them playing all American hero - see Tom Wolfe's "I am Charlotte Simmons" greg park avenue 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this magazine has an ISSN. Worldcat doesnt show that this magazine is being distributed widely, but worldcat is (was?) predominately American. I would change my vote to keep in a snap if someone can show that this magazine is in print, and is held in a few libraries of other notable European universities. John Vandenberg 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference about circulation of Ampersand and its sister in Polish "In Blanco" I have already produced earlier you can find at official WSB-NLU site. It states that both magazines are independent student journals distributed freely on and off campus in over one thousand editions in print per issue. To check out that Ampersand has also a version in print go to take a look at front covers of the earlier issues of Ampersand. Do these look like the internet version to you? Regarding ISSN, libraries rarely catalogue free journals, the stores almost never do. These are just lying around waiting for someone to pick it up, that's why you ain't got no hits at ISSN. No one advertises it because the journal represent independent student views, just like no one advertises Wikipedia. What else proof do you need? greg park avenue 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homo perfectus

Contested prod. Fictional species featured in a not-very-notable self-published book. --Finngall ^talk 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Update June 23): Now that the article on the book itself has been created, I am adding it to this nomination.

Already voted to Delete H/P, but would agree on the book too. As RG points out below, this is a self-published (Perfectus Press -- no homo) book that promotes itself on its own website already. No need for Wikipedia to help A.R. Teest (get it? "artiste"!) advertise it. That's what amazon.com is for.Mandsford 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Fire: There are only five unique Google hits for the self-published book from which this fictional race comes. This has got to be in the month's Top Ten for non-notability. Also a hint of WP:SPAM, as the external links push the book. RGTraynor 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prod was removed without discussion. While the subject of homo perfectus is widely discussed, this article is about a non-notable, self-published book. WP:NOTE for books, WP:SPAM and I think it's a bit of a coat rack.--Ispy1981 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't think of any other stuff to say, so Per Ispy1981 and Finngall. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the article is in very bad shape, the subject seems quite notable to me. Maybe the text talking about the book is a bit of spam, since the book is unnotable. Ispy1981 said that the subject of homo perfectus is widely discussed, but that the article is about a non-notable book. So, why don´t we remove the text about the book and start improving the article appropiately? Lets take the coatrack, instead of deleting it all... ♠TomasBat 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, by all means, go ahead. If it's not done by the time the AFD is closed, it should be deleted anyway- the current content is not a useful starting point. Friday (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve improved the article a bit. I´ll go on improving it, of course; but know, at least it´s in a better shape, I believe. ♠TomasBat 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable outside the book and the book is not notable. I notice that homo superior (similar concept from actually notable Marvel Universe) redirects to Superhuman. To the extent there is anything meaningful here at all, it should be merged into that article. Capmango 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The "Perfect World Tour" may or may not be notable, but it doesn't have its own article. "Homo perfectus" is also used in some religious contexts as a reference to Jesus or to the "man created in God's image" that a few rogue Creationists propose existed before Adam and Eve. This H.P. looks like the offspring of Homer Simpson and Sinead O'Connor. Mandsford 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve added to the article what you said about homo perfectus in religion. ♠TomasBat 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author (after attempting to blank Homo perfectus), has created The Perfect World Tour about the book itself. As it is completely non-notable, I am adding it to this nomination. --Finngall ^talk 03:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The only reason the page was restored was because the AfD process had started. Let's see — WP:COAT, WP:NOTE, WP:SPAM. Good morning, good afternoon, good night nurse. Realkyhick 03:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Majoreditor 04:29, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfhart Grote

Contested prod. Prodded for making no claim of notability. Prod removed by anon author; but it still doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Only 54 hits on the German Google, which is very meager, and not a one of them is from a reliable source: it's mostly networking and social sites, Wiki mirrors, his company website and a sprinkling of Amazon hits from his book. RGTraynor 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I say it borderline fails WP:BIO, but really I say delete because it read like a advertisement. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I fall slightly to the other side of the borderline from The Random Editor. I agree it reads too much like an advert. There are a number of companies called InfoLab, and as near as I can tell the one he founded is just a minor IT shop, but he has authored several books and even if those are for a specialized audience, being notable in a specialized field is still being notable. Capmango 22:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per Capmango. ♠TomasBat 01:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not notable. (His books all appear to be self-published according to amazon.de.) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His biography is a combination of several interesting facts. --87.175.125.24 18:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)— 87.175.75.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- How is that relevant? Interesting trivia does not establish notability. --151.203.15.95 18:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has published a couple of important books and is engaged in politics (met the president of Germany!) --87.175.75.218 06:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best reason so far to "keep" is that he has authored a few self-published books. Obviously that is not good enough. Nor is meeting the President of Germany. --C S (Talk) 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only self-published books but also publications in well-known media. -- 217.115.72.126 12:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has authored several remarkable books. -- Owl2008 10:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)— Owl2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: He was a pioneer in quality management (ISO 9001) in information technology. -- 217.115.72.126 12:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)— 217.115.72.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Not notable. Apparent autobiography, self-promotional only. DavidCBryant 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is also known as a fighter against German spelling reform: Look at this. This fact has to be added to the article. --87.175.105.176 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)— 87.175.105.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom and RGTraynor. Robertissimo 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please add references to reliable sources if he's so famous. MaxSem 06:15, 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 keep. Sr 13 05:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Maeue

Delete - Subject was sentenced to death for murdering 3 people. That's all there is, and that simply fails WP:BIO. He is WP:NN. There is zero percent chance of improvement. Evb-wiki 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Arent serial killers mildly notable? Corpx 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not if they fail WP:V, which this fellow does. If killing three people gave an automatic pass to notability, there'd be several hundred drive-by shooters a year getting Wikipedia articles. RGTraynor 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you expand on how he fails WP:V? There are English-language news sources verifying his existence, crime and punishment. Canuckle 20:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable serial killer with heavy news coverage; I have added refs and interwiki links. I'm normally somewhat of a deletionist, but I think this one easily meets our standards. Heather 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few months ago it was being argued at several AfDs that a murder involving only two people was generally not notable; I asked at the time how many were necessary, and did not get a direct response. Ditto here--that does not seem a useful criterion to keep or to delete. The news coverage is in national newspapers and over a period of 2 years. that combination of factors does seem like a useful way to evaluate. DGG 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Serial killers seem more notable than the average killer, and the serial killing of people he met in an online suicide club who thought the killer was going to commit suicide with them is outside the ordinary, sounding more like a CSI plot. But it seems more liike average news reportage for a murder and trial; not aware of larger societal or cultural effects than simple crime and punishment. Edison 19:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a serial killer is definitely notable, especially one (as Edison points out) that kills people in a suicide club. Ergot's links and refs show verifiable notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:29, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Polonia

No claim of notability, poor references, possible ad. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable award Corpx 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Non notable. Visor (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Capmango 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per nom.--Ac1983fan 23:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable award, first of kind but notable. Let content be, its factual and relevant! Dzo 20:54, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nena kubu

A Google search verifies that a band exists by this name and has performed at bars. That's it. Some unreliable sources appear, but no non-trivial reliable sources about this band that verify what's here or that we can use to write an encyclopedia article. Fails Inclusion criteria for musicians. Deprodded without comment. Pan Dan 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to indicate that this is anything more than a pub band.--Ispy1981 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND. -- MarcoTolo 22:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cricket02 06:15, 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. Friday (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meadow Ending

This is an entry devoted to an "ending" that has yet to be substantiated with reliable sources. Just64helpin 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax or mistaken. Cable channels don't have "east coast feeds".--Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, they do. On satellite, you can get HBOW or HBOE; the programming is the same but offset by 3 hours. Not that that should change your vote. Capmango 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced to four message boards? That fails attribution by a mile. Delete if not sourced to good reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more appropriate sources can be put forward to back this up. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a definite hoax/urban legend. The only claim to substantiate was "the ending was only shown on the east coast", and "it was only shown once" and "only certain networks showed the ending". First of all 1) I live on the east coast -- there was not a different ending. 2) You think someone, somewhere on the east coast would have TiVo'd it? There is no video proof of this anywhere. 3) The network is HBO for everyone. Basically, it's complete malarky --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter and complete Original Research. 68.186.51.190 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sumnjim. Maybe a reference to this urban legend could be included in the article Made in America (The Sopranos episode). But it does not deserve its own article. MrBlondNYC 07:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is questionable. Wouldn't merit a separate article even with video evidence. Clconway 16:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without a question, there is nothing notable about this article at all. Citing blogs does not constitute sourcing, and to create one based on a very small internet hoax? Delete this--Sopranosmob781 14:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is thinly sourced and lacks any hard evidence to support it. The so-called reason behind it is an obvious hoax created by people who do not want to be proved wrong. The fact that it could only be seen on the east coast proves the west coast wrong, and the fact that it was only seen once, and all further showings were removed proves the east coast wrong. Why would HBO deliberatley delete an unimportant shot that only lasted a split second???SpecialAgentUncleTito 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. This article has little value to Wikipedia, even if merged with the final episode. It's speculative and far from encylopedic. --CPAScott 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. The final episode got a great deal of coverage in the US so the lack of reliable sources is telling. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. Nothing in there even worth merging.--Wehwalt 14:45, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Game?

Brand new gaming convention just started this year. Dubious notability reads like a ad. All the sources consist of this game will be played at this convention which does not confer notability. Whisp e ring 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The citations are all trivial mentions. Ford MF 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads very self-written Corpx 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmmm, four major gaming companies that sponsor events at a convention don't give it some notability? I mean they aren't Bob's Games and Books, but include Wizards of the Coast and Upper Deck. And some of the events are various types of championships or will lead to championship events. And, no, despite the fact that I've edited the article, I'm not associated with the event, organizers, or game companies that will be there. Maybe the deletion could be held off as the convention is taking place this weekend (i.e. June 23-24). <shrug> I'm ceasing to care at this point however, but was attempting to give it some notability. Craw-daddy 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Actually, neither you nor any other editor can confer notability on anything. The subject must do that all on its own. If this con's being covered in multiple reliable sources that would be one thing. Has it? Ravenswing 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess I should have said "demonstrate" instead of "give". (Sheesh) Well, considering the con is tomorrow and Sunday, it's likely it will soon be covered in multiple sources if not already. Craw-daddy 20:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:26, 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. Walton^talk 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleuth (computer game)

A computer game with its notability not established. Seems to be controversial, judging by the talk page; but the article has been around for more than 2 years, and it's about time to sort things out. Reasons to delete:

Intro paragraph: Describes the game, but does not cite secondary sources. Some secondary sources were added on the talk page; but these are, as far as I understand, from web platforms with user-generated content which cannot be counted towards notability.
Section "Instructions": Apparently a copyright violation ("transcripted directly from the game"). Even if not, a manual page and hence not encyclopedic.
Last section: is about a board game of the same name, without claim of notability.

Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Keep if it gets a good rewrite. Corpx 19:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see any independent reliable sources, and therefore don't think the game is notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author has provided some links to reviews; they are found in the article's talk page. —Anas ^talk? 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they're not reliable as self-published sources, see nomination. --B. Wolterding 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable.--cj | talk 06:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources, none apparently forthcoming. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 14:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. When the SPA "votes" are discounted there is a clear majority to delete, and more importantly, no independent sources have been found to establish notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Virtual Network

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

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

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

This group does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is no evidence that it has received significant coverage in multiple, independent published works. The article lists no evidence of a significant membership (of the organization itself, not its mailing lists), nor of major awards or achievements. The article claims that its main focus is activism on the Internet, but it doesn't appear to have a web page.

Finally, it should be noted that this article was originally written by the founder of Roma Virtual Network, User:Valery novoselsky,[2] which raises some conflict of interest issues. —Psychonaut 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This group meets the criterias for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), because "it has been the subject of secondary sources" reffered in the given article. And these "sources are reliable and independent" regarding Roma Virtual Network and Roma subject as well. And if someone would read articles on reffered links carefully, then he/she would see the depth of a coverage of the Roma issue by the source, including the info on given Network.
Regarding the awards or achievements: I have the Word file with the expressions of gratitude from the variety of international and national Roma organizations and I hope that Lilia (RomanyChaj) would help me to put it in a new edition of a link discussed by us now.
Regarding the web page: it is not necessary, since the activism is expressed and applied via mailing lists on Yahoo and Google servers. Valery novoselsky — Valery novoselsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Valery novoselsky, as the author of this article and the founder of Roma Virtual Network, you are uniquely positioned to provide the secondary sources you mention. May I suggest that you add them to the article, or at least list a few of them here? If the Network does have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then this will speed the development of consensus here. —Psychonaut 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. The Myotis 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no independent sources to verify the notability. Only one of the provided sources even mentions the topic itself. There are no mentions on Google News Archive. It is basically a collection of Yahoo Groups (web-accessible mailing lists) with no apparent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a significant movement in migrant rights, which of its nature is underreported. That does not mean there are no reliable sources, merely that they may be ephemeral or harder to find. On a different scale, it's hard to find independent sources for Press Association because they will be swamped by material produced by the organisation. (I'm a long-standing editor who coincidentally happens to be a member of their lists.) --Cedders^tk 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this is indeed a significant movement, then reliable sources should exist. If none such exist, then it isn't as significant a movement as all of that, and WP:V applies. As WP:V requires, it is up to those who want to save an article to provide such sources. RGTraynor 20:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator; notability not established by reliable sources. I'm more than happy to change my vote if such sources can be found. —Psychonaut 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: Response on the argument of "RGTraynor" regarding the reliable source: the statement that Roma Virtual Network is under the auspices of well-known European Roma Information Office (www.erionet.org) is supported by the clear reference on http://www.erionet.org/networkmembers.html on this Network as the member of a broader ERIO's network. And this fact makes the reliability of questioned article stronger. Valery novoselsky

Comment What you're saying is that the organization is accredited or sponsored by an official body. That is not the same thing as notability. It may be true, it may be verifiable, but if independent sources don't discuss it, it probably does not have a place in this encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Dhartung Then, I may confirm that the independent sources quote a lot the news coming to them via Roma Virtual Network (i.e. the source of updated information). For example, look on 2008 - European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, - Schorarships Available for Roma, Magazine "Romano Centro", pages 12-18. Valery novoselsky

A secondary source merely quoting material produced by an organization does not make that organization notable. We need evidence that the organization itself is the subject of secondary sources. Can you provide for us some third-party articles which are about the Roma Virtual Network? —Psychonaut 08:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Valery novoselsky[reply]

Reply to Psychonaut Yes, certainly, here is the link to an article about Roma Virtual Network Israeli Roma: who are they? (in Russian). Valery novoselsky

Comment. Roma Virtual Network does not appear to be the primary subject of that article. Heather 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Ergot. In Russian: A kak u vas s russkim yazikom? Vi ego ne zabili eshio? Chto v stat`e napechatano ponimaete? Valery novoselsky [Translation: How's your Russian? Did you forget it already? Do you understand what's written in the article? —Psychonaut]

Ответ. Да. Но как по-русский, «Roma Virtual Network»? Heather 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) [Translation: Answer. Yes. But how is "Roma Virtual Network" rendered in Russian? —Psychonaut][reply]

To Ergot. In Russian: Привет, незнакомый человек! В переводе на русский это означает "Цыганская Виртуальная Сеть". Нас во многих странах тоже "чёрными" считают и дискриминируют. Мы тут на Интернете статьи о своих создаём, а кто-то из редакторов Википедии вместо советов и корректировки наших небольших ошибок нас дискриминирует, как-будто мы гангстеры какие-то. Помогите этой статье про важный для цыган источник информации остаться на Википедии и не быть удалённым. Заранее благодарен! Valery novoselsky

Thank you. Someone asked me on my talk page not to use languages other than English on the English Wikipedia; I had been under the impression that this only applied to Talk pages. At any rate, while I certainly can appreciate the appalling discrimination that the Roma have faced, please understand that this discussion is simply about whether or not Roma Virtual Network meets our guidelines for inclusion. The problem seems to be mainly that there simply do not appear to be multiple articles in notable sources with Roma Virtual Network as the primary subject of the article, as per our WP:RS guideline. Has it perhaps been discussed as the primary subject of academic papers? If it has, that might be a way of making the article acceptable for inclusion. You might also consider creating a transwiki to the Roma Wikipedia, which may have different guidelines than the English one. Latcho Drom! Heather 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That is a well known Human Right's defender Network and its web page. Why do you erase that issue about the Roma people? Hhmb — Hhmb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Keep Keep Romani people and others working with Roma are spread around the world. A truly international people. The web is a perfect tool for disseminating info to this people. This is a very valuable resource for many of them/us. I myself am a filmmaker (www.GypsyCaravanMovie.com) and I've been working with Romani people for about a decade. These days, I meet Roma around the world and we often find that we are informed about the same items purely because of the Roma Virtual Network's valuable role as a news hub - forwarding different items of interest and concern to Roma worldwide. As a former journalist, of course I acknowledge that it is not ideal to have one person principally responsible for editing and controlling the disemination of news. And it raises an eyebrow to have an initial entry created by the subject of the entry. But on the other hand, there is not yet a budget to have a whole staff working on the RVN, and I think that many people around the world are lucky that the Roma Virtual Network discovers and disseminates relevant news items. Of course, the New York Times or any major newspaper operates the same way: people submit news and an editor correlates it and sends it out. And until recently they didn't have websites, but still they have always been notable organizations. It is a crucial backbone of a community. thanks for considering this plea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littledust (talk • contribs). — Littledust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Collection of mail-lists w/o audience, if I can judge it from browsing newsgroups. Setting up mail-list is very easy, getting people and feedback is the hard part. NN organization, I can name few which are orders of magnitude more active even if theya are limited to a single country. Pavel Vozenilek 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Pavel Vozenilek. Yes, mailing lists are easy to start with, BUT if you would know on how it is not easy to keep them for years and follow up with each single news or comment coming there... When you would look again on the introductory pages of these listserves, then you will see that they are moderated since year 2001 (!). Beside that, they do not pretend to be active as discussion platforms (otherwise there could 1000 times more messages posted there), but as the sources of up-to-date articles of a good quality on Roma issues. So, it is a different concept then the one which the moderators of adult- or market-kind of listserves hold. Hope my explanation is clear now. Valery novoselsky
Delete, nothing notable at all: no serious third-party sources, no significant user base (8K subscribed users is a relatively small number, and it needs a reliable source anyway). Almost A7, I'd say. MaxSem 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions to MaxSem. 1. What do you consider as "serious" third-party sources? 2. Why do you consider the existing sources as "no serious"? Please, explain. Valery novoselsky

Please read up WP:RS and WP:V. MaxSem 10:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To MaxSem. Talking about the reliable (i.e. serious) sources:

The links given in this article lead to the sites of credible and reliable organizations, such as European Roma Information Office, DiploFoundation and Southeast European Academic Network (seeAN). These organizations are trustworthy withing the civil society and policy-makers in European Union and other regions, beside that they are regarded as authoritative in relation to Roma subject. These sources are not self-published! They meet the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V and do not match the allegation that they are "not serious". Valery novoselsky

Keep. I write as Professor of Romani Studies at the University of Greenwich in London, and I have found this news service of considerable value to myself and to students since its inception. Although it is clearly linked to a particular institutional position in the ongoing debates of Romani politics, viz. that of the International Romani Union, founded in 1978, which organised the last 5 of the six World Romani Congresses, it brings forwards news reports and press releases from an enormous variety of sources, largely without any editorialising. This has made it more or less the Reuters of that intellectual space where academic Romani Studies intersects with organisational community activism.

