Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 28

< February 27	March 1 >

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 Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G4 ~ trialsanderrors 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nguyen[edit]

This is 3rd nom. I think this is speedy recreation of previously deleted material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Nguyen (Second Nomination) Pete.Hurd 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete recreation of deleted article. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-repost}}. --Wafulz 03:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate article at Steve nguyen. This guy is spamming himself. --Wafulz 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:SNOW. A Train ^{take the} 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Academy[edit]

De-prodded. Not a major setting of Arrested Development, no Springfield Elementary School. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 00:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a huge AD fan, but this is a very non-notable location. TJ Spyke 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not on the level of The Cornballer, which plays a number of plot-significant points. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability independent of the television series. --Shirahadasha 02:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even the right title (it was always called the "Milford school," I believe), but that's a different issue. It isn't important enough to warrant its own article. Wavy G 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love Arrested Development with all my heart, but this was a gag in maybe three episodes. Natalie 03:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. C56C 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete it speedily. This is abusive of the system, and will deface the accreditations of this encylcopedia. It is a fictional academy? So what, lets create a wikipedia for Shakakan, Fresh prince television show keeps saying that word referring to some fake name. If you think shakakan should also be kept if an article like that existed then maybe this should be kept. But I dont think anyone will think that way. GobtaNIndia 07:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
- Comment Are you talking about Chaka Khan? If so, yes, that is a real person. And yes, Milford Academy (actually never called that) is a fictional school. It is mentioned a few times in Arrested Development. Wavy G 08:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Intinn^Talk! 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as great as AD is, this was not a significant part of the show.-- danntm ^T _C 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change to article about the real school (which may not be notable). dcandeto 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FICTION and WP:NN, fails these both.Telly addict 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gui Valente[edit]

Valente is of borderline notability at best. Additionally, current version reads very much like a promotional biography, though ruthless editing can alleviate this. jredmond 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he learned jujitsu from some MMA fighters, that doesn't make him even borderline notable. TJ Spyke 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DMG413 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running a martial arts school, even if it is in the prestigious Gracie lineage, does not confer adequate notability. Caknuck 02:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. C56C 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from mainspace, per nominator. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Intinn^Talk! 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dcandeto 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO and no interwikis or wikipedia style format.Telly addict 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and does not establish notability. Darth griz⁹⁸ 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Not notable. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:34Z

Bushi Ban[edit]

According to web site very small cluster of schools - Non-notable. No case made for notability - yet another martual art style created by somebody. Peter Rehse 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources are produced. Currently no independent sources showing notability. --Shirahadasha 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cram school (i.e. Buxiban). No notability as a martial arts style. Amusingly, the name seems to have been chosen independently of buxiban ... "The name BUSHI BAN derives from two different words, Bushi-Do [Japanese warrior spirit and martial arts] and Bando [ ancient Burmese system of martial discipline]. The name Bushi Ban has come to mean Way of Disciplined Warrior." [1] cab 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not in favour of redirecting to Cram school since the main theme of Bushi Ban, being martial arts, isn't prominently mentioned in the Cram school article and would send the Cram school article drifting. Intinn^Talk! 10:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dcandeto 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS and WP:NN. Very short article and with respect, very little relevant information.Telly addict 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've come across these sites relating to the subject matter: [2], [3], [4] (mention), [5], [6], [7], [8]. I think an article could be created. Suriel1981 13:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all advertisement pages.Peter Rehse 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exillon[edit]

I speedy