There are of course always concerns where the main actor in an organisation writes its own Wikipedia entry. The entry is, however, modest and accurate. It would not be appropriate to delete it. Those who are unhappy with it would be better advised to edit it, perhaps with the intention of l) locating it more precisely within the history of Romani politics 2) indicating the existence of other competing information networks and services. I think on balance the latter are less influential, however, and usually more ephemeral and selective. Thomas Acton, Professor of Romani Studies at the University of Greenwich — 81.157.101.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. My name is Yvonne Slee. I am the Coordinator of The Romani Life Society of Australia. http://www.geocities.com/romani_life_society/ Valery is doing a fantastic job for Roma people with the Roma Virtual Network. His motivation to help Roma comes from the heart and this important network is one of a very few where Roma can communicate with one another. Please leave it's entry in Wikipedia. —sintezza 12.50pm 25 June 2007 AEST
Comment, is it accurate to merge this into European Roma Information Office ? John Vandenberg 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have looked for and found evidence of other related organisations, but I havent been able to find any useful references to this Roma organisation. Unless someone can provide evidence of journal entries or news paper articles that mention this organisation, we simply can not cover it. John Vandenberg 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against the suggestion of John Vandenberg. You are welcome to read the ERIO`s findings on a website of European Commission at http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/greencon/erio.pdf, also on http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/fundamental_rights_agency/doc/contribution_erio_en.pdf.

In addition to it, there is a link on a website of UK-based Media Diversity Institute on http://www.media-diversity.org/articles_publications/Roma%20media.htm, and the article posted by Radio Prague on http://www.radio.cz/en/article/61253.

By the way, since the summer 2005 the executive director is Mr. Ivan Ivanov, and Mr. Valeriu Nicolae is not with ERIO since January 2006. Valery novoselsky

Valery, as far as I can tell quickly, none of those links you provided mention "Roma Virtual Network". Google can only find 60 articles on the web. John Vandenberg 07:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on the suggestion of John Vandenberg. John, when you wrote "but I havent been able to find any useful references to this Roma organisation" you meant European Roma Information Office (ERIO). Did not you? Valery novoselsky
No, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Roma Virtual Network, and "voted" for it to be deleted due to lack of independent sources. I am satisfied that European Roma Information Office is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. If Roma Virtual Network is part of ERIO, then we could mention Roma Virtual Network on the ERIO page. John Vandenberg 10:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the external sources that testify its notability. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which external sources testify to its notability? So far it seems no one has been able to come up with an independent source where the Roma Virtual Network receives "significant coverage" (i.e., the RVN is the subject, rather than mentioned briefly or in passing). —Psychonaut 11:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion. Here is an article directly about the activity of RVN: http://romanykultury.info/news/news.php?row=333 (in Russian) Valery novoselsky

Confirmation Dear John! Indeed Roma Virtual Network is the part of European Roma Information Office and this claim is supported by the clear reference on http://www.erionet.org/networkmembers.html where this Network is mentioned as the member of ERIO's network. And this fact makes the reliability of questioned article stronger. In addition to it, I am the staff member there. Please, take a look at http://www.erionet.org/staff.html Valery novoselsky
Comment: Some of you newcomers seem to hold a wrong impression of what constitutes, under Wikipedia policy and guidelines, a "reliable" source. It is a reliable, independent, published third-party source with a proven reputation for fact-checking. Moreover, the source must discuss the subject of the article at length; it cannot be what WP:RS calls a "trivial mention." A mere mention of the RVN's existence on some website doesn't count ... and beyond that, Mr. Novoselsky being on the staff of the other organization disqualifies it as "independent" even if there were more than a trivial mention. RGTraynor 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the argument about the current lack of sufficient secondary sources. However, the Wikipedia:Notability article does, the way I read it, provide for "alternate methods for establishing notability", specifying as example "the organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." All this is generously vague, of course; but I suppose that the flexibility of the definition is deliberate, so some leeway can be given when institutions do not appear to meet with the primary definition but are significant anyway.

Regarding those criteria, I can only agree with what Prof. Thomas Acton wrte about the RVN above, as he put the case more eloquently and persuasively than I would be able to do. I think that his words would be well taken, and provide a reasonable alternative course of action.

Personally, I think that the RVN, working behind the scenes as networks like these tend to do, exercises considerably influence as a kind of information clearinghouse on Roma issues. Its membership of over 8,000 may or may not, as MaxSem says, be major by itself - it is certainly impressive for any NGO mailinglist in the field of minority rights - but the audience is also weighed heavily towards the policy makers, activists, academics and international organisations that shape the European discourse on Romani issues.

I understand the frustration about the attempt to bolster outside support through the claim that the article's proposed deletion is motivated by "hidden Romaphobia". I have no idea whether it is or not, but have not, in any case, see evidence of it on this page, and I know that rallying outside support in this manner is considered bad form. This should not, however, impact the discussion about the item itself, and should be regarded as a separate issue. No-itsme 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, rmy:Roma_Virtual_Network and ro:Roma_Virtual_Network already exist. John Vandenberg 14:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the only contributor to both is User:Desiphral, who is also the creator of the article here. As Desiphral is the only administrator on the Romani Wikipedia (and pretty much the only contributor as well), it's unlikely the article there will be deleted. Dewrad 14:32, 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 no consensus. Bucketsofg 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meehan III

Wikipedia is not a memorial. I believe this page was mainly created out of a fondess for the TV mini-series Band of Brothers. However from a military stand point, Meehan didn't do anything of note except briefly serve as a company commander. Even in the mini-series his character portrayal was very brief. This fails WP:BIO --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm loathe to delete an article about a veteran killed in combat, especially when they're portrayed in a miniseries like Band of Brothers. However, I don't think he's particularly notable -- by this standard, virtually everyone killed in combat during WWII qualifies for inclusion. --Haemo 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dysepsion, on your userpage, you have quoted "Despite wiki's criticisms I believe in the philosophy of why this site was created: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing. ~ Jimbo Wales"" I consider this article part of the sum of all human knowledge. Thomas Meehan III's experience during the Battle of Normandy was a fate met by many men that day. That doesn't make him remarkable. What does make him remarkable is that among World War II historians, his is a well known name - 63 years after he died. Sure, Band of Brothers helped spread his name, but it is regardless known. FOr those reasons, I say keep. --Daysleeper47 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry, but among WWII historians, his name is not well known at all. Before, Stephen Ambrose's book Band of Brothers, the only other time that he is even mentioned, albiet briefly, was historian Mark Bando's history of Easy Company 506th. I also don't see how that quote on my userpage has any bearing on this discussion. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Doesn't receiving a purple heart make somebody mildly notable? Corpx 19:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Stuck based on the following comment. Corpx 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are millions of purple heart recipients, which are given out for any combat injury. (Remember, John Kerry received three and isn't even noticeably disabled.) The E Company was chosen to be the "Band of Brothers" that Ambrose wrote about not because of the exploits but because it was ordinary, and because of the availability of documentation and personal material. That doesn't make the individuals in the unit notable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he became notable due to book and miniseries, even he wasn't notable as a soldier. Someone who sees the miniseries is going to come here looking for more information about the guy, so let's provide it. Capmango 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capmango's arguement Corpx 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band of Brothers. Not notable enough for an article of his own. Clarityfiend 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between the book, miniseries, and of course real life, he's sufficiently notable. Someone reading the book or watching the miniseries may wish to look him up. JJL 02:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band of Brothers Not notable outside the context of the book and movie. Killed before entering combat on D-Day, heroic but not notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison 19:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my knowledge, there is no burden of notability in any context for inclusion in Wikipedia, other than the interest of the author(s). I suggest that there be no minimum requirement for continuance other than the interests of site visitors to access information. Ultimately, they may have even more to share.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphobia

Keep - as the grounds for deletion no longer apply.ANTIcarrot 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally proposed for deletion by unregistered 81.132.83.58 (talk · contribs); the reason was "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources." - Mike Rosoft 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced, and a Google search gets under 2,000 hits - a lot of which are Wiki mirrors. I don't see any serious psychology references to it, or much of anything that could be considered a reliable source. I was going to suggest a merge, but it's already on -phob-; if someone comes up with a few good sources for this, I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsupported neologism. No WP:RS - the single reference listed simply supports the fact that human-animal chimeric cells can be created, not that such a phobia exists. -- MarcoTolo 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony & Marco. Carlossuarez46 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a popular vote. Please read the relevant guidelines on such discussions; only post if you have something new to say.ANTIcarrot 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the NY Times article just linked to on the article's talk page shows that inducing human characteristics in animals raises ethical issues that many people are uncomfortable with - anthropomorphobia, although without using the word. --CliffC 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism/OR. JJL 02:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires sources ONLY for disputed claims. The statement '2+2=4' for example does not require a source. What claims in this article are disputed? ANTIcarrot 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Everything has to be sourced. Quoting from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis the original). Likewise at WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" (emphasis the original). It's always been that way. Heather 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy.WP:REFAnd I quote: attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. The emphasis is Wikipedia's, not mine. So as i said what in the article do you wish to dispute? And don't say 'everything' or I'll be equally vague and cite 'the entire internet' in return. Be specific please.ANTIcarrot 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are quoting refers to information within articles. The passages that I quoted above deal with articles themselves. Every article needs sources; if it can't be verified, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. Heather 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are avoiding the question. I am happy to provide sources, but first I need to know what I am providing sources for. Evidence for the word itself? Evidence for the attitude? Evidence for specific sentences? WP:DP specifically states that lack of citation is cause for EDITING; for ADDING sources, SPECIFICALLY NOT deleting the article. So what do you want us to cite evidence for? It is a simple question. There is no point supplying sources for A, B & C, if you are going to turn around and complain that we failed to provide evidence for X - and hence the article should be deleted. So either answer the question or withdraw your objection. ANTIcarrot 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're also going to ask me and others to spend two hours looking through old magazines looking for evidence you can bloody well pull your finger out for two seconds to say what you want the evidence to be for.ANTIcarrot 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes - and you're completely wrong. [[3]] is merely one of hundreds of pages that demonstrates that not all articles need sources. If you disbelieve me, put up a 'page doesn't cite sources' notice on *that* page and se how far you get before an administrator makes some choice and accurate observations about your understanding of the rules.ANTIcarrot 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced OR. Heather 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated specifically on WP:DP that lack of sources is a criteria for editing, not deletion.ANTIcarrot 17:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep per suggestion at Talk:Anthropomorphobia. The concept is sourced, we just need a name that's not a neologism. WP:DP states "Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure". Yes, I know I rang in once already, sorry. --CliffC 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with furry fandom. --SakotGrimshine 08:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It would be like merging anti-americanism with america. Just because the two titles have words in common doesn't mean they are even related.ANTIcarrot 14:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unreferenced, no reliable sources, and has a faint hint of WP:SOAP to it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added references for fear, reluctance, and professional concern over possible distortion of scientific data. What else needs citation?ANTIcarrot 21:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can source the article to death, but the problem is that none of the cited sources actually say anything about "Anthropomorphobia". What this article is doing is proposing a definition for an invented term and then finding sources that relate to the given definition. This is what we call a novel synthesis. Until and unless reliable sources that demonstrate this term is in use in the field of psychology, medicine, or some other meaningful way, it still fails inclusion criteria. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:09, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cloud

No assertation of notability is made and no references are provided. I believe this falls under WP:NOT specifically Wikipedia is not a directory or Yellow Pages. Similar pages have been deleted in the past (both Speedily and AfD'ed. Rehnn83 ^Talk 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local WiFi provider = Not notable Corpx 17:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable company. No 3rd party sources provided to establish notability. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete given the list of countries in which operation is claimed, perhaps they are a large company, but with no sources to support notability, it's a no go. Debivort 23:59, 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. Sr 13 05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Tha Brown Fox

Non-notable personality. Author put "The rest of this article is hidden and up for investigation. - Wikipedia Staff". Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO - Non notable "radio personality" Corpx 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - riiiight...this article deserves to be deleted for stupidity of author as well as failing WP:BIO. Got a good laugh at the statement by "Wikipedia Staff" since Wikipedia Staff would truly mean every editor on WP including myself and I know that I didnt hide anything on Sunny. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might have hidden something, I've been a bit vague this morning. Delete as failing WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:32, 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 — Caknuck 00:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Martz

Keep Replacing {{Notability}} with an AFD tag was for the purpose of settling a debate. User:Astuishin had added the notability tag and we have been debating it. We came to the resolution that we would seek broader opinion. I firmly believe she is a legendary athlete who is notable by her awards and athletic accomplishments. He contests her notability as is clear by his action of adding the notability tag. We could not come to agreement and agreed to having the debate arbitrated by a WP:AFD discussion. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepGranted Division III is a lower level of collegiate athletics, however being one of 4 people ever to be named an All-American is certainly noteworthy to me. Wildthing61476 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 4 time All-American that is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for the correction there. Wildthing61476 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Because she was a D3 player, I dont think she carries the notablity of a D1 player. Their "Final Four" (semi-final) game had an attendance of 311, as opposed to D1, where attendance was 17014. However, she won the NPOY at her level, which asserts some (or little) notablity Corpx 16:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we are going to cover any players in Division III volleyball, Ms. Martz seems like the one to cover. Brianyoumans 17:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonytheTiger--JForget 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:34, 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 Redirect to Ged Simmons seems reasonable. RxS 03:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ged Simons

Reason The information in the article mainly pertains to a fictional character portrayed by the actor, and not the actor itself. Furthermore, the actors name is spelt incorrectly, and another article on this actor (spelt correctly) is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ged_Simmons. Both articles have had questions raised over its notability, and as this article adds nothing new, I think it is pointless. Thetoaster3 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the article about the show?Corpx 16:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we merged this, we would have to keep the misspelled version as a redirect per GFDL requirements. I don't see any point in keeping this around in any form, so I'd be against merging it. I am in favour of deleting it, however, as it seems to be material that is already better covered by the correctly-spelled version (which I wouldn't be opposed to merging into the article about the show, FWIW). Heather 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ged Simmons. It's a reasonable misspelling. --Charlene 02:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Sunshine Man 20:45, 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 Speedy Deleted Corpx 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-dress

Neologism, non-notable term. Might also fit CSD A1 as little or no context Wildthing61476 16:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and non-notable neologism. Neologisms really need sources that discuss them (rather than just use them) to achieve notability. Leebo ^T/C 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Spellcast 16:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Corpx 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete, speedy delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:50, 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 speedy delete per A7, besides being just plain stupid. Sr 13 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason adair

nonsensical silly article PStrait 16:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy delete What's this even doing here? A clear violation of A7. Spellcast 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - added tag Corpx 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 No Consensus. If any articel about the author existed, i would have closed this as a merge, but it doesn't, and i don't quite see a clear keep consensus. DES ^(talk) 22:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-Wanted

Declined speedy nomination; Article about a short Manga series that makes no assertion of notability, and contains virtually no information on the series itself. Google didn't turn up much other than records on some Anime Databases, which simply state when the series was published in Japan and not much else. One website had a synopsis, but this would not establish notability. Apparently this series hasn't been released in English. As far as I can tell, this fails WP:BK. Rackabello 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Based on google hits. Corpx 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, there are quite a few ghits but by themselves these do not establish notability or justify keeping the article. Although it does seem like B-Wanted may have a small cult following (I did discover some fan art), all I've found contentwise in English on this series is one short synopsis and a few Anime directories with publication information. Beyond the notability issues, I don't see the point in having an article on the English Wikipedia about an untranslated Japanese Manga series that has virtually no information on it other than a cover shot and ISBN numbers of the Japanese releases. Rackabello 18:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to put things in prospective, I did a search of the Japanese Wikipedia for B Wanted and nothing came up Rackabello 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - series not notable even on the Japanese Wikipedia. ja:えぬえけい is the page for the author, and B-Wanted is the only one of her manga that doesn't have a page. If someone wants to make a page for the author and her other works too, that would be fine, but having a page for her least notable work seems like skewed priorities. Doceirias 10:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks context as to why there is an article on this manga. Also the lack of available and verifiable information will prevent this article from growing into anything more then a stub. The best solution would be to create an article about the manga's author and redirect this there. Long and short of it, we shouldn't have these kinds of articles that tells us nothing more then "XYZ is a manga" but provided no additional context in the first place. Unfortunately, Category:Anime and manga stubs is littered with these kinds of sudo-stubs. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge?. The series is possibly notable per WP:BK, but has no English presence, so it's rather impractical for us to write an article on it. I'd suggest merging it to the author's page, but it doesn't exist. However, since according to the ja.wiki link provided above there are several series by the author, I think we can safely presume her notable enough for a page. --tjstrf talk 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's page. I created the (stub) article as it was requested on Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan/Anime_and_Manga. I had heard of the manga too, even though I live in Belgium and am not a die-hard shōjo otaku, so I figured it was notable. But if it's not on the Japanese wiki (didn't know - can't read it), I guess it's not notable in the end. If the author's notable, she could have an article with the info in it. Maybe the manga article request page should be adjusted, having requesters include a 'proof of notability' when they request an article, so this sort of situation is less likely to happen in the future. Ninja neko 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were six volumes published by a major publisher, and it was serialized in a major manga publication. So far as I'm concerned that's enough to make it noteable. Snarfies 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The problem here isn't notability, I think most of us agree that it is technically notable. The problem is that there's simply nothing to write about here. --tjstrf talk 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sykes Enterprises

Fails WP:CORP; no assertion of notability, no secondary sources (no sources at all really, except company website). Prod removed by author. Ford MF 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yahoo says they employ over 25K and is a publicly traded company Corpx 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference from the New York Times and the Nasdaq symbol. --Eastmain 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Times references would be considered "trivial coverage" in WP:CORP. Ford MF 18:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I had been under the impression that being publically-traded was adequate to meet our criteria for inclusion, but, reading over WP:CORP, it appears that I was mistaken. Heather 15:25, 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 snowball keep. `'Miikka 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zotino

List of non-notable villages which happen to share the name of a notable observation tower location. Aarktica 15:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do towns sharing the name of an observation tower make them non-notable? --Oakshade 09:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, precedent allows notability for verifiable places including unincorporated villages, postal codes, and census-designated places. We have coordinates and population, so if sourced, this is a perfectly valid disambiguation page. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of size. Some of these should have there own articles. --Oakshade 09:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:16, 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 keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballers

per WP:CBALL. There is very little information to warrant an article and details can change significantly over time. We're halfway through 2007 and this film is supposedly a year and a half away from release. Spellcast 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well if the movie is confirmed then I see no reason not to keep, as WP:CRYSTAL would not apply. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been previous afds in which the celebrity working on the media in question such as 50 Cent on Greatest Hits (50 Cent album) and Young Buck on Buck the World (as shown here) confirmed its release, yet it still resulted in a delete. It's too early for this to have an article. Half the page is rumored guests and the plot is unsourced. I tried to go on IMDB, but you have to sign up for a trial to view the information. Spellcast 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can go to imdb...you don't need an account Ballers on imdb --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can go, but for some reason, you have to sign up to view that link. Spellcast 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Comment 1. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. 2. I've removed the speculative rumored cast garbage. 3. IMDBPro requires you to have an account to view the specifics of this project. 4. Needs refs--Ispy1981 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's what the {{future film}} tag is there for. I'll assume that somebody is maintaining the article. If that proves to be incorrect, flag the article as out of date when it becomes so. -- Bigwyrm 03:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 00:25, 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. Anas ^talk? 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-Wrestling Finishers

A list of finishing moves used by imaginary wrestlers in Internet wrestling federations (imaginary federations run by wrestling fans). Not notable. Hobson 14:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete with the "Over-the-top-rope AfD bomb" as a finisher. Wildthing61476 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha...good call on the AfD bomb Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a good example of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. And I'm not even taking into account the notability of the "e-wrestlers" themselves. Spellcast 15:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - completely non-notable, consists of only external links with little context. I would not disagree with a CSD A1 or G11. east.718 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable list Corpx 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. E ddie 18:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also per all of the above. Nikki311 20:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because none of mine are on the list. And because it's absolutely indiscriminate information that has no encyclopedic value. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Delete per east718. Nevermind the fact that e-wrestlers and e-feds are inherently not-notable (I can't even recall one that ever survived an AFD here). TJ Spyke 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No e-fed much less individual character should be within shouting distance of Wikipedia, nuke it MPJ-DK 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. E-feds are just not notable here. -- Oakster Talk 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an e-fed wrestler ... Delete. I do sort of reel at the hostility, but I can agree with where it comes from--it's a very niche thing. Looking over this, the closest I came to anything enlightening was seeing a fellow wrestler there ... except it wasn't even him. IL-Kuma 02:12, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game's third studio album

per WP:CBALL. Similar afds have also resulted in a delete such as Greatest Hits (50 Cent album), A Good Ass Job, and Buck the World (as shown here). There is very little information to warrant an article yet. Spellcast 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clear-cut case of WP:CBALL. east.718 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should only be mentionned in the Game's article until more details are revealed and speculations ends. Also the article is poorly written as well--JForget 22:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its clear that deleting it is the best option, there is nothing known except that it'll happen, wait until like two months when things start to unfold. - NJ Rock

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense (CSD G1). WjBscribe 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padourinho

Not sure we need articles about "fictional Brazilian footballers" (even if they do score 150 goals a season). Completely unsourced. Only Google hit for the name is the Wikipedia article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Playing position: Attacking goalkeeper? Seems made up specifically for Wikipedia, so should go. Lurker 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Lurker. east.718 15:44, 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. Sr 13 05:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LACMTA citizen proposals

This article is a hodgepodge of original research and crystal ballism. The jist of it is, "This is what some people think mass transit in L.A. should be like". szyslak 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, this unreferenced news story leans on weasel words to appear notable. --Aarktica 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a newbie's first article without really being aware of the core policies of WP:V and WP:NOR.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:55, 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 deleted as recreations of deleted articles. Bucketsofg 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Merge Ministry

Notability is not asserted from reliable sources, and I was not able to find anything relevant via google. Flex (talk/contribs) 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the notability either. The parent church could be argued as meeting notability criteria, but a defunct ministry in the church? Nope. Lurker 14:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the following article:

This is about a new version of this ministry. It's not about a church, it's about a service run by that church, so I don't see it as meeting any notability criteria. It's also full of phrases like We hope you will both support this ministry in prayer and by attending its events throughout the year. Thank you for your support. Which, needless to say, do not belong on wikipedia. Lurker 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refresh Worship Toronto per notability concerns. (Should this be listed separately?) --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be more or less the same event, so have the same notability concerns. So I think they belong in the same AfD. Lurker 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I added it to the top. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. An article dealing with both of these groups was deleted via AfD last week. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Merge and Refresh Worship Toronto ministries. Deor 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since these articles were created the day after that one was deleted, these may qualify for speedy deletion under WP:SD#General_criteria #4. I can't tell if the content was similar (presumably it was), but I do know that they suffer from the same flaw: notability and verifiability. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't remember exactly what the content of the previous article was, but some of it has clearly been reused in The Merge Ministry—specifically, the "Musicians' background" section, with its ungainly chart. That stuck in my memory. Deor 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have nominated both for speedy deletion as a repost. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note this may all have been done in good faith. The original article was sort-of about the ministry and sort-of about the band, and we concluded that the band faild WP:MUSIC, but that notability guidelines for ministries were not so clear, so maybe they're just trying to do what we (more or less) told them to. Capmango 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the articles, and not all the content is the same, so I have declined to delete them. Let the AfD continue the full time. I am neutral about the present articles, though some of the detailed content at the end about individual members is clearly excessive (that part is the same as the deleted article). DGG 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Even reading an assertion of notability into these articles requires a stretch, I think, and nothing has been done to address the WP:V concerns raised in the AfD discussion of the previous article. Deor 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that whenever an attempt is being made to edit these pages, there is someone who is always resetting them back to their original format. So yes, there is an attempt of good faith to meet wikipedia requirements, but I've noticed that the originator and his/her supporters are being slashed down--everytime an edit is made, it's always being reset. Please don't tell me that someone is sabbotaging the articles' creators' efforts... -- dr. 21:25, 22 June 2007

I'm not seeing that in the articles' history pages, 65.249.163.82. Most of the editing of the articles has been your work, and some of the edits by other anonymous IPs have been reverted to your version. Could you supply a diff that illustrates what you're referring to? Deor 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:39, 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 wasSpeedy delete G12 (copyright violation), non-admin closure of orphan AfD Hut 8.5 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rukus - Originality Stands Alone

Non-notable album by non-notable Hip hop artist. Looks like it is either a copy-paste from a review, or something that is meant to look like a (favourable) review, possibly to bit on Google hits. Probably fails WP:COI but should probably be deleted even if it doesn't. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per this copyvio here. Wildthing61476 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if this is considered inappropriate, but I've tagged it for CSD for that very reason. east.718 15:46, 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 keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 20:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAD Data Communications

Keep - Indeed poorly written and referenced, BUT I am going to re-write in a few days. The company has authored several IETF drafts and it is well known in Israel and the worldwide networking industry. John Hyams 05:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started adding reference links. John Hyams 06:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deleting (2nd nomination). Fails WP:CORP by any reasonable measure. Total turnover is only $168M which is pretty tiny in global terms. Article is uncategorized, orphaned, and contains no links. Time to put it out of its misery. Not sure how it escaped deletion last time around (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAD Data Communications). --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable because it is a player in several interesting niche markets. The article needs to be savagely rewritten, that's for sure. The text looks very similar to this: [4], probably done by a lazy PR rep. I'm happy to do the rewrite. I was planning on doing so, but had not gotten to it yet. -- Austin Murphy 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've just rewritten the article. It's stubby and not very pretty, but I don't think it is appropriate to delete it anymore. -- Austin Murphy 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It still needs secondary sources about the company to establish notability per WP:CORP... nadav (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not the subject of multiple independent sources, as required by WP:CORP — it has absolutely no sources, other than the company's own website. Nyttend 13:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer true, as I have started adding reference links. John Hyams 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the current links in the article are either to press releases or not that in depth, however, I am confident that that there are many sources for info about this company. See the Google news archive search: [5] It's a well-known company in Israel. nadav (talk) 04:26, 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 speedy delete (as copyvio). Anas ^talk? 01:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruathym

Appears to fail WP:BOLLOCKS. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete it's a copyvio of http://www.sorcerers.net/Worlds/FR/25.php Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant violation of G12. Spellcast 16:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, so tagged. John Vandenberg 07:45, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt Boats

Non-notable company, already twice speedily deleted Nyttend 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is a real company. check Travis Marine, [6], a dealer for the boats. Article was deleted because it offered one-point of view and was not completed before it was posted. --by Valentino Constantinou 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is a real company, but that doesn't mean it meets the notability crtieria. And, as of the time I am writing this, still reads like an advertisment. Lurker 15:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet notability requirements of WP:CORP, google search doesn't show any press coverage etc. David Underdown 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising/non-notable. Article was twice deleted for the same reasons. Exploding Boy 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

type in model names with cobalt, such as "cobalt 343" or "cobalt 272." you will get google results

Yep, you get specialist boating sites and Craiglist Lurker 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising, does not meet WP:CORP. Wildthing61476 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:45, 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 No Consensus The main argument for deletion is lack of sources. Several have been suggested during the AfD, but no one has stated that those sources support the current content of the artilce, and no one has actually added them to the article. Let's hope this will be improved in the near future. DES ^(talk) 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spliff politics

Entire article reads like original research, delete as per WP:NOT#OR. Mmoneypenny 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, or possibly just from lack of reliable mainstream sources, but I am wondering if it possible to get a reliable, mainstream source that covers marijuana culture? Isn't this kind of a fringe topic to begin with? More than anything, I am struck by what an exceptionally well-done article this is in other ways. Good graphics, good writing, good maintenance (apparently mostly by User:Thisnamestaken). However this AfD debate turns out, good job. :) Deltopia 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't smoke pot myself and I have heard of this concept, the 'politics' of smoking cannabis, from a friend of mine who does. This may actually be notable, but it's WP:V that's the problem here. If we could try Googling for sources that may be helpful but probably not due to likely lack of WP:RS.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Puff, puff, delete. Well-written but not sourced from any reliable sources. Deltopia is correct that the majority of mainstream media won't give feature coverage to most marijuana-related topics, making this hard to cite well enough for an encyclopedia article. This appears to be based utterly on someone's original research for those "etiquette" websites. In the end this isn't about facts and figures but about personal attitudes, which vary too widely among tens of millions of users for any generalizations like those in the article to have any broad validity. I'm afraid it's just not encyclopedic material. In the end it's not "politics" anyhow, just "ethics" of group behavior, so if WP:ATT sources existed this would need retitling. Barno 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have heard the term referred to as 'the politics of' smoking cannabis - it should probably exist under a title with the word 'politics' in it, if it can be sourced, as we refer to articles by their most common name generally speaking, but I doubt it can be sourced.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting (and as noted above, well written), but not worth more than a comment in Cannabis (drug), Cannabis smoking, Joint (cannabis) or some other of those x-amount of articles about ganja. number29^(Talk) 17:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source that deals with this subject, even though it doesn't support most of this article's contents: Don H. Zimmerman and D. Lawrence Wieder (December 1977). "You Can't Help But Get Stoned: Notes on the Social Organization of Marijuana Smoking". Social Problems. 25 (2): 198–207. ERIC EJ172836. Uncle G 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as another article to take account of the source found by UncleG, (who has as usual my admiration for such things) and probably other work. I think a better title might be Marijuana etiquette, with a redirect. The Cannabis smoking article is only about the technology.

The Social Problems article is from 1977, and the only earlier reference it cites is Sherri Cavan, Hippies of the Haight 1972; from Web of Science , JSTOR, and Google Scholar , the only academic papers to cite it are Maynard DW, Social-order and Plea Barganing in the Courtroom" in "Sociological Quarterly" 24 (2): 233-251 1983, and "The Social Organization of Deviants" Joel Best; David F. Luckenbill Social Problems, Vol. 28, No. 1. (Oct., 1980), pp. 14-31. JSTOR Stable URL: [7] --neither seem relevant to this facet.

My memory is that such things were widely written about with Participant observation methodology in the counter-cultural papers of the period. I do not think they are indexed; I do not think they are online--there might be problems tracking down the copyright holders. There are also books listed as "related" on Google Scholar; most are general, but the relevant ones seem to be: Marihuana Users and Drug Subcultures BD Johnson - 1973 - Wiley; The Marijuana Smokers E Goode - 1970 - Basic Books; The Disreputable Pleasures-- J Hagan - 1977 - McGraw-Hill ; Ryerson; The Black Candle EF Murphy - 1973 - Coles Pub. Co., & there are a number of articles citing them listed in GS. I have a pdf copy of the Zimmerman article. DGG 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with the understanding that the article needs to be sourced. Original research is a concern here and I raised it as a WP:PROD, shortly after it was written. I have smoked this product (but obviously never inhaled) and with changing attitudes and legislation (Netherlands and UK), it may well be necessary to discuss "ganjaquette". A single writer itsn't a bad thing per say and it doesn't appear to have any political motives. Neither does it appear to have been vandalised. The first Spliff politics disappeared in a puff with a speedy delete months ago, but was no where near as detailed as this. It is well written, I googled some of the most eloquent sentences and none of it seems plagerised. Sourcing is a requirement on Wikipedia, but to enter an Afd, move to delete and walk away strikes me as sloppy editing, if not Afdtrolling. If we have time to read Afd, we surely have time to constructively edit the articles we comment on. I will try and source some of its contents over the weekend and hope other editors will to. Mike33 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. There is both academic study and cultural references for this (watch Human Traffic). John Vandenberg 07:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said earlier, I always felt this was a notable concept going on what I've heard about it IRL. If anyone wants to significantly rework it to meet Wikipedia's standards, then keep, otherwise delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. My argument is not that this article is not written in proper English, nor that the pictures are inappropriate, nor that the article has been subject to vandalism, because I appreciate these are not reasons for deleting an article. I am also not saying that having one main editor (Thisnamestaken) is a bad thing because this is how many/all articles here start out and the article is well written. I am saying that the entire article, from start to finish reads like original research, interspersed with a "How to" guide (e.g. "If someone rolls or passes you a duff joint (eg, too tight, too loose, to wet, keeps going out) it is best to quietly mention the deplorability of the joint to the roller...") I appreciate that "Spliff politics" may exist, that it may vary by city/region/country, with spliffs being passed anti-clockwise in the Southern and clockwise in the Northern hemispheres, respectively, much like the Coriolis effect. However, I listed this article for deletion because I could not see anything worth saving perhaps other than the word "Spliff politics". I know that the article has seen a lot of work, but WP:EFFORT is not good enough. Lastly, thanks to Uncle G for scrounging out the Social Problems article, which I too have downloaded and will have a look at after the weekend. Mmoneypenny 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More sources:
- There's a list of prescriptive rules of "ganja etiquette" in Arooka (Arooka. James Bong's Ultimate SpyGuide to Marijuana. Free World Press. pp. 140–141. ISBN 0973892803.).
- There's some discussion of group smoking etiquette in Clinard+Quinney (Marshall Barron Clinard and Richard Quinney (1973). Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Incorporated. p. 104.).
- Abernethy discusses the psychological reasons for marijuana smokers to form rings when smoking (Francis Edward Abernethy (1976). What's Going On? (in Modern Texas Folklore). Encino Press. pp. 104–105.).
- Natarajan+Hough cite some research into adolescent marijuana use and touch upon the common form of "passing around the spliff" (Mangai Natarajan and Michael Hough (2000). Illegal Drug Markets: From Research to Prevention Policy. Criminal Justice Press. pp. 64–65. ISBN 1881798259.).
- Golub discusses the "circular nature" of both the bong and cigarette rituals, "blunt chasing", and the idea of taking a few puffs and then passing along as means of intake control (Andrew Lang Golub (2006). The Cultural/Subcultural Contexts of Marijuana Use at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. Haworth Press. pp. 29, 57, 71–72, 94–95. ISBN 078903204X.).
Please read and discuss. Uncle G 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the proviso that the article is cleaned up and properly sourced. (And I'm sure sources abound; others have listed some, and I suspect High Times and the like have published material on marijuana smoking etiquette.) —Psychonaut 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No-one's added any sources; we've just been faffing around with monkey business on the AfD instead. I think instead of outright deletion, we could possibly stubify this and add the sources as "further reading" - the closer of this AfD may wish to consider this as an option.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 16:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Soga

I prod'ed this article, on the grounds that the notability of this particular woman seems entirely connected to that of Charles Robert Jenkins, her husband. Pretty much everything of importance about her is already in his article, so a merger would accomplish nothing. The article was de-prod'ed by an IP arguing that because she was abducted by North Korea, she's notable. I'm not convinced this is a claim to notability (somewhere between 16 and 80 people were abducted, according to the article on the events), so I've brought it here. The fact that no references are cited is probably a red herring, since most references will most likely be in Japanese BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO (note #4: ...person who is "part of the enduring historical record...") and WP:BLP. --Aarktica 16:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she is notable in Japan for being a kidnapping victim, however in the United States, it is her husband whom is notable. If this article is deleted, then should a redirect be created? To an article on North Korean kidnappings or to her husband, as both are proper targets. It would seem that if it is deleted, there still needs to be a stub page created to link to two things. North Korean abductions of Japanese and Charles Robert Jenkins 132.205.44.134 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even in Japan, are all the abductees equally notable? I'm not so sure. Redirect to Charles Robert Jenkins, which satisfies the navigational concerns of 132.205.44.134. --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the main notability is the husband. DGG 23:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely noteworthy. Her name is extremely widely known in Japan, and has been for many years. That her husband is an American makes it appear to English speakers that she's notable because of him, but in Japan it may be described as the reverse. Fg2 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the kind of discussion I was hoping would occur. Are there sources (I'll take your word for what they say in Japanese if that's the case) showing this? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Sources: The English site of Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a search box; typing "Soga Hitomi" resulted in 22 hits at this one agency in English alone. One of these, Japan-North Korea Relations May 2004, states that "Deputy Director-General of Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Akitaka Saiki addressed the UN Human Rights Commission's Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance, outlining the additional material presented in October and a message from Ms Hitomi Soga, one of the abductees who returned to Japan." Fg2 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sold on that particular source that you cited, since her name only appears the once. Admittedly the article is about the phenomenon of the abductions, but it's not really about her. I'll see what the other results yield, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Followup: The other results look to be rather trivial mentions (did the Minister receive a complaint that her room in Indonesia was too expensive?), rather than anything particularly weighty. It seems to me as though one of the reasons the questions such as they are deal with her is simply because she's the local girl, if I can put it that way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong 'Keep Numerous instances of independent coverage in Japanese edia; you can see a list at ja:曽我ひとみ (If you can't read Japanese, you can at least look at the domain names of the links to see that these are WP:RS and not just random websites). As pointed out above, whether you think Soga is notable because of Jenkins or Jenkins is only notable because of Soga pretty much depends on what language you read the news in. People in the US don't especially care about Soga, and think of Jenkins as a traitor, while people in Japan are obviously quite sympathetic to Soga, which extends to Jenkins regardless of the fact that he defected, because it isn't really an issue to them (since he's not their countryman). cab 05:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article at the Japanese Wikipedia relates to the general event of North Korean abductions of Japanese people, though, not specifically to this individual. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The abuctions of young Japanese women to North Korea were major events in the 70's and 80's.[8][9]. That this particular kidnap victim met and merried Robert Jenkins makes here even more notable (CNN article about them here).--Oakshade 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important issue in its own right, that she was abducted should make her noteable enough by itself. Also, Wikipedia, while in English, isnt addressed only to Americans. English is an international language. Ms. Soga is probably more noteable in Japan than Mr. Jenkins. Druworos 10:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Korean abductions of Japanese since she lacks notability other than for this one incident of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and being abducted. Thge references seem more like directory listings. Clearly we have not recently been keeping all articles about kidnap victims. Edison 19:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just any abuductee, but a very notable one that the Japanese public and media were obsessed with. --Oakshade 22:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Frequently in the international news in Japan as an individual for three decades. Fg2 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is extremely notable (perhaps second to Megumi Yokota) in Japan for being abducted. Even today she still appears in the news every few months: 6/9, 4/21 etc. The article could definitely be improved, but it would be a shame to delete it. Bendono 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be no less notable than her American husband. --kingboyk 21:18, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Hagman

Non-notable psychologist, entry reads like vanity article/resume. While the article claims four published journal articles as greatest claim to fame, I have my doubts about that being enough to establish notability. While the subject is active in the field, he appears to be a typical, or marginally more prominent than typical, psychologist. Incidentally, a Google search for the name turns up 667 hits, most of which are for a presumably different George Hagman who wrote a book not listed in this entry. Wingsandsword 12:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The other psychologist named George Hagman appears to be somewhat better known, but probably neither of them belong in Wikipedia. Brianyoumans 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, individual fails notability requirements. -- MarcoTolo 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. In addition, these poorly written, embarrassingly self-promoting autobiographies always make me cringe. I think we need a WP:NoCringe policy established. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RHumanoid Bulldog123 04:16, 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 noting that there is substancial keep opinion voiced they arent necessarily a comprehensive keep all, the delete opinions are of a similar note. Gnan garra 12:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Makabu-Makalambay

Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

*Keep I don't know much about soccer, but it appears all of these players are a part of a professional soccer team. Henceforce, they are notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Please see note below[reply]

No. A player must have played in a professional league, not just be a benchwarmer never making an appearence. Mattythewhite 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering they are a part of the team, which is professional, they will, at some point play, which will automatically guarantee notability. Why delete just to recreate? Waste of time. Whether he has physically played or not is irrelevant to me. He's on the team, he's listed on the official roster as being a reserve player, which means he can go in at any time. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the players who play for big clubs be kept? And why should players for smaller clubs be deleted? Injustice. Mattythewhite 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't understand your question? You are kind of proving our point. Guidelines state that if it's a professional club, or even the highest amateur level, it's notable. These guys are on a professional level, and should be kept --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". Note played. It means actually having made an appearence. Mattythewhite 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we already go over this a few lines up? /sigh --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did we? Where. Well you're wrong, they don't pass notability. Mattythewhite 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/sigh. I !voted keep. You said they didn't pass notability because they didn't play in the professional league yet, they are just benchwarmers. Then I replied and explained my reasoning. Then you bring up the played issue again. Hence why I said "didn't we go over this" I would think someone could someone could miss that if it was a large discussion, but geesh it's only a few lines up --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then.... they fail notability. Sorry about repeating myself, but they fail! Mattythewhite 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP for Michael Woods. He has played for England at U17 level and has made two appearances in FA Cup games for Chelsea last season. If you delete him now, the article will need to be replaced very soon, probably next season as he has a very promising career ahead of him. I have no opinion on the other players. --Vivenot 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless it can be demonstrated that they have indeed played at the professional level. Keeping because they "probably will play someday in the future" is conferring notability via speculation and is inappropriate - the claim that "it may become notable" could be speculatively applied to anything. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that WP:BIO is a guideline. Considering the fact that he is 1) on the roster of the team, it's acceptable in my opinion for this to be kept. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that WP:BIO is a guideline. My opinion is that being on the roster is not acceptable as fufilling that guideline. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyan, it depends what you mean by playing "at the professional level". Michael Woods has played in FA Cup games but not in the Premier League. Do FA Cup games not count as professional appearances? --Vivenot 16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Without looking this up, and just going from my gut...do you think that there have been articles on players who were drafted into the NFL (or the like) and haven't yet played? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment & Keep Take a look at the 2007 NFL Draft article. Here's an example of one player drafted's article:Jermon Bushrod. Granted WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here, however these players are the equivalent of the draftees for the NFL this past season. Wildthing61476 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I did some more information on everyone, by reading up on their articles and doing cross references. Please read and review this, as my opinion has changed ecause all have stablished notability with some exceptions, according to the articles.

Michael Woods - Has played in a professional game. Per his article: making him the fourth-youngest player to ever play for Chelsea as he was 16 years and 275 days old on that day. He came on as a substitute for Frank Lampard in the 79th minute -- KEEP
Lee Sawyer - article says Played in England U18's. Don't see anything else really -- DELETE
Craig Cathcart - Team captain of Manchester_United_F.C., which is a professional club -- UNDECIDED on this one, could go either way
Mark Randall - Has played in 7 professional games, per his article: Randall signed for Arsenal on schoolboy forms and played seven matches in the FA Premier Reserve League in 2005-06. -- KEEP
Armand Traoré - Has played in 6 professional games, per his article: making six appearances in the FA Premier Reserve League in 2005-06, -- KEEP
Stephen Darby - Plays for Liverpool_F.C. and played in the FA Youth Cup, which it seems is a youth professional club -- KEEP
Craig Lindfield - Plays for Liverpool_F.C. and played in the FA Youth Cup, per his article: Lindfield is a striker who was part of Liverpool's FA Youth Cup winning side of 2006, scoring 7 goals in the competition -- KEEP
Andrew Barcham - Plays for Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C., and per his article He made 19 appearances for the reserve team, including 15 starts and scored a vital goal in the key win against Arsenal that gave Tottenham an initiative in the title race. -- KEEP
Dorian Dervitte - Plays for Tottenham_Hotspur_FC, and per his article On 14 July 2006, he scored the first goal of his Tottenham career on his debut appearance in a pre-season friendly for the Spurs XI team in a 7-1 win against Enfield Town. Obviously he has played if he scored a goal. -- KEEP
Scott Jamieson - Played in the 2005_FIFA_U-17_World_Championship, per his article: He has represented Australia at U-17 level and was a member of Australia's squad for the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship. -- KEEP
Yves Makabu-Makalambay - Ehh, I could go either way on this, if you go strictly by the BIO guideline, then technically he's not notable -- Abstain from a vote

--sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a few clarifications here: Firstly, I don't understand why you think Sawyer's England Under-18 cap is non-notable, but Jamieson's Australian Under-17 one is. Secondly, Catchcart is the captain of Manchester United's youth team. Thirdly, friendly games, youth team games and reserve team games are not first-team games, and therefore are non-notable. I don't think Mattythewhite is disputing that they've played a game of football at some point in their careers!

Well I don't know much about the U18 things...is it professional league? I say it's notable for Jamieson because he played in the FIFA world cup (ie: super bowl of soccer yes?) --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He played in the under-17 world championship (very different from the FIFA World Cup!). I don't think it denotes notability.. Mattythewhite 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In past AFds, generally players have been kept if they have made an appearance for the first team of their club, be it in the league or cup. None of these players have made appearances for their club in league competition, but Randall, Traore, Woods, Barcham and Dervitte have all played for their clubs in cup competitions. It should be noted that the clubs these players play for frequently put out weakened sides in cup competitions, and that's something you might want to take into consideration. At present, I abstain from voting, but may return later. HornetMike 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep they all have squad numbers at Premiership clubs, in most cases very big clubs. ArtVandelay13 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally Armand Traore has played in the League Cup Final. ArtVandelay13 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the big Premiership clubs get special treatment? Football isn't just about the "big" clubs. Mattythewhite 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a precedent was set with (possibly before) this nomination ("Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles"), in fact I've never seen a player with a squad number at any league club be successfully deleted, although it's not unreasonable that those at bigger clubs would stand a better chance, this is about notability, after all. P.S. How do you square these nominations with your creation of Neal Bishop, ten days ago? (I'm not looking for Bishop to be deleted either, as he will clearly be a first-team squad member). ArtVandelay13 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. as you said, I made him as he is looking to be a first-team regular at Barnet; and these nominations clearly aren't. But thats just speculation if anything really from me.. Mattythewhite 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, under similarly stringent rules as those set by this nomination, that would fail WP:CRYSTAL. But it would be mad to delete him, just as it would be mad to delete these - these players are first-team squad members in Premiership, and often Champions League clubs, so they're going to appear on squad and team lists in a lot of major media sources, and people are going to want to find out more. Additionally, it makes Wikipedia's squad lists incomplete, and I fail to see that as any sort of benefit. ArtVandelay13 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given the diverse comments about individual entries here, I would suggest that having them in a group AfD is probably not the best idea. At this point it would probably be beneficial to close this discussion and renominate each player individually to be judged on their own merits. Otherwise this is more than likely to end up being closed "No Consensus" in a few days anyway. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Arkyan, these should be moved to individual nominations. Also some of the reasoning given above has no relevance to football, and seems to be based upon little or no knowledge of the sport and seems to be based upon other sports, where different circumstances apply.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, this AfD is turning into a cluster and should be closed and the articles re-nominated separately. I think it's great that (unlike a lot of people who !vote in AfDs) sumnjim has put a lot of thought into his !votes, but his reasoning clearly demonstrates that he isn't particuarly clued up on football......... ChrisTheDude 20:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentIndeed, the effort put in by sumnjim should be applauded even with by their own admission little knowledge of football.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blush Thanks guys, but being from the United States I call it soccer :) True, I'm not up to par with soccer like I am with American Sports, but I think I did a reasonably decent job of trying to assert notability Have a nice day. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The fact that they all have squad numbers at prestigious, top-level clubs means that they are notable enough. I watch the squad templates, and have noticed that Arsenal and Liverpool, in particular, are careful to only include notable players. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three Chelsea players may well have squad numbers but that is as part of the Reserve squad rather than the First team squad. They are not listed as being part of the Chelsea First team squad. They are listed in their Reserve Squad only.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But squad numbers are only used in first-team football. If a player has a squad number, then it's an acknowledgement that they're part of the first team squad; available for selection (Sawyer was on the bench in the last league game of the season). ArtVandelay13 23:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woods, Darby, Barcham, Dervitte and Lindfield as they play for pro league teams. The others I will remain neutral.--JForget 22:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although checking back the articles, most of them are part of big teams such as Manchester United, Liverpool F.C, Arsenal and Chelsea - so weak keep for the remainder of the noms.--JForget 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Close this AfD and relist in smaller groups. But my own opinion is, sitting on the bench for a professional match counts as playing.Ga rr ie 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cathcart. He is the captain of the Manchester United F.C. Reserve team and was named as an unused substitute for a few games at the end of the 2006-07 season. - PeeJay 02:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Darby & Lindfield. Both have professional contracts with Liverpool FC and have first team squad numbers which appear on the back of the first team Programmes. Both are registered with UEFA and are eligible to play champions league football. Winning back to back FA youth cups is a notable event. Playing for your country at any level is a notable event.TammyDog 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always thought it was acceptable to have articles for players in squads where the rest of the squad has an article and meet notability. I can't find the page with this guideline on but I'm sure someone can clarify whether this is a valid reason to keep these articles. Dave101→talk 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Yves Makabu-Makalambay. His transfer to Hibs is even on page 2 in the Belgian sports journal Sportwereld. Karma-AH 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all as they are on the squads of teams where almost all have articles per "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles". Dave101→talk 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although the player doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements, he's likely to make his professional debut shortly. U-21 international, who made the CL squad, notable ebough for me. Ban Ray 10:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lindfield & Darby, for the reasons suggested by TammyDog; winning back-to-back F.A. Youth Cups constitutes a notable event. Univalonso 13:57, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pearce

non-notable, not politician, created by relative for promotion Daverotherham 12:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete guy on a small town's roads committee. What's next, dog catchers? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Speedy Delete if eligible. I seriously doubt being a minor small-town official is enough to make you encyclopedic. --Wingsandsword 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I'm pretty sure the wording "failed leap to national government in Jersey" means he did not join the States of Jersey, i.e. the legislature of the dependency, which would conceivably pass WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:53, 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 close. The nominators was not actually proposing a deletion, but rather a merge. He or she can now propose a merger following the guidelines at WP:MERGE youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taint (slang)

Why do we have two articles on the same anatomical feature? Merge to perineum. Powers ^T 12:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as per nom, consider the merge of this article into perineum. Consider adding a section on the word or just redirecting to perineum. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taint for the previous AfD on the article. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:55, 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. Sr 13 05:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McDonald (politician)

Delete, unreferenced stub article on non-notable local councillor in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. Fails WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO for notability. The article is only a sentence and contains no interesting/pertinent information. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Was losing candidate in 2 General elections for Labour party [10] but still fails WP:BIO. Davewild 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Representing a not big enough area.--JForget 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:55, 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. — Ocatecir ^T 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Quentin Jones

I propose to delete this article since Wikipedia is not a memorial. The subject is known only in the context of the crime he committed. However, that crime should not make the people involved notable (neither the victim nor the criminal). The crime or the legal procedure itself might in principle be notable, but there's no hint to that effect here. See also WP:BLP1E. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Definately considered what Wikipedia is NOT. Will add prod template as should be speedy. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Not speediable; speedy deletion has been contested before. --B. Wolterding 12:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dug up some sources, one of which is a CBS news report, and added some to the article. I also removed the prod, as I believe it can be kept now. Removed pieces that be considered memorial-like. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources still mention him only in the context of the crime. --B. Wolterding 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. I'm meerly providing what I could find. Have a nice day Bert. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the victim of a crime does not make one notable, and nor does being the perpetrator behind the crime. The murder was non-notable, there is no additional assertions of notability for this guy - so delete. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would guess that someone is trying to put up articles on everyone executed in the US in modern times. Otherwise, I can't see why this person is particularly notable. Brianyoumans 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even with sources a somewhat unremarkable crime. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's more to it. I went back and checked the actual sources on this one, because the dates did not seem right. The article can be expanded, and I'll do it before the time is up. There are multiple news stories over almost 20 years. He was on death row for 16 years after conviction; there was a quite possibly biased juror, resulting in several appeals, some successful. Nt saying that my rewrite will necessarily make it, but I think that a great many articles about people we judge non-notable might be notable if a fully written and researched article were written. NN at WP means NN based of superficial research and superficial writing. DGG 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while an argument can be made that all executed people are notable in some fashion (gosh, the state goes to great lenghts to kill them), I think that is the weaker view. All executed murderers (at least in the US) will get sufficient press at the time of the crime, at the time of trial, at sentence, at various stages of appeal, and at execution. No different here than anyone else in similar circumstances. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Run of the mill crime and punishment is newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Edison 19:23, 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. I considered merging with his father's article but the son is only mentioned. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Daschle

Article should be deleted because subject is not notable at all. He has done nothing of note to merit a biographical entry. His only link to notability is being the son of a former US Senator. Were he not, than he would never have merited an article. -- fdewaele.

Delete: Article lacks notability; and the article is uninteresting. I mean who cares; Whoppee! He's the son of a senator! Definitely needs to be deleted. Meldshal 42 11:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: His main notability is DGA Executive Director. Not sure if that's a notable position. Also, plenty of ghits too. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: DGA seems to be a significant organization. --Koppany 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DGA may be a significant organization, but "executive director" is not one of the leadership positions in this organization and is not a notable/significant position. No other assertions of notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Wikipedia a lot of insignificant perons are listed only because they belong to a prominent family or are self-styled stars. Eg. Antonina Czartoryska, was she notable, or her only notability is that she was the daughter of a prince? Nathan is son of Tom, and he at least did something worth to mention. --Koppany 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There's an established precedent and consensus that nobility = notability. Members of royal families seem to be granted automatic notability here, and proposals to limit that have been rejected. In any case, the "Daschle Family" is not a prominent family, it's a family with one prominent member - Tom. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I could cite American celebrities and socialites as well. Ex-boyfriends of Paris Hilton etc. --Koppany 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could, and then I would argue for their deletion as well. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koppany, we say that notability is not transitive. Being connected to someone notable does not make you notable. In the case of celebrity SOs, sometimes they achieve separate notability, but most often not. Members of royal families, at least in the line of succession or the immediate family of the monarch, are deemed by consensus to have automatic notability. In part this is due to their roles in a constitutional monarchy, i.e. as potential heads of state. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable person. DGA does not even provide a bio[11]. Could be notable in future but WP:CRYSTAL applies.--Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a whole lot of info in this article, so probably I can be fitted into the Tom Daschle article, so merge.22:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)JForget
Merge or redirect to Tom Daschle. The article says 3 things. 2 of them (DGA position and son of Tom) are already in Tom Daschle and the 3rd (his education) can be added. The only notable people in DGA appear to be the governors. http://www.democraticgovernors.org/about lists "Our Current Leadership" (8 governors). Nathan Daschle is not mentioned. He is at http://democraticgovernors.org/about/387/our-staff with the same information (name and title) as the receptionist and interns. PrimeHunter 01:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Daschle. Notability is not inherited, and he has not yet done anything deserving of an encyclopedia article. Edison 19:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The only notable information this article provides about him is that he is currently Executive Director of the Democratic Governors Association and he is the son of Tom Daschle. I think mentioning him in those articles is sufficient. --TommyBoy 23:51, 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. Although the argument for keeping it as a hoax was valid, this isn't currently supported by Wikipedia policy, at least not without independent evidence of notability. Walton^talk 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baldock Beer Disaster

Speedy Delete This 'event' did not happen and the article is a hoax. I have lived and worked in Baldock for 26 years and have never heard of it. Nor has Vivian Crellin, who is cited as an authority for it. He has not heard of the book that the article claims that he wrote. None of the local history books that I have consulted mention the 'disaster'. Wikipedia is not the place for this 'article'. Jack1956 15:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I don't believe that this event actually happened. However, would someone go through the trouble of making such a hoax? It doesn't seem to piece together. Meldshal 42 11:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It wasn't much trouble compared to User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Peninsula War. PrimeHunter 01:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete - per WP:HOAX.--Edtropolis 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC) This user has just been indefinitely blocked as a SPA DGG 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this wasnt a hoax, it still isn't notable. Resolute 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do have to admire a hoaxer who cites an article by 'A. Pedant' in the sources section. Delete -- BPMullins | Talk 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references are obviously fake.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a complete hoax article. Acalamari 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a STRONG WARNING that this is a hoax. Before you say that's nuts, think about it. This one stayed up long enough that the false information has polluted the Internet worldwide. It's scary to see how many websites have copied, word for word, the "beer disaster" article and cited it as history. It's an internet version of Mencken's Bathtub hoax. Rather than pretending that it never happened, Mencken went on to point out that it had been totally false; had he not done so, it would have continued to be repeated until Mencken was discredited as a liar. Unfortunately, if you simply delete the article, or blank it, the websites crediting this to Wikipedia will remain-- and assumed to be true. On the other hand, if someone looks for the "beer disaster" and finds that Wikipedia advises that the article was found to be untrue, the urban legend is quickly dispelled. Will Wikipedia be discredited? Not a bit. Wiki remains the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it's an acknowledgment that such freedom will not get in the way of the truth. I would argue that it's a responsibility, since Wikipedia was, because of it's philosophy of freedom, unintentionally responsible for the spread of an urban legend. The New York Times and the Washington Post have been victims of haxes (In the Land of the Khmer Rouge and Jimmy's World, respectively) and were all the more respected when they discovered and corrected the error. Mandsford 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A convincing argument, that basically comes down to Notable hoaxes are notable. This may be similar to the idea of keeping information about unaccredited institutions and similar organizations. our main purpose is not a consumer watchdog, nor is it to guarantee authenticity. But as a matter of fact, we 'are relied on to a considerable extent; this is why we are careful to remove articles on thoroughly NN individuals, to remove unreferenced BLP, to have articles that are readable and sourced, to be accurate, to maintain NPOV in politically charged situations,to have as broad coverage of notable subjects as possible--to live up to the goal of being a reliable information source. As a consequence of that, N hoaxes are N, and the history of how we were fooled for so long. DGG
Strong Delete I don't buy Mandsford's argument. If the article's about the hoax, it certainly doesn't discuss that aspect of this. Given WP's traffic and all the mirrors virtually anything that one puts in here that sneaks through for a while becomes a "notable" hoax. So if someone thinks that the Baldock Beer Disaster Hoax is Notable, like it has been covered by the RSes we expect to establish notability, write that article and let's just get rid of this cute bit of fiction pretending to be fact. Carlossuarez46 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please note that it was not discovered to be a hoax until May 21, when an alert reader identified as LordJuss began to question it. I wish that the hoax had been perpetrated elsewhere, and that we could write about it as if it was the Howard Hughes autobiography. But it's in our backyard. If it had been found right away, erasing it and pretending that it never existed would make sense. By no means am I trying to celebrate this bit of vandalism. However, this stayed up here from November '05 until now, and this "cute bit of fiction" has, unfortunately, been cited as Wikipedia fact by a lot of sources. I have taken DGG's suggestion and labelled this for the hoax that it is. Delete it anyway, I don't care, but I think that if it's wished away, there will be a lot of people who look for it, don't find it, and still believe that this is in Wikipedia. Frankly, this is where we've failed as editors. This shouldn't have stayed up for 18 hours, let alone 18 months, and there's nothing cute about it. Mandsford 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax with falsified sources, and no sources to indicate it's a notable hoax. Everything staying for a while in Wikipedia is mirrored at many unedited sites. The current [12] rewrite by Mandsford to describe the hoax is largely original research and partially false. For example, the article was questionned [13] on the talk page in 2005. General discussions about Wikipedia belong in articles about Wikipedia, for example Reliability of Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia. If a reliable source discussing this story can be found then it might be mentioned in another article. It would take a lot to get its own article. PrimeHunter 02:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We cannot keep this hoax just because its been on here for a long time or because other sites have mirrored it. There is the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia to be considered and allowing things like that to stay damages that integrity and reputation, leaving us open to further attacks of a similar nature. I say delete quickly before more harm is done. Alternatively, send it to WP:BJAODN Jack1956 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I've changed the title back to the original, "Baldock Beer Disaster", and removed the added verbage. I think you're correct that to change the title to BBD(Hoax) would encourage more of the same and cause further confusion. By the same token, I don't think that one can simply remove the article. Plenty of harm has been done already, and the approach of ignoring it actually adds to the harm. Most deleted articles are wiped clean, the Wikipedia search turns up empty, and there's no clue as to what was there. Based on the unusual circumstances of this case (19 months without anyone noticing the extremely "original research") and its citation, I think it's important to place a statement that (1) the article was a hoax and that (2)the remaining text has been deleted. As to integrity and reputation, I cite again the New York Times and the Washington Post, whose reputation for integrity did not suffer. I don't know if anyone remembers Janet Cooke, but if the Post had simply let her go without comment, its reputation would have been further tarnished. Mandsford 12:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be kept as a hoax only if outside secondary sources can establish its notability. Otherwise, delete. — goethean ॐ 12:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a rewrite and move to Baldock Beer Disaster hoax. It has been on wiki for almost two years which has spawned similar articles in other places. A delete would increase the possibility of the hoax being recreated based on hoaxes in other media. See this list for similar cases. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Google on "Baldock Beer Disaster" [14] says "about 353" results, but clicking through them stops after 31 results, where Google says "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 31 already displayed" (probably more mirrored content). Repeating the search including omitted results stops after 80 hits. I see Wikipedia, mirrors of Wikipedia with no editor, forums, blogs. I haven't found a single reliable source. A lot of false information is removed from Wikipedia every day. We should not keep the information except rare cases where multiple reliable sources have written about it. And if we don't have a reliable source saying it was a hoax, then it would violate our own policies to claim it's a hoax. Creating or keeping articles about non-notable hoaxes or other nonsense will just encourage more people to add them. PrimeHunter 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe Listify. I see the point of - after all this time and mirroring - not letting all traces disappear. So in any case the talk page with reference to this AfD should remain. On the other hand this is not a notable hoax in the sense that reliable external sources have written about it as if true or uncovered the hoax. Having been created in and mirrored from Wikipedia does not amount to notability and removing the main article is therefor part of the necessary correction. So maybe it can be included in a List of hoaxes that originated in Wikipedia.--Tikiwont 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:HOAX, hoaxes must be notable to be included in Wikipedia – for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years. This one does not appear notable, because (except for the mirror sites) there is no reliable evidence that anyone in the external world was fooled, except for a few mentions on small web sites. (See the findings of PrimeHunter above). As insurance against recreating this particular hoax, I suggest that the name be salted. The AfD will obviously stay around as a reminder of the problem. There is also a helpful list in user space at User:Shii/Hoaxes to which this article could be added. EdJohnston 15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent rewrite but still needs another source or two as proving it an hoax, if possible. Somehow it has escaped notice that Wikipedia is important. DGG 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can prove it is a hoax as I know Vivian Crellin and I have asked him. He did not write the book cited [it doesn't exist] and he says the 'beer disaster' didn't happen and he is Baldock's leading historian. How else do you prove that something didn't happen? Delete Jack1956 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hoax by people with too much time on their hands. Edison 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final word I've added to the article that any persons who wish to be certain of its inauthenticity can read the New York Times online, which includes issues from 1900 to 1907, at www.nyt.ulib.org; there is mention of the loss of a British steamer off the coast of Australia in the March 15, 1904 issue. It was one hell of a hoax... its notability was in getting past the checks and balances of Wikipedia. I'll add that Wikipedia no longer permits unregistered users to create articles, which is what happened in this instance, by a person identified only by an IP address; it will be more difficult for it to happen again Mandsford 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A general way to prove non-existence (not prove 100%, but pretty near) is to cross-search: If you find other things about the town of equal & lesser significance, but not this event; & similar and lesser mining disasters, but not the one here, it is reasonably certain not to exist. DGG 20:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the article will mean people will find the old ones in the mirrors. We do have a certain responsibility to publicly compensate for our errors. DGG 19:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely our responsibilty is to maintain the integrity of WP, which people look to for genuine information. They will not look here if they cannot trust the honesty of that information. It is not our fault if others mirror our content. Jack1956 19:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly--the media which do not admit their disasters are not reliable and trustworthy. No sensible person could possibly think that WP has never contained misinformation and mistakes and deliberate hoaxes. We prove our general integrity by making our failures visible. It's wise to do so ourselves, before our enemies do. Which would you rather hear: "WP was so stupid as to fall for a hoax, and confirmed their stupidity by trying to conceal the evidence" or "Wikipedia was stupid enough to fall for a hoax, and wise enough to admit it."DGG 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Jack1956 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reasons to delete: (1) Fails WP:N, (2) No way to WP:ATT statements to any WP:RS for this, (3) WP:HOAX calls hoaxes vandalism, and vandalism is usually deleted, (4) Keeping this may encourage others to create hoaxes in WP, for if they are kept around long enough, they might be saved by the community to alert others. Reasons to keep: (1) Alerts people who have been misinformed that this was a hoax started at Wikipedia, (2) may look 'better' to media (although may look worse if seen as caving to hoaxters). Ante lan ^talk 20:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we need a speedy decision on this from someone, or it's just going to drag on. It seems that the majority are in favour of deleting. Jack1956 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many mirrors will later update their Wikipedia dump and delete the article if Wikipedia did. Many hoax articles survive some time without ever being mentioned in reliable sources. If people really want us to tell about it, then don't make individual articles repeating the full hoax text. You can suggest a new List of Wikipedia hoaxes or something like that and keep them together with title and short text for each (I'm not saying I support that idea). Each listed hoax title could redirect to the list. However, false claims in real articles get more attention and are a much bigger problem in my opinion. And I definitely don't think we should list non-notable false deleted claims. PrimeHunter 22:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although newspapers publish their errata, if we were to create a list of known Wikipedia hoaxes it might just encourage the hoaxers by giving them a form of immortality. It is less of a problem for us when we write about hoaxes that exist in the external world without a Wikipedia article being the original means of deception. EdJohnston 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN it That or nuke it. Enough said by the delete !votes already. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ffs. It's a hoax. Hoaxes don't get special treatment for existing a long time, and existing as a wikipedia article for X number of years doesn't make something notable, or else we'd have to undelete Elephant (wikipedia article). GassyGuy 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The now userified link is [15], I'll send it to Del Rev when we are a little more mature about such things--it had Colbert, Washington Post, and CBS news as sources. DGG 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding... They deleted an article about the Elephant controversy? Geez, the news report (on NPR) about this is what first led me to log on to Wikipedia. Before that, it was just another website and one I didn't think was very reliable. Since the Colbert publicity, I would add, the wikiarticles have climbed the charts on google, which lists the most viewed articles first. I agree with you that this site could use a little bit (recognized as an understatement)more maturity. One problem with the deletion process is that it takes a certain personality to want to seek out and destroy something in the first place. Not all nominators are humorless, intolerant or narrowly-focused but such traits are often present for a person on a mission. Another problem is that, since no AfD discussion (by definition) begins with "Keep", there are then a lot of followers (converts, if you will) who chime in, often citing chapter and verse of Wikiscripture. In many cases, there's a near unanimous agreement on things that never should have been... but the idea that deletions should be decided by counting votes is kind of silly. Let's vote on whether the world is flat or round... 7 to 5, it's flat. I'm sure if you left it up to 3rd graders, fractions would be deleted from the curriculum. Mandsford 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Lord! I cited that article because it was an obvious delete. The article itself fails Wikipedia's notability standard of HAVING NON-TRIVIAL COVERAGE IN MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES. The Colbert elephant thing was covered and is still on Wikipedia in a proper article about the Colbert Report, possibly elsewhere. This has no merge target because neither the article nor the incident meets Wikipedia's primary notability criterion of coverage by multiple non-trivial sources. Forget WP:Pokémon test and forget some sort of subjective and non-guideline/non-policy "need" to correct the info that's been mirrored - it fails all keep criteria. Why is this still even open? GassyGuy 09:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As is often said, AfD is not a vote. See for example WP:AFD and WP:VOTE. PrimeHunter 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move into the Wikipedia: namespace, or userfy to User:Shii for inclusion on User:Shii/Hoaxes. Clearly the article has no real sources, so it is not appropriate for the main namespace. However, it is useful for Wikipedians to reference cases of onwiki hoaxes. John Vandenberg 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd still stick with delete; this is like Henryk Batuta except a non-notable hoax - not written about in independent sources. Are we dealing with something rare though, here? A Wikipedia hoax that lasted even longer than the 'notable' hoax on the Polish Wikipedia?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. 29 ghits, all of which copy from this fake Wikipedia article. None are reliable sources. Probably unheard of outside the Internet.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:52, 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. Sr 13 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crannog development

Reads like an advertisment, cannot be anything but one. Ckatz^chat _spy 19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is meant to show a leader in an alternative way to enjoy the beauty of a natural place while still holding high values and proving it is possible to do it in an eco friendly way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudy-Impact (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is all an advertisement as well. Meldshal 42 11:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G11 - blatant spam and borderline patent nonsense. The opening paragraph:
Inspired by the same ideals as the Scottish New World explorers who settled in the area, Crannog could best be described as a new world land development. A new world where power is created, not coveted. A new world where ideas and inspiration flow freely. A new world where people live in harmony with each other and their surroundings.
What a load of . . . complete bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Disgustingly unencyclopedic tone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. If it wasn't already listed for AfD, I would have given it a speedy-delete spam tag. Canuckle 20:23, 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, as not notable --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Research and Security Organization

No sourcing or evidence of notability, only 7 ghits for "Genetic Research and Security Organization" -wikipedia, representing about 3 unique websites, indicates a lack of notability or likely reliable sources. Prod removed without relevant edit summary. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~This is considered to be a conspiracy theory. As most likely about the New World Order.~~ per nom.--Edtropolis 13:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to be a conspiracy theory, it seems to be a very minor element of a fictional universe. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Edtropolis has been blocked indefinitely as an SPA for AFD votes with nonsensical or inappropriate rationales. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--cj | talk 06:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 14:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources with real world context. Jay32183 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails verification and npov. VanTucky 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Jersey

Self-promotion, non-notability, unsourced Daverotherham 10:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and borderline advertising.--cj | talk 06:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am adding references now. DES ^(talk) 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addesd several links and references. Seems like a sufficiently notable group to me. DES ^(talk) 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Art Price list

List with a very unclear but extremely wide scope ("the fair market value of most artists today"), no obvious inclusion criteria, no explanation of what kind of art is included (paintings? sculptures? multiples? drawings?), ... It is a directory of auction results more than an encyclopedic article, and we already have the article List of most expensive paintings which covers the most obvious (and newsworthy) cases of art sales. The list, created June 5th, is already out of date (Francis Bacon is given with a max of 10 million, but last month one painting was sold for 52 million dollars[16]). Basically, an unmaintainable directory with an unclear definition. The other problems, like needing to be cleaned up and a removal of the WP:OWN issues, are not a reason for deletion. Fram 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT#DIR, this is practically a sales catalogue. In any case, something like the market value for any given artist is dynamic and inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting resource, but not encyclopedaic. Despite the various sources listed, I am also concerned that this might be a copyvio of some other site. Brianyoumans 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a touch reluctantly; accurate info of this sort has to paid for; like Brianyoumans I think there is a copyvio concern. The Francis Bacon error has been mentioned; to take the first item on the list, Hans von Aachen, to suggest that the maximum "fair market value" of a painting by him is $17,900 is just absurd - a good one would go for far more than that. Perhaps this is the current record because no major one has been auctioned for a length of time. Johnbod 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless someone capable takes it in hand. If this can't be done properly it shouldn't be done. I think i would be possible to do, there are not too many to maintain if one is devoted to it, the info is compilation not OR, the use of ranges deals with the variability, and how can this be copyvio? Information is not yet subject to copyright. Copyright violation is serious-- both a violation of our rules and a violation of the law, and accusations of it should not be made without some actual evidence.DGG 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation copyrights exist in UK, and I think in US law. Johnbod 03:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy someone else's compilation, but not if you make your own compilation of information available from various sources. Tyrenius 03:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, but this seems to use one main source. Johnbod 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy it or move it into project space (Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts?). This list has has WP:OWN issues, but Pgehr (talk · contribs) is new and the intentions are good. I doubt it is a clear case of copyvio, but to ensure that it isnt, each entry would need to be properly sourced. John Vandenberg 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems inappropriate and can become an ill advised precedent. Albeit well done and interesting, so far. It can get out of hand, quickly Modernist 03:02, 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.

DRV overturned the original AfD result unanimously in light of new information. Relisting is by editorial option, as usual. Xoloz 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was ~~delete~~. Sr 13 04:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darius J Pearce

Self-created(including editing by sockpuppets), self-promotional,non-notable when stripped of false claim to be politician Daverotherham 10:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While nominator should be pursuing abusive sock puppetry allegations via the appropriate channels instead of here, this BLP does appear to indeed have no reliable sources reporting on the subject of this article. Running for a minor office and losing without any substantial coverage of that election or of the BLP means this isn't notable, imho. Piperdown 12:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an uncompleted sockpuppetry report partly filed; however he has cut back activity since I dropped him a heavy hint in our private email correspondence, and one is required to show sockpuppetry in the past week, so I shall have to wait until he starts again before I finish it and nail himDaverotherham 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another road inspector! Out!!! Brianyoumans 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think road inspectors are notable to deserve their own article.--JForget 23:00, 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 speedy delete per A7. Sr 13 04:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illutia

No independent references (WP:V), no assertion of notability (WP:N). A search for reliable sources reveals the usual trivial directory sites. Marasmusine 10:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 10:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Speedy for failing to assert notability. On top of that, unverifiable and mostly game guide (WP:NOT#INFO) DarkSaber2k 10:44, 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. Please note that I spared Purple City Productions and Big Mike; they don't seem involved in this. —Xezbeth 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Sizzerb

The walled garden from the previous AfD has grown much more and became nicer, but the problems of WP:N and WP:V still stand. All the articles are sourced from http://sizzerb.com, MySpaceish, bloggish and forumish websites, and the "best" independent source seems to be the Serbian newspaper in Canada and Serbian newspaper in US. The articles are result of a huge promotional campaign, likely by the musician himself or a couple of dedicated friends. At the minimum, the album, record company and sub-pages need to go. If deleted (I'll admit that he likely has some notoriety, rather than notability), should probably require salting. Duja► 09:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this nomination are albums, the record company and associated musician Crood, all from the same source:

And the numerous media within Category:Sizzerb Inc. Duja► 09:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, "mixtapes" self-released or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not MySpace.--Edtropolis 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mixtapes themselves are borderline notabile. So one by an artist who himself is unnotabile definatly doesn't meat WP:NM. --Ted87 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, not a notable artist, and I don't think they even come close to meeting any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Lankiveil 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Meets WP:Music,
Has had a charted hit on ANY national music chart - Rane charted #19 in Serbia.
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. - featured in Allhiphop.com interview - biggest rap website on the internet and in XXL magazine - biggest rap magazine in the world.
Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network - CFBT-FM The Beat Radio - Canada

60.226.225.52 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all! Wow, I don't think I've come across anything as self-promotional as this, incredible. Nonnotable. Minor mixtape remixes. 99% of references from their own website, youtube, myspace, sheesh. Cricket02 05:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, tear down the wall. Darrenhusted 16:33, 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 speedy delete - unsourced, no assertion of notability (CSD A7 (bio)). WjBscribe 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Arom

Source are missing, notability is not established. Note: Author has been vandalizing in other articles several times [17], [18]. High on a tree 08:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per CSD#A7. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a speedy delete. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:06, 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.--cj | talk 06:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's A Special (U.S. series)

It does not exist Chris9086 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; no ghits, nothing on Now! website. Track list slightly similar to the upcoming Now 25, but definitely not the same. Hoax delete. LaughingVulcan 23:52, 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 Merge into Extreme Behavior and Hinder. Note that merge is a form of Keep and the redirect and history behind it will be retained. DES ^(talk) 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinder discography

It seems silly to have a discography for a band that's only released one album. And once the covers (which don't meet WP:NONFREE) are removed, there's not much there. ShadowHalo 07:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the single section into Extreme Behavior, and the rest into Hinder then Delete. Resolute 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the single section into Extreme Behavior, and the rest into Hinder then ~~Redirect to Hinder~~. Delete per above. On second thoughts, it's not worth keeping the redirect, the only links to this page are from the template. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above.--JForget 23:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Hinder.--Crocodileman 3:30, 2 July 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (Corpx, if you feel strongly about it, you have my permission to reopen the debate.) The basic issue, as many of you have advised, is that this discussion is not about one article - it's about hundreds of articles, basically everything in Category:Lists of hospitals. Really the only proper way to consider deletion would be to state the issues on the scale of the whole category. I don't think that was done, and I'm not willing to do it myself. I don't know which of these hospitals are notable, but by the nature of such things, some of them must be notable. Deciding which are and which aren't is outside the scope of AFD. Non-admin closure. Yechiel Man 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Nigeria

Wikipedia is not a directory Corpx 07:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you plan on deleting everything else in Category:Lists of hospitals. Actually keep even if you are planning that. There are lots of hospitals, many of which are notable and I don't see a problem with having a list of them, whether it's for Nigeria or anywhere else. Also, this article doesn't match the definition of directory put forth in WP:NOT in any way. Recury 14:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly with the proviso that non-notable hospitals be removed from such lists. —Psychonaut 15:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' (from nominator) - So, y'all dont think it falls under "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages."? I think the notable hospitals should have a page and be under the category "Hospitals in Nigeria", but I dont think there should be a page just to list them all. Corpx 16:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to the nominator)-- Then let's hope that you never get appendicitis while you're in Nigeria.... :) Mandsford 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories do not replace lists. —Psychonaut 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 100 similar lists to this one, if delete you might as well delete all the other ones including the United States lists, or to put in cats.JForget 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and this is one of the relatively few cases where i would keep items of borderline notability on the list--because it is difficult for us to assess notability. DGG 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid way of covering the Nigerian health service. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have poor coverage of Nigeria, the most populated State in Africa. This will help editors to add articles for the Hospitals. I have added the WikiProject Nigeria tag to the talk page and that might bring some interest. The agree with both the two comments above. --Bduke 07:42, 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. Sr 13 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Van Petten

Author with one self-published book (the publisher iUniverse describes itself as "Self Publishing Company"). Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (the "interview with Van Petten for the Los Angeles Times" just quotes her briefly as a random teenager about how "Friends are a big deal"). High on a tree 07:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BIO, and I'd be damn shocked if this wasn't a WP:COI case as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person involved had not been a subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Thus it fails WP:BIO. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. It's little surprise that the article seques into "Van Petten Seminars," or that it's the sole Wikipedia activity of the creator and editor, User:Updates. RGTraynor 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like she has big plans to be notable someday, and likely she'll succeed. At which point someone else will create a page about her. Capmango 22:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly not notable at this time.Bec-Thorn-Berry 08:24, 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. I play golf, and I've never heard of this term. Sr 13 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvbir

Unable to find anything to suggest this term actually exists, neither source in the article seems to mention Yuvbir at all, google search [19] reveals nothing relevant, prod removed Davewild 06:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, no evidence from secondary sources that the term is in use anywhere. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Impossible to verify, and using misleading citations is bordering on vandalism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a Dictionary article.--Edtropolis 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either some sort of neologism or a hoax. I can't find anything mentioning it. A Google search returns Yuvbir as a name - some kind of prank/attack page? I don't know. Hut 8.5 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable, assuming it's not a hoax. Acalamari 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete send it to urban dictionary. Capmango 22:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik 18:44, 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 Merge into Financial services. Note that thsi is a form of keep, and the history remains availabel. DES ^(talk) 06:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Financial services conglomerate

This spammy article is one of many created to promote the book that is cited as its sole reference; the title is a neologism that is a fork between Financial Services and Conglomerate. --Gavin Collins 09:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a neologism, regularly used in press, advertisements and online: see [20], [21], [22], [23], for examples. If the reference is spammy, delete it. The expression is in frequent use. The lack of references does not meet the criteria for deletion; the lack of existence of any anywhere is. The appropriate flag is stub and/or unreferenced.--Gregalton 12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: please see EU Financial Conglomerates Directive. I shouldn't think the distinction between financial conglomerate and financial services conglomerate is significant; and as an EU directive, clearly the notability and relevance should not be in question.--Gregalton 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect and Merge the little info there is to Conglomerate (company). Not much chance of expansion as far as I can see - not enough for a separate article. Clarityfiend 18:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Just in case we keep it, if the concept really is that notable we could substitute another book.DGG 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cúchullain ^t/c 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Financial services. Information just clears the line over a dicdef, and would seem a valuable addition after section "Intermediation or advisory services" as section "Conglomerates" to clarify multi-role companies. 216.201.119.71 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into financial services as above. Too little differentiation for a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 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. Sr 13 04:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filter Factory

AfDs for this article:

This article consists of instructions for using a outdated Photoshop plugin. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This article was nominated for deletion before, and the discussion resulted in no consensus; the article has not been substantially edited since the close of the last AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO--Ispy1981 06:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 07:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, unsourced, and hardly any encyclopedic content (only how-to). The "keep" arguments in the previous AfD amounted to WP:GHITS. --B. Wolterding 07:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 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 Merge merged content not already covered into Pippa Ross and left this article as redirect to same. Gnan garra 10:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Fletcher

As stated in article: "Throughout his time on the show, Christopher wasn't given very many storylines and only appeared periodically." - non-notable per WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources indicating real world significance. Jay32183 05:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home and Away. Sources establishing notability outside the show itself will be difficult to find. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pippa Ross. Provides more scope for giving details of one character who is intrinsically linked to Pippa, yet was a minor consideration to the whole series.Ga rr ie 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT. Minor characters are either treated in the main article or in a separate list of minor characters. Assize 12:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Home and Away or Pippa Ross; no incoming links (yet) and few web hits. Note that I have just now notified the Conquistador2k6 (talk · contribs) of this Afd. John Vandenberg 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per above, I guess. A pretty minor character, all things considered. Lankiveil 10:13, 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 delete. — Ocatecir ^T 16:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Model United Nations

Non-notable student organization under the Model United Nations umbrella. --Dynaflow babble 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete. If a source is found that supports the claim that it's "the largest university-level Model United Nations conference in the northwestern United States" I may review my decision.--ZayZayEM 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think. There are over 400 Model UN conferences, I don't think any of them have a wikipedia page. Might be okay to list them on the main Model UN page, but doubtful there is much use in having a page for each of them. Unless I am wrong -- if there are a bunch of conferences with pages, then maybe they are notable in their own right. Capmango 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the parent article as it is not nn but info can be integrated with Model United Nations.--JForget 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought it might just pass, but suggested it be brought it here to see what others think. DGG 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two examples of conferences with their own wikipedia pages are NMUN and THIMUN. There are many others as well; these are just a couple of examples. Each conference is notable in its own right, as there are a lot of differences between them and a line on a "list of" type page won't really help distinguish them. 71.193.255.114 22:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because other Model UNs have an article doesn't mean that this one deserves one. It has to meet the guidelines for notability, which this group doesn't. And if those model UNs don't meet the notability requirements, those too will eventually be nominated for deletion. But I digress; unless you have reliable sources that show that this Model UN is notable, you might have a better chance of keeping this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I wasn't justifying it on that grounds, I was responding to the claim by Capmango that the others don't exist on wikipedia. I also don't think that it's necessarily relevant, but that's a separate issue. Regarding notability, there is one source listed already, and I found another one the other day that I have to find again and put up there. 71.193.255.114 00:41, 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 Deleteapparent WP:COI not addressed, WP:RS concerns not addressed, hence notability not established. Gnan garra 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TradingPlaces

Doesn't appear to present reliable sources to meet notability standards for web content. The article was also created by Tradingplaces (talk · contribs), suggesting a conflict of interest. Google search did not turn up sources. Wafulz 03:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a list of online links which make reference to TradingPlaces

Making references to the subject and writing about the subject are two different things. We need some sort of publishings that are independent, of a non-trivial length, and are primarily about TradingPlaces.--Wafulz 11:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepneed some sort of publishings that are independent, of a non-trivial length, and are primarily about TradingPlaces - these things should have been discussed in the talk section of an article which is being actively edited rather than being bought to AfD. I see this software as notable for it's widespread use in Australian education sector. Ga rr ie 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to prove that there are sources is to provide sources. We don't define notability based on an arbitrary definition of "widespread" use.--Wafulz 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that the article fails WP:NOTE. I couldn't find even a newspaper article on the software. Articles needs reliable secondary sources to be kept. Assize 11:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This clearly isn't notable.--cj | talk 05:50, 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. Sr 13 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzy LiveCD

Notability to come (though might be dead). Chealer 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Svetovid 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, dammit, keep I have no idea what this software does, but I trust others do; and, like much Wikipedia software entries, links to one of the those peachy wonderful comparison lists. For the love of Benji, stop murdering these things.--Mike18xx 06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how popular this distro is. I found a reference to it on a search engine where the link referenced is broken, and I came to Wikipedia to 'find' Frenzy. And here I found it. A LiveCD distribution is a big undertaking; there aren't that many out there and especially for FreeBSD. I suggest giving the matter a little time. If the project vanishes, propose this article for deletion in a year or two. If it doesn't go away, leave the article in place. Marc W. Abel 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent non-trivial sources have been presented to demonstrate notability or verification.--Wafulz 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Made the blog rounds in 2005, nothing major then or since. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be an advert.--Edtropolis 17:41, 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. Sr 13 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of major supercouples and other supercouples

Unsourced original research. Prod removed. --Onorem Dil 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I didn't really remove the prod - I reverted back about 10 edits and then put the prod back which was inserted in the middle of the reverted edits. Kevin 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly obvious listcruft, obvious OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft, per Hammer. Kevin 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without this article, how will I know if my couple is a supercouple? Capmango 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Already a list at Supercouple#Soap_opera_supercouples Sancho 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. provides more info than Category:Supercouples (Organising them by country) - list mentioned by Sancho can be removed/redirected/merged to this seperate list page.--ZayZayEM 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and rename to just List of supercouples--ZayZayEM 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: This doesn't have to be OR. The list at Supercouple#Soap_opera_supercouples has a reference for each couple listed there being referred to as a supercouple. I think it would be easy to find references for these. Sancho 06:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sources for the half-dozen or so I checked are not reliable. They include the home page for a speakers' bureau, fansites and pages published by the networks. Even with reliable sources that happen to use the word "supercouple," there's no objective standard as to what constitutes a "supercouple." Otto4711 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subjective "supercouple" and redundancy to list in the supercouples article. Doczilla 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely no objective inclusion criteria here, no attempt to define "supercouple", no attempt to define a "major supercouple", rife with OR. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else - and it doesn't even explain what a "supercouple" is.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. ♠TomasBat 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- and then start deleting all those blue-linked articles that have been created by someone identifying each "supercouple" (soaper couple?), beginning with the article "Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt". Okay, "Wikipedia is not TV Guide" (writing this with a straight face).... and even if it is, this is a little too cute. Stop with Luke and Laura. Mandsford 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per, um, everyone. Otto4711 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is several steps too far. What's a supercouple? a major supercouple? and do we ever want an article entitled "List of major things and other things"? Carlossuarez46 05:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom., and all.--JayJasper 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mandsford, Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt are a valid supercouple within the main Supercouple article, which has a valid link un-related to a fansite or the network which they are from, but if Wikipedia doesn't consider a speakers' bureau reliable in citing a soap opera supercouple, I'll replace its link. Otto4711, as for half of the soap opera supercouples in the main supercouple article not having reliable sources, I consider Soap Opera Central as reliable as they come, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas even includes it within their standards, but, yes, the other half of the supercouples within the main supercouple article have reliable sources. Not exactly fansites, at least not in the definition of a fansite specifically for a couple. I also don't feel that what a soap opera supercouple is is subjective. A couple is either cited as a supercouple or a potential supercouple by the soap opera media...or outside of the soap opera media...or not. I will try to provide reliable sources for the few soap opera supercouples on the main supercouple list within the supercouple article that don't have them.

As for this article, I've been feeling for a while now that this article should be deleted. New editors are coming to this article to add couples to lists, that are NOT even supercouples, as a way to get around the main supercouple article in which will NOT tolerate couples being listed on its main supercouple list that are not cited as supercouples by valid sources. Flyer22 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if they are superdoupercouples. Maybe I just don't get this one. -MrFizyx 18:21, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trials of Ascension

aborted MMORPG (i.e. never released[24]) no reliable sources asserting notability, just a fansite, developer forums and a whole lot of promotional feature listing, news updates and favourable comparisons to other games ZayZayEM 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This thing has been in production for 5 years and there's no assertion that it'll see the light of day.--Ispy1981 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish (computer game)

Another aborted MMORPG... sorry... UMMORPG (It's Ultra)... same deal as Trials of Ascension, promotional article for a game that thinks its all that, but simply didn't make it. Not notable. ZayZayEM 05:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Funding was cut. The latest developer journal was in early 2006. Non-notable, not likely to gain notability.--Ispy1981 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm The game is definitely not notable. The story of how the game came to not be is interesting. I like the article. But it's probably not right for an encyclopaedia. So I guess I gotta go with delete. Capmango 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search reveals plenty of reliable sources attesting to the game's notability. The article needs cleaning up, but poor article quality is not a valid reason for deletion.Evouga 09:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being mentioned on the internet does not attest to notability. Notability is about whether anyone will really care to know about this thing's existence in the future. --ZayZayEM 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought notability was receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? I don't see any policy instructing us to bias for or against any particular medium. Evouga 11:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the game actually comes to fruition at any point it may become notable. At the moment, the game doesn't exist, the article doesn't have any proper secondary sources and a search of the net doesn't uncover many WP:RS either. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:21, 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 keep. Sr 13 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Dale (author)

This article was written by David Dale himself and as such cannot be unbiased. Foobaz·o< 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:COI and copyvio, copying text from publisher Allen & Unwin. -- Rob C (Alarob) 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but i nominated the article for speedy deletion already, and was told by adminstrator Anetode to AfD it instead. Foobaz·o< 04:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as (poor & puffy) WP:AUTObiography--ZayZayEM 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there seem to be few independent sources corroborating notability. I don't see how it's speedy-eligible, myself. WP:AUTO is not even a valid deletion argument, let alone part of WP:CSD. I don't find the supposed copyvio source, either (the text Alarub seems to refer to is merely dressing for a link to a capsule bio shorter than our own). --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned up the article. A google search can show that he does contribute to the Sydney Morning Herald [25], and his published works are enough to push him to notability. Sources do need to be added. Recurring dreams 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the excellent cleanup job. Foobaz·o< 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - wikihistory shows that people have previously created their own BLP's and those BLP's have been upheld if notable and sourced. Just fyi and not endorsing that practice. Piperdown 12:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source as per recurring dreams. Notable Australian journalist and writer. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well published author, widely distrubuted newspaper columns, presents at writers workshops, sits on judging panels for awards. I think he meets criteria. Ga rr ie 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COI problems seem to have been fixed. Subject is notable per GarrieIrons. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have the copyvio complaints been resolved? MrZaius^talk 09:21, 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 delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel_Scheaf

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Laurel Scheaf

not notable FreedomByDesign 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines. Capmango 04:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Why did someone go to such an extent to reference this?--ZayZayEM 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Sm1969 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a vague attack page, probably by someone who wants to document est/Landmark as much as Scientology is. No real notability asserted. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notalbe. Ebay3 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability guidelines. Too bad we can't also cascade deletion outward to some of the people and companies mentioned in the article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We should not, because Werner Erhard, est, and Landmark Education are all demonstrably notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also because there's a difference between WP:NOTE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Charlene 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not clear that any person or entity named in this article is notable. I think it'd be worthwhile considering them for deletion also. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If "Laurel Scheaf was president of est., when Werner Erhard incorporated Est and opened his first office" she might be notable. The major figures in this movement are Notable, like it or not. DGG 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: oh, I don't have any dislike of any of these figures or these movements, and I wasn't referring to Erhard or the Landmark Education articles, I just thought that the other "Course Designers" such as Brian Regnier (already tagged for notability by someone else) or even president Mick Leavitt might be candidates for deletion, and that most of the Red Links throughout these articles should be removed because articles on minor figures (such as attorneys of other minor figures) should not be created. I would think that all the {{fact}} tags applied to unlikely to be challenged or fabricated sentences in the articles are bigger evidence of IDONTLIKEIT than contesting the notability of other figures. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as has been noted above. Alex Jackl 05:00, 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 still no consensus, particularly regarding its notability. IronGargoyle 20:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free The Hops

AfDs for this article:

This article is about a two-year-old lobbying group seeking to change beer laws in a single state. Note that its peer groups in other states, mentioned in the article, are not in Wikipedia; neither are several more notable Alabama lobbies. WP:CORP, possible WP:COI as creator has same name as Free the Hops spokesman (news video). Last AfD drew only three editors, including the creator. Rob C (Alarob) 04:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As expressed when I lost the first nomination, this is a non-notable lobby group. If they manage to get this bill passed, and it's an historic bill, then we should certainly include them. However, until then they in no way meet the notability guidelines. Once again, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGMbill.org for more discussion on lobby and special interest groups. I would suggest that a brief mention of the group at an article related to beer, or laws on alcohol consumption would be sufficient. --Walter Görlitz 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article appears to have multiple independent references from reliable sources, so I think notability has been established. --Eastmain 05:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Most of the Google hits are more in the way of forum posts or promotional material. There's been a little bit of coverage by al.com (Disclosure alert: I work for the company which owns that site and one of the newspapers which supplies its content) but otherwise, it's very little. They group simply doesn't quite clear the bar of notability, at least not yet. Realkyhick 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete--ZayZayEM 05:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Of the three references two (B&W and one of the Huntsville Times) are about the organization. The Daily Show segment is not cited but does list airdate - I don't believe the Daily Show contributes to notability in the way that CNN or network news does, but I'm not willing to argue the point. So it's two local sources. Seems to depend on how one feels about "multiple." Scope isn't national, and any group can lobby for a bill - a bill that passes is certainly more notable. But still, it seems to just squeak by IMVHO. LaughingVulcan 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does this suggest we need articles on the Georgia and North Carolina beer lobbies? -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: If there are independent and reliably sourced information about them, and the article is written in neutral point of view, yes. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There might even be room for statewide anti-beer lobbies, if such exist. Or better still, a single unified article about legislative lobbying related to the beer industry on the national and statewide levels. Are you suggesting that efforts related to lobbying about beer on a statewide level are not notable? I'd then refer you to the article Prohibition. LaughingVulcan 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no dog in this fight, and was just trying to advance the discussion. I think your suggestion of a more comprehensive article about state lobbying efforts about beer (or alcoholic beverages) is a good one. -- Rob C (Alarob) 23:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps merge. Wikipedia is not paper, and there does seem to be some notability established. I think the article could be merged into one with a larger scope, such as one that includes the other two mentioned organizations, or one about (anti-) alcohol law movements. Aleta 17:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The information here, to the extent that it is neutral and verifiable, is valuable to the encyclopedia project and should be kept, whether or not it is in the context of an independent article I would leave up to the editors. --Dystopos 16:44, 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 keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS-06 Zaku II

The article is about a fictional object but includes no sources detailing real world significance. It's basically an overly complicated plot summary and non-free content gallery. Jay32183 03:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per failure of WP:A. Very "in universe" and lacking in independent sources. Edison 03:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and strong keep. I have strong, conflicting feelings about this article. On one hand, it's the freaking ZAKU. It's the definitive antagonist mecha of the definitive mecha series. It's not as though it's some minor variant or one-off seen in a spin-off series; there has to be encyclopedia article potential in this subject.
Then again, this article is not it. There is nothing useful in this article that could be used for an encyclopedia article; this is an insanely detailed, in-universe fanpage, containing no real-world content but lots of in-universe content written as real-world content. Plus, it's laden with badly sourced (often fan-made) non-free images, to boot.
If the article doesn't change, then I think it should probably be deleted, albeit without prejudice against a properly written, properly sourced article. (I'd just rwrite it myself if I could read Japanese.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep The article has significance being a definitive "cannon fodder" Mecha in the real robot Universe The Zaku has been featured even out of the gundam universe The Article needs clean up not deletion.Gundam x105 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* I'm agree with A Man In Bl♟ck. This is THE ZAKU and it's definity notable. Irony, current quality of article is incredible low for this subject and nobody seem to instrest in make it worth keeping lately. At current state of article, I must regretfully say DELETE. I hope someone would come and improve it quickly so I can change my comment to strong keep, really. L-Zwei 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Now it got real-world-impact information, complete with reference. Strong Keep (still need to clean up). L-Zwei 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is weak you know. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above arguments. This is definitely a tough one. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it cannot be improved from its current state, there is no real way to cover it. Though, as it seems that there may be a possible way to improve it, it should be placed into a sandbox for a little while, so people can look for real information. If that doesn't happen eventually, it can just be removed. TTN 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this version is pretty bad, so someone should just start from scratch. TTN 18:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere... and cleanup/reduce 132.205.44.134 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: WP:IDONTKNOWIT this also apples to the nom and help with the resion to keep and let the project work on this if you read the talk page we are dissusing what needs to be removed and compressed

WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I have watched Gundam anime. I said there aren't any sources detailing the real world information. If you can add them, then do it. If you can't, then we need to delete it. Jay32183 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for clean-up-- the subject definitely has real world significance (as it has appeared in many places other than Gundam series), and is nearly as iconic as the Gundam itself. Jtrainor 06:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without sources, any claim that there is real world significance is meaningless. Find the sources before saying "keep". Jay32183 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have no idea what these say, but here are two google news archive results. John Vandenberg 01:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC), and a less specific search pulls up more results. John Vandenberg 02:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to be able to use the sources. A google search alone doesn't mean anything. Jay32183 02:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most well known parts of the Gundam franchise. Article may need work and sourcing may take a while since this of Japanese origin, but that's not grounds for deletion. Edward321 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Zaku 2 was in every uc production of the gundam franchise up to F91 in a cameo it's prevalence even the series Sargent frog includes zaku references. Even the series jinki extend makes references to gundam one of the models shown in a background shot is a Zaku II like model. the Zaku II also appeared in a tv ad in the uk. http://youtube.com/watch?v=jcogBFPPF7w Gundam x105 04:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sourcing is all that matters here. No sources, no article. Jay32183 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, no sources, tag the article as needing them, not just toss it into the wood chipper. Jtrainor 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tags are not magical. You never tag an article and hope stuff happens. If you want to save the article, you need to do some work. Get the sources or every argument to keep is meaningless. Jay32183 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Tags are not magical, but it helps if you tag it for a few days asking for references before you propose the article for deletion. It is just a much better way in dealing with things and is a lot more convincing than NOT ask for reference and claims it does not have reference thus it should be deleted. MythSearcher^talk 07:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The RX-78-2 and the Zaku II are the two Gundam mecha entries which have the most relevance to Wikipedia. Both are cultural icons, both played a strong part in the development of the mecha genre, both are usually what Bandai kicks any new line of merchandise off with. If the article is lacking sources, then a focus should be put on a clean up. I definetly agree that proposing this for deletion is going too far.--HellCat86 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, Delete the overwhelming in-universe stuff, Add references. I will get back to it tonight. MythSearcher^talk 07:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Listing an unsourced article for deletion is never going too far, since you aren't supposed to start an article without sources to begin with. Jay32183 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We need a split i say we keep the animated Zaku II models under the article and move the content relating to the MSV zaku models to the MSV article the Manga verients either can stay or be moved to the article on the manga they are from. i removed the two zabi customs since they are just repaints of normal f-types except of story changes like dozal having a larger cockpit Garmas never appers beyond vg units and models with the only upgrade being the two vulcan guns it is not confermed that he had his own model beyond the s tacked on to it's code. we have as a source mark simmons book and a back library of old entertainment bibles but with the zaku and other anime articles sources are hard to get in English.Gundam x105 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The insistence on deleting the article instead of improving it in any way is making it difficult for me to assume good faith by the nom, especially given his arguing with every single person who's posted a keep vote. If he truely believes that this article fails current standards, why is he being so vehement? Why doesn't he just let the deletion nom stand on it's own merits? Jtrainor 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, it is a discussion. Pointing out that you are wrong is part of it. Improvement is impossible, so there's no point in suggesting. The only way you are going to save the article is by adding sources. You probably won't find any though. The article violates multiple policies, so not assuming good faith on deletion is an idication that you do not understand policy or the afd process. Jay32183 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment here is totally not assuming good faith, you just said You probably won't find any though. Look at the article intro, now. I just added in two sources, will add more tomorrow(and delete most of the variation info that is too in-universe), but something that got enough attention to have its own stamps are definitely notable enough. MythSearcher^talk 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those aren't reliable sources, they're pictures. The description of the stamp does not say "Zaku" and the artwork doesn't match. Please read WP:WAF and WP:RS. It's not going to be a couple sentences in the lead that saves this. You'll need comments from reliable critics, no fan sites and more than just pop culture references. I'm sure you'll find plenty of sources on Gundam, but not on the MS-06 Zaku II. Jay32183 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously you did not take a close look, on the first source, Zaku is seen as the background, with an even bigger image than the foreground gundam. On the second source, the Char's Zaku takes a dominant role on a whole stamp, and the comment down there specifically states Zaku. Also, you never see a Gundam specific model competition, yet there are at least 2 Zaku specific competition in Japan, on is held by Hobby Japan Inc. so called OreZaku(My Zaku) another is held by the Dengeki Company, called Zaku Festival where you can only use Zaku to enter, unlike other Gunpla competition where you can use any type of Gundam series plastic model to enter the competition. Also given, they have MG Zaku 2.0 before a MG Gundam 2.0. (Don't tell me there's a MG Gundam OYW ver. there's also a MG Zaku OYW ver. released) the Zaku is more popular in the modeling community in Japan. MythSearcher^talk 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excellent! I don't suppose you could add these claims, with sources, to the article, so it can be something other than a page from CIA Worldbook Principality of Zeon? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When I said "Gundam" I was talking about the franchise, not the mecha. Everything you just said there is trivia, trivia, trivia. You need reliable critics commenting on things. Popularity is meaningless. You need multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. You still haven't shown that. Jay32183 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have about the same amount of sourcing that any fictional article has but it is relvent due to the fact it is the second most popular mecha related to the gundam Franchise. it is the " tie fighter " of this series the gundam franchise had a english lange following in the Asian part English speaking world. we have badly sources fictional articles in star wars and star trek objects that are just as bad i find it diffulct to beleve this nom has any merit the zaku survived before due to the fact it was relvent we did get non bandai sources added two asian hobby mags and an stamp series by japan post. we have evidence to keep this articleGundam x105 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's lots of other stuff that needs to be deleted, which is not a reason to keep. The stamps are not a reliable source. Those are pictures of stamps, there's no content. You cannot source an article without content. There is no way a "keep" can be justified after reading WP:WAF. Jay32183 04:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUBBISH & WP:JUSTAPOLICY seem to be the noms cards both say this is a weak nom.Gundam x105 05:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that there are no reliable secondary sources is not the same as "delete-wp:nor". There are no reliable secondary sources. Until you get one, "keep" is not a possibility. You're using WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOHARM, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Get some sources or stop wasting your time. Jay32183 05:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is not a reliable secondary source? Modeling magazines that dates back to before the first Gundam anime aired? Yes, you can keep ignoring the sources presented, yet they are both reliable and verifiable. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. the magazines editors check the modeller's comments before it gets published, they are not a sub-company of Bandai(copyright owner) thus they are a secondary source. Interviews by reporters of the designers and creators are primary sources, but those are only to make generalizations or original interpretive in the article for now, and thus is all follows WP:RS and WP:NOR. Face it, Modeling magazines and anime magazines like Dengeki Hobby, Hobby Japan, Newtype magazine, Animec are authoritative, reliable and appropriate secondary sources for these kind of topics. MythSearcher^talk 08:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stamps issued by a national body are a real sign of notability. In 1000 years, people will ask about the image on the stamp. John Vandenberg 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are zero reliable secondary sources. A picture of a stamp is not a source. Jay32183 05:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm! Im not sure whether it would be classed as secondary, but this is definitely a reliable and independent source, being produced by Japan Philatelic Society. Even this is reliable, if not independent. wrt to postage stamps, we need to ask ourselves what is the fact that is being communicated, and what verification would be required. The stamps existance and image are what is being used in the article, and we have very reliable sources; I think that whether they are "secondary" or not is of questionable importance. John Vandenberg 05:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is, the problem here is that the nom denies him/herself being wrong. The post office site is a perfect source of a stamp is a real one, and having featured itself on a stamp is definitely notable enough topic to be listed in wikipedia. BTW, I have done some work on the article. MythSearcher^talk 08:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after seeing how the article developed over the last days and the fact that it is an important suit in the UC it should stay. Diabound 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep- the RX-whatever and this gundam are the only two I can see as having bullet-proof notability. It does need to be cleaned up. David Fuchs 17:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The main problem with the article, in my opinion, is that there is/was far too much focus on the variants created after the original series, and not enough on the significance of the original Zaku design to pop culture, or its significance to the plot, even. I noticed that L-Zwei and others have been working on adding something to rectify this, so it's a start. If most of the non-notable variants were removed and that particular section was trimmed down by a significant margin, the article wouldn't be such a mess. Maikeru 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely agree with Maikeru. Skolympus 16:36, 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 wasSpeedy close redirect to Wiktionary using {{wi}}. Pascal.Tesson 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snarly

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Captain panda 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - Added speedy tag Corpx 03:48, 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. Sr 13 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Fitzsimon

A search for references for this article found none [26]. I leave it to individual editors to decide what that means. There are a couple of non-mirror hits that look like they could be references or copyvio's but on closer look they are all published after the Dec 2005 version of this article and they appear to be sourced from wikipedia. If the claims of this article were verfiable and if there were good references the article would clearly be notable (an alleged victim of spontaneous human combustion). However that does not appear to be the case. Jeepday (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If something like this really happened, it had to have been accounted by some major media outlet. I think this is nonsense/hoax due to lack of documentation elsewhere. I hate to stereotype, but the creator's post history being full of hoaxes/conspiracies doesnt bode well to the legitimacy of the article Corpx 03:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/nonsense, and as failing WP:A due to complete lack of even one newspaper story at the time of the incident. People have burned to death since they began using fire; fat and human tissue will burn if ignited. "Spontaneous" human combustion would require that there be no external source of ignition. Edison 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing remotely relevant found in Google Books (other than confirming the existence of the book allegedly covering the story) or Google News Archive. Hoax, fails WP:V, fails WP:N as notable hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax, from its lacquered hair to its toes. -- Rob C (Alarob) 04:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [27] gives two sources referring to a documentary "Inside Spontaneous Human Combustion", Monday 29 May at 10pm, Sky One. - this article was written 7 July 2005; the documentary was 2006, so it could have been a victim of a wikihoax I suppose.--ZayZayEM 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both postings are in May 2006, published after the Dec 2005 version of this article and they appear to be sourced from wikipedia. Sky One Explodes Myth of Spontaneous Human Combustion Written by Pål Johansen Monday, 29 May 2006 at maidennorway.com and BRUCE IN FLAMES!!! « Thread Started on May 26, 2006, 2:47pm » at pieceofourmind.proboards67.com Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentThis hoax on WP is probably not notable enough for keeping as a hoax. DGG 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax, I have never posted a hoax, but feel free to delete, since strangely there are no serious online news sources carrying this minor piece of paranormal provinical news from 1985 (I wonder why? <tardy irony flag>). I could go check with Cheshire fire authority, but when it gets to the stage of character assassination and guilt by association (yes, I mean you, Corpx, among others) then there's not much point carrying on. Garrick92 14:03, 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 delete. Sr 13 03:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toad's Tool 64

Rom Hacking Program. Internet Cruft. Newspaper98 03:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Looks like self-promotion. Google search came up with nothing relevant Corpx 03:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete promotional, notability unestablished--ZayZayEM 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, uh, I don't know how to properly edit this page and add my tidbit, but why delete this just because it's about a ROM hacking utility? Lunar Magic has its own section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Magic#Lunar_Magic), so I don't see what would be so bad about letting TT64 have its own article.

TS Death Angel 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & CommentActually Lunar Magic does NOT have it's own article, but a reference in Super Mario World. Wildthing61476 12:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn software, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author needs to take it to Data Crystal. Though it amuses me to download it to my computer, it fails criteria in WP:NOTE.--Edtropolis 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right, well, fair enough. After having read through the deletion policy I must agree with you. Perhaps someone can make a reference to it in the Super Mario 64 article. --TS Death Angel 06:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Super Mario 64--JForget 01:39, 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. Sr 13 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chien-Sung Waak

Obvious hoax. Le sigh. Coren 03:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So hoaxy it borders on nonsense, which is why I originally db'd it. Delete. FiggyBee 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Infringes WP:HOAX as well as several examples of what Wikipedia is not. NSR77 ^T_C 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense Corpx 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sure looks like a hoax to me. Capmango 05:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable even if real--ZayZayEM 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax? True? Who cares, even if every word as written is 100% fact, it wouldn't even come close to being notable or passing W:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense and a hoax. Acalamari 20:12, 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. Sr 13 03:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threquel 2007

WP:NOT#IINFO. Just pointless. Masaruemoto 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - micro-classification of information is not what Wikipedia is about (it's micro-classification because the term is non-notable - see currently ongoing AfD of Threquel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenrd (talk • contribs)
Delete - Does not comply with WP:NOT and could quite possibly infringe WP:HOAX. As well, it comes into notability suspicion, and is in no way encyclopedic. NSR77 ^T_C 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a list/directory Corpx 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unimaginative stupidity--ZayZayEM 05:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above and OR. Doczilla 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just another unsourced, unnecessary filled with original research. Acalamari 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Delete as useless Listcruft. SkierRMH 06:40, 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. Sr 13 03:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esmirelda

The article has claims to notability, but 100% of ghits return promotion, directory and self-published material. No media coverage. Not signed with a label, and their sole CD is self-published. Vanispamcruftizement. Coren 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disclaimer Either I'm blind or I'm going senile, but I've just noticed the claim to having won local music prizes. I still think this article is on the wrong side of WP:BAND, but this may influence others. Coren 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like spam/self promotion to me Corpx 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She'll still have MySpace. Capmango 05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--ZayZayEM 05:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is self promotion: the creator has the same name as the page. Also, I should add the subject isn't notable anyway. Acalamari 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: your main argument is no reason for deletion. Your second argument is valid. Capmango 23:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Music. Cricket02 05:53, 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 No consensus' with the article therefore being kept by default. DES ^(talk) 06:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Triangles

NN group. Triangles is a group that exists only in New York State, and only has 13 chapters, most of which are concentrated on Long Island. There are no third-party references available on the group. I think it should have been a non-controversial prod, but the prod was removed by a brand-new user who totally misunderstood how WP worked, hence the AfD. MSJapan 02:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see previous discussion on Talk:Organization of Triangles. For me, it's a weak keep; it's obviously not as big as some, but an organisation that has existed since 1927 - even if it's only in NY State, and the Nom hasn't heard of it - sounds like it may have some historical interest. FiggyBee 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and encourage creator to refer to printed sources, not just the Internet. If none can be found and original research is required, then non-notability is proved and we can revisit this. -- Rob C (Alarob) 04:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have heard of it (being involved in the larger parent organization in NY) and know a few people who are involved directly... I would love for it to be notable... but, unfortunately, I must admit that it is too small an organization to be considered notable under WP:ORG. It is very unlikely that any reliable third party sources exist for this youth group. Blueboar 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:28, 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 - {{db-nonsense}} is your friend --BigDT 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port royale 2 walkthrough

Wikipedia is not a place for walkthroughs. A textbook case of WP:NOT Wingsandsword 02:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. MSJapan 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could probably have been speedied. FiggyBee 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the point that it could probably have been speedied. This process gives room for other views. --Stormbay 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not too late to speedy, is it? I added speedy tag. Corpx 03:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been told off for doing that before, but looks like it's gone, anyway. Oh well. :) FiggyBee 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and quite blatantly infringes various examples of what Wikipedia is not. NSR77 ^T_C 03:29, 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. Sr 13 03:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code2000

While I admit that it is a great font, it fails the notability guidelines in that there simply does not appear to be any secondary sources for us to get information from in order to write an article about it. Websites other than the creator's basically just give what scripts it supports (e.g. [28][29] Ptcamn 01:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one of the more notable fonts. Corpx 01:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that the effort was there. However, it does need some level of importance which seems to be lacking. --Stormbay 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--ZayZayEM 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I see no evidence of multiple, independent published sources. —Psychonaut 14:08, 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 redirect to Sequel#Threquel, just like Threequel (AfD discussion) was when it came up for discussion. Redirects are cheap, and prevent a continual cycle of editors creating duplicate articles at alternative titles and those articles then being sent through AFD. Uncle G 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threquel

(Tagged as AFD by anonymous user). Neologism. greenrd 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belongs in a dictionary, not encyclopedia! Corpx 01:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO. Article even starts; "Threquel is a neologism". I have just AFDed a related list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threquel 2007. Masaruemoto 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sequel#Threquel. Zagalejo 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Well, "threequel" seems to be the more common spelling. [30]. Forget the redirect. Zagalejo 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO I agree with Masaruemoto's reading of the article and guidelines. --Stormbay 03:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article and WP:NEO. Resolute 03:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT (re: not a dictionary). Doczilla 06:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:34, 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 nominated withdrew, keep Corpx 03:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yonah Shimmel's Knish Bakery

~~Reads like an advertisement for the restaurant. Zero sources to establish notability. Videmus Omnia 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn nom in light of rewrite/sourcing. Videmus Omnia 03:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awfully written advert. -- Ekjon Lok 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above - Advertisement Corpx 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing vote after reading the next two entries Corpx 03:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An article about a landmark Lower East Side eatery. The knishes are great and the sources provided from the New York Times go along way to establishing notability. The advert text has been completely rewritten to take advantage of the many available sources. Alansohn 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There's no question that the subject of this article is notable. It has been a subject of extensive news media publicity over the years. Unfortunately, before recent edits, this article did not do the subject justice by being an undisguised advertisement. However, as you can see, recent edits have made this article perfectly acceptable and then some. --Mantanmoreland 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has been established through reliable secondary sources. TerriersFan 03:29, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Direction

Who are this band? A google search turned up nothing, no records available to buy on Amazon, and the page was created by the similarly named User:Nodirection. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Google searches didnt have any "major" hits. Looks to be an small indie band. Corpx 02:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Band piece--ZayZayEM 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails to establish notability. Pfainuk 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote from WP:MUSIC; A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:. No Direction meets at a minumum the following:

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

"Twisted Love Song" topped the Gibraltar music charts for over 5 months

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.

Reported by Gibfocus.gi, a major Gibraltarian news provider The whole tour/gigs can be seen here; however the latter is the band's website. Note that the bands also played in Spain, a medium/large-sized country.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable

Twisted Love song was selected to be played on BBC China's focus on world music on November 2005.

According to the rules set out by WP:MUSIC, the band No Direction is factually notable. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 12:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since when is Gibraltar a nation? --B. Wolterding 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, given that the definition of 'nation' is a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own, it is perfectly relevant to Gibraltar. So yes, 'national' is the correct adjective. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of those websites were authored by the band in question. Not suitable to determine notability. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, not quite. The article by gibfocus.gi is independent to the band, that is to say, it was not authored by the band. Songplanet.com is a third party, wholly independent to the band, so therefore the article was not authored by the band. The band meet three criteria set out by WP:MUSIC (note that it only needs to meet at least one) so according to Wikipedia's policy it is notable. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article on gibfocus.gi is an entertainment listing that mentions the band's name; the Songplanet.com piece is in the first person and appears to be submitted by the band. A few gigs around Gibraltar do not a national tour make. I don't see any way that this can make WP:MUSIC at this point in time. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gibraltar is not a country in terms of establishing notability. You'd need to show me a chart hit in say Spain or the UK to change my mind. --John 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gibraltar not a country ? of course it is thats why it has an ISO country code an internet tld and a ITU International dialling code. --Gibnews 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The band has achieved notability and chart listings in Gibraltar. No doubt they will do foreign tours in the future. --Gibnews 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they pass WP:MUSIC in the future, the article can be recreated then. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --B. Wolterding 08:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In your opinion what is the justification for not passing WP:MUSIC? now Chris Buttigieg ^talk 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since one can hardly speak of a "tour" through Gibraltar (how many cities did they visit?), and the appropriate "national charts" would be those of the UK. --B. Wolterding 08:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gibraltar is not part of the UK. --Gibnews 17:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep They've entered the Gibraltar charts, which is WP:MUSIC met, however, the conflict of interest is troubling. Some cleanup is necessary.--Kylohk 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does the Gibraltar chart constitute a "national music chart"? Gibraltar is not a nation, so I don't think WP:MUSIC is met, as per B. Wolterding. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Gibraltar were not a nation then we need to rename national day, Miss Gibraltar will have a problem wearing national dress, the national sporting associations will need to resign from International organisations (UEFA excepted) we need to give up the national Internet tld, plus a lot of other things too numerous to list. --Gibnews 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is ridiculous to claim that Gibraltar, which has the population of a medium sized British town, should have far less stringent criteria for notability than British bands. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size of Gibraltar is entirely immaterial. Of course the Gibraltar music charts constitute a national music chart, treating Gibraltar otherwise on the grounds of 'being small' would be discriminatory. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Gibraltar is a British overseas territory, and this and its small size make its charts non-notable, in my opinion. No offence against Gibraltar, Gibraltarians or even this little-known band. I would say the same if it were Scotland here: it still does not pass the spirit of WP:MUSIC. --John 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But that is your opinion. You feel that they are non-notable because the charts are from Gibraltar which in turn is small. Strictly speaking there is no difference to the charts of Spain or France with that of those in Gibraltar. The fact that Gibraltar is smaller (to say the least) than most other 'nations' is not a justifiable reason as to why its charts should be discounted. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is my opinion, as I said, that the charts of the UK, Spain or France are more notable for Wikipedia's purposes than those of a British overseas territory like Gibraltar. Would you disagree, honestly? --John 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its arguable these days whether 'charts' mean anything at all as we live in a global economy where music is concerned and people no longer go and pay 3/9d for a single. But Wikipedia does not say that some people are more equal than others, so a national chart is a national chart, and this band are in the Gibraltar national charts. --Gibnews 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Nonnotable. I can't find a reliable source. gibfocus is a place for advertisement. songplanet is a blog site. The rest are self-promotional too. Cricket02 06:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what you mean by 'place for advertisment' Gibfocus is an established news publication, not a blog. --Gibnews 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, making it on the charts in Gibraltar meets WP:BAND. The people in Gibraltar are isolated; they are limited in what music they can see live, as they cant hop on train to go to another town in England in order to see a different band. Their music culture is comprised of what overseas bands visit (probably not many) and what local bands there are. This article is a vital part of an encyclopedic topic of "the music scene on Gibraltar". John Vandenberg 11:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With regard to live performances, WP:BAND says "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country". Even if you grant Gibraltar the status of a country (which it is not and will never be unless a series of very unlikely events occur), it is hardly a medium sized one, is it? Your argument basically says that WP should loosen the criteria for inclusion for places that are hard to get to. Should we have an article on Hamish McWhirter and his bagpipes because he's famous in the Outer Hebrides? How about Ilya Rastropovich and his performing monkey in Siberia? Ridiculous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above vote was made because the band topped the Gibraltarian charts, not because the band has gone on a tour. According to WP:BAND ..... A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 12:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A band does not need to meet all of the criteria listed; only one, and this band meets the requirement of having been on a national chart. If Hamish McWhirter made it to the top of the national chart, or Ilya Rastropovich was locally notable under the general notability requirement of two focus pieces, then it would be article to have an article on them. Is Cayman Islands allowed to have its own culture? What about Liechtenstein? Perhaps Nauru is too small to have its own culture? Trying to determine what countries charts are acceptable is a very slippery slope. If they have a chart, they have a national music scene, and we can keep an encyclopedic record of it. John Vandenberg 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm not finding a reference to prove they've even made the "national chart", Gibraltar or otherwise. I have no problem keeping an article that can back up their claims but the sources provided do not prove anything to me. Breaking them down:

ref #1 [31] This is a "press release", undoubtedly submtitted by the band as the exact same press release appears as ref #3 [32]
ref #2 is their own website
ref #4 is a trivial mention of a local concert appearance. [33]
Under external links:
[34] A bio of the band completely written in the first person, thereby written by the band.
[35] Another trivial mention of a local appearance.
[36] Trivial mention that the band recorded at a studio.
[37] This one I have no clue of the significance related to the band. Is this the so-called chart?

~~I still stand at Delete.~~ Cricket02 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just found the reference I was looking for. Panaorama is a Gibraltarian newspaper, here it states: The band has been gigging in Gibraltar and southern Spain since .... That means it qualitfies for criteria No 4: 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.4

It also states: .....with 3 songs hit the number one spot in the Gibraltar Live Music Charts.... - Qualifying for criteria No 2. It also states: ...... Track “Psychotic Narcotics” received enough consideration to reach the semi-final stage, whilst the “Twisted Love Song” reached the coveted Finals stage of the Indie / Rock Category. .... - Qualifying for criteria No 9. As you can see, it passes even more than what is required. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 14:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment ...if we accept that Gibraltar counts as a country for the purpose of the spirit of WP:MUSIC. I can't wait for a run of articles on great bands who've made a success in the charts of Liechtenstein! --John 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and I'm looking forward to all the church choirs who have had a national tour through Vatican City... --B. Wolterding 14:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'd support Leichtenstein chart toppers. Leichtenstein is its own independent country, not a territory.--ZayZayEM 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat.... That source is NOT reliable anyway. It is merely a claim in the band's self-written press release per my comments above (repeated here) *ref #1 http://www.gibraltarlivemusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=30&lang= This is a "press release", undoubtedly submtitted by the band as the exact same press release appears as ref #3 http://www.panorama.gi/localnews/headlines.php?action=view_article&article=80 Cricket02 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not counting Gibraltar as a country, we are counting it as the band's 'national' locality. And there is no reason as to why the article in the Panorama was written by the band themselves as you claim, it is not in the first person for a start. Excluding Gibraltar from WP:BANDS on the grounds of being small is discriminatory. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same content submitted to two sources only proves to me that it is self-written press release, in fact, the one at gilbraltarlivemusic.com clear states "Full Press Release", thereby would have been submitted by the band. These are all self-claims and notability is not yet established in my opinion. Cricket02 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had worked in a newspaper you might understand that journalists are essentially lazy and given a press release often publish it intact. However, they usually ensure its accurate as by republishing it they are giving it credibility. Panorama is a daily printed newspaper. You might also find that a story will be reproduced in hundreds of dailys because its been issued by an agency, like Reuters or AP. You would have no hesitation in using any of their stories as a source in wikipedia. Indeed theres another article where all there is to support it is reprinted press releases, because unlike 'No Direction' who are a real band, its all hot air. --Gibnews 19:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The band has had a few Number One hits in the Gibraltar National Charts. No matter how small Gibraltar is, this is a National Chart nonetheless and therefore the band at least meets criteria No 2 of WP:MUSIC. Gibmetal 77 ^talk 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would vote "Keep" if the band made Gilbraltar charts, but I have not seen proof of that yet other than self-claims by the band. gilbraltarlivemusic.com has a direct link to submit news and press releases. If someone can explain to me if/how the site's charts are reliable, I would change my vote. Cricket02 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong in that respect. The gibraltarlivemusic.com article was written by 'Alex Zapata' (as it states at the top). As far as I know Alex Zapata is not one of the band memebers and thence just a third party. This in turn demonstrates that it is not self-published material by the band. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Alex Zapata is a member of the website, although I am still unsure of the reliability of the source as far as official charts go for Gilbraltar. I will strike my delete and remain neutral. Cricket02 13:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Natioal Charts are published periodically in the Gibraltar Chronicle. Gibmetal 77 ^talk 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Gibraltar Chronicle is the second oldest daily newspaper in print in the world - guess that merits an article in Wikipedia itself ... --Gibnews 20:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to establish notability and fails WP:MUSIC.--Vintagekits 16:19, 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. Sr 13 03:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dundrine

Seems to be a non-notable road - either a village road, or perhaps a road passing through a village. Note: this article would probably be more appropriate on a site like WikiTravel greenrd 00:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should not go on this site. Oysterguitarist~Talk 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anything else, move to commons. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable road - Why should it go to commons? Corpx 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. WP:NOTE? Commons? NSR77 ^T_C 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously non-notable road. (Why commons?) Hut 8.5 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notablity estalbished for this road. All because the road is beautiful to drive down and there are friendly people in the area doesn't make the road notable. Acalamari 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable road (or street). (From what I can dig up on Google, I think it's a street in Castlewellan, rather than a road.) Probably is beautiful to drive down, but... FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 06:15, 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. Sr 13 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrakineses

Delete recreation, misspelled redirect to Geokinesis (see below). The redirect with the correct spelling already redirects to something else per previous AfD. Doczilla 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both . This stuff belongs at urbandictionary. Corpx 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL 02:13, 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. Sr 13 02:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geokinesis

Delete yet another of these power -kinesis articles we deleted previously, also per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 01:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dictionary definition. --Haemo 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "ability to control rock, soil, and/or earth" -- what? what? Ekjon Lok 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychokinesis which covers the whole "mind over matter" thing in extreme detail. Somewhat widespread term with 6k Ghits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) cab 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should really be kept to Wiktionary, or Urban Dictionary. Infringes WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It's Geomancy anyway.--ZayZayEM 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete infringes WP:SHEESH AFAIC. JJL 02:13, 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. Salting is generally not used unless there are numerous recreations. Sr 13 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerokinesis

Delete and salt recreation. Additional reason in this case: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 00:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete Aerokinetic which redirects to Aerokinesis.

Delete. The article provides no context besides a dictionary definition. However, I don't see the need for page protection. After all, the article has only been created once. Ali ^(t)_(c) 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe so. Too many of these power articles like electrokinesis have already undergone multiple deletions for me to remember the count on them all. Doczilla 01:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Oysterguitarist~Talk 01:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible neologism--mostly a term from fantasy gaming. JJL 01:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Haemo 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this ability to control the air with either the mind or body movments. -- Ekjon Lok 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comments above Corpx 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychokinesis which covers the whole "mind over matter" thing in extreme detail. This is a somewhat widespread term with 16k Ghits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) cab 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Psychokinesis nor -kinesis (to which this was previously redirected) even mention aerokinesis, so neither would answer anyone's question about the topic. Doczilla 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nom and other various contributors. Also per the string of other nonsensical articles presented above. NSR77 ^T_C 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comments above. Lucky number 49 23:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 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 keep. Wizardman 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Bouknight

Minor-league baseball player, has never gone above AAA, otherwise undistinguished. PROD tag added by immediately removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 00:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist~Talk 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:N Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his professional career has not been notable, however I created the article as he was a Golden Spikes Award winner as the best amateur player in the nation in 2000. ~~Delete if necessary, but consider that very exclusive award in the process.~~ Jsh726 01:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to make it known that I am Jsh726; this is not an attempt at sock-puppetry, I don't really understand the motivation for that sort of thing, I merely cannot log in to wikipedia from my work computer. I've added quite a bit more to the Bouknight article to support his notability. A comparable athlete with no outstanding question as to notability is Gino Torretta, a Heisman award winner with no success as a professional. If the NFL had a development system like that of the MLB, Toretta would not have played a single down at the top professional level. That does not make his amazing collegiate body of work any less notable. 69.24.32.162 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not have accomplished much in the minors, but is notable for achievements at collegic level (Golden Spikes Award). Corpx 02:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there's not a whisper of a hint of a suggestion of notable achievement, or even any sources whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the Golden Spikes itself is pretty notable. The references were there, except there was no references section at the bottom (I just added it). Corpx 17:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Corpx. Also, I notice that there is a category for minor league players. Either all should get deleted, or there needs to be another notability rule. Ngchen 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This or this covers that claim nicely. --Calton | Talk 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully satisfies WP:BIO "Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis ." The Baseball minor league players are professionals. Ergo, the guideline is satisfied. Edison 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not really the case. (note in the last one that even User:badlydrawnjeff doesn't buy that notion). And there's plenty of precedent on AFD for deleting minor league plyer articles. --Calton | Talk 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep professional baseball players, or else tell me what separates the notable one from the non-notable ones. Best just to keep them all. Capmango 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on comment: additionally, throwing a no-hitter, even in single-A, strikes me as notable. Capmango 23:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has to be sorted out once and for all. Either minor league baseball players are notable or they're not. Which is it to be? They can't all be fought out on a case by case basis otherwise a lot of time is going to be wasted which could be put to better use. The rules are clear for Cricket (first class and list A games count, other games don't unless there's a very good reason) and for Soccer so it can be done. I would lean towards not, and I'm an inclusionist, but I'll leave it to people who know what they're talking about on this subject to decide. Nick mallory 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't the place for the discussion, but my vote would be Major League + AAA players are automatically in, AA and below would only be considered notable for some other reason outside baseball (e.g. Michael Jordan was a notable AA ball player). Capmango 15:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the rate at which players get "called up" and "sent back", I dont think even AAA is notable. Corpx 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's part of my reasoning. If we're going to say major leaguers meet notability, then when a AAA player gets called up for a cup of coffee, he gets notable. There are also many areas of USA where AAA ball is a really big deal. Of course, my proposed guideline doesn't help us with leagues outside the U.S., I don't have enough knowledge there. Capmango 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think organizational level can be the cut off, it has to be case by case. Making it to the bigs in itself doesn't always mean notability, and a guy may only make AAA because he is too old for rookie leagues, however a AA stud may be entirely notable for awards and performance in the past. Take Brandon Watson for example. Is he notable for batting .176 in a few cups of coffee for very bad Nationals teams, or is he notable for breaking the International League hit streak record? How about Alex Gordon, was he non-notable until April 1, 2007 when he broke into the MLB for the 1st time? Previously he had only played in AA and below, but take a look at his resume, it's worth an article.69.24.32.162 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someone with more wikiknowlege than me, where should we move this discussion to? General discussion of baseball notability should take place elsewhere but I don't know where. We can't just send every ball player to AfD, a) we'd be overwhelmed, and b) we'd have wildly inconsistent results depending on who was there that day. The general standard for athletes is an athlete is presumed notable if s/he has played in a fully professional league (if not, may still be notable for other reaons). The question is how to apply fully professional league to American baseball. Fully is a fuzzy word. My take on it is that you can make a living playing AAA ball, but you can't make a living playing AA ball, so maybe AA should not count as "fully" professional. We should reach a consensus and fold it into the guideline for athletes. Capmango 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this has been covered in WP:BASEBALL and consensus there is only major leaguers get automatic notablity. So I was just rambling above. Capmango 05:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:BASEBALL is a project, and not a notability guideline. If editors who follow baseball feel that minor league players are not notable, then they should be bold and edit WP:BIO to say so, rather than having a guideline say one thing and insist that it should be ignored. Edison 18:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the keep for this article was based on his accomplishments at the collegic level, and not in the minors. Corpx 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per that one award he got. Barely passes the guidelines, but it does. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add-on In WP:BIO, it says "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." under the general guideline, which comes before the athletic one. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but barely, only because he won the Golden Spikes Award. Blueboy 96 01:39, 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 There is not a clear consensus on whether to merge or not, and in any case a merge is a form of keep. A possible merege can be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and doen without AfD if ther is consensus to merge. DES ^(talk) 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary (disambiguation)

Useless disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is clear simple lists of part of article names should not get an article. Coren 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Comment: There is a small discussion started on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation about the appropriateness of the guideline that made me AfD this in the first place. Coren 03:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page is useless. Oysterguitarist~Talk 00:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clearly a simple list of article names, and you're right, it shouldn't get an article -- it should get a disambiguation page, which it's got. If this really needs to be discussed, shouldn't it be an "MfD"? -- JHunterJ 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's actually a very good question. It's in article space, though, so AfD seemed the way to go. Coren 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and a note: the list existed before, on the Hilary page: [38]. I just split it off from what should be a name article. The new dab page, in particular, does not list all the things that have Hilary in the title, only those things that might have been titled Hilary, per WP:D. -- JHunterJ 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. If nothing else, this is needed to disambiguate between the manga that is titled just Hilary and the main Hilary article that is also titled just Hilary. Though on further thought, it might make more sense to merge the disambiguation page with the main Hilary page, since they're both disambig pages. --tjstrf talk 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hilary which is basically a dab page with a one-liner of non-dab background. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge per JHunterJ and tjstrf--JForget 00:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep differentiating between the two saints already justifies it. JJL 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the new page is definitely a legitimate disambiguation page. --Haemo 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a useful disambiguation page. -- Ekjon Lok 01:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Meh. We should probably fix Wikipedia:Disambiguation then, if this page is considered acceptable, since that guideline specifically disallows it. Mores change. Coren 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it back to Hilary. And technically, the nominator is correct; this shouldn't actually be a disambiguation page, though I think the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline should be changed to include proper names as in this case. Masaruemoto 03:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I really don't see any problems with it. NSR77 ^T_C 03:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent disambig page. Always fix instead of delete, where possible. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hilary]. No content on Hilary page, no need for seperate disambig.--ZayZayEM 05:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. Maybe also merge with Hillary? // habj 08:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hilary; they don't seem to be that different. Nyttend 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, has no one else noticed that every single entry on this dab page is already disambiguated on Hilary? This is 100% redundant, there is absolutely nothing to merge, and creating a disambiguation page for a term that is already thoroughly disambiguated elsewhere is useless. The only reason for having a page titled Hilary (disambiguation) would be if Hilary was a standalone article, but it is not. It is already a dab page itself. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Looks like someone fixed Hilary after this nom but before my comment, so no one else could have noticed that it was a dab page - apologies if I sounded a little harsh! Still, though, this needs to be deleted per the repair to Hilary. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, preferably, the "repair" to Hilary should have waited until this discussion was complete. -- JHunterJ 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, sometimes it can be a little confusing to make major changes while an AfD is going on, but sometimes being bold is a good move. Personally I have no issues with the changes made to Hilary. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:59, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xylene (Community)

non-notable. fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB Misterdiscreet 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It does appear to be nn indeed. At the moment, the website happens to be undergoing a redesign and there doesn't seem to be any content online. The WBM verifies that the site has been around for quite some time (practically forever in Internet terms) but even after going through a few different caches, I can't seem to find anything that would make this site notable. I certainly don't see anything in the article that would establish notability (aside from 'it's been around for a while', which on its own, obviously isn't enough). On top of that I got very few Ghits after eliminating false positives, and even those mostly mention the site in passing or only in the webmaster's signature. -- S ^up? 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No evidence of significance.--cj | talk 06:55, 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. --VS ^talk 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WipeoutZone

Non-notable. Doesn't rank in Alexa [39]. PR of 4 [40] Misterdiscreet 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. NN. --tennis man 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--cj | talk 06:56, 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.--cj | talk 06:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecnoclub

Non-notable. No Alexa rank [41]. No Google PR [42]. Misterdiscreet 21:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Alexa, no Compete, no PR, no sources, and the domain was registered less than two months ago: "El dominio tecnoclub.com.ar se encuentra registrado desde el 10/04/2007." Ante lan ^talk 21:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Newport Apartments

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable apartment complex. Most of the article is written in the style of an advertisement, though Park_Newport_Apartments#Negatives contains much unsourced criticism. John254 23:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just an ad for a non-notable apartment. ... discospinster _talk 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Need To Delete. I have lived in Newport Beach for over 30 years and lived at Park Newport back in the early 80s.... Park Newport is one of the oldest, largest, and most reputable complexes in Orange County... I highly doubt this is an advertisement, they are too hard on themselves if it is... I just looked over some other neighborhoods in Newport, like CDM and no one seems to have a problem with them being in wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newporter67 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 June 2007
Think of it as a neighborhood not an apartment complex.... It seriously houses thousands in Newport...everyone in newport has lived there at one time or another... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newporter67 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 June 2007
Delete If it does have some sort of history, it sure isn't indicitive on the page since it reads more like an ad then historical marker OverlordQ 01:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lovell Beach House is historic. This apartment complex isn't. I think every large city has a large apartment complex that offers a variety of floorplans, a swimming pool or two, residents who either love or hate the complex, crappy laundry facilities, and management that doesn't really care about the tenants as long as they can raise the rent. In fact, I lived in an apartment like that once. So, there's no notability for this article. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure spam. -- RHaworth 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save. It appears to be unbiased... People should be able to find all sorts of information of Wikipedia....including information about this apartment building...
Speedy Delete as spam or nn group. Vegaswikian 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. — Ocatecir ^T 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infendo

average PR [43]. average Alexa rank [44]. mentioned only once on [45] (slashdot and digg have hundreds). nothing extraordinary and nothing particularly deserving of a wikipedia article. Misterdiscreet 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--cj | talk 06:59, 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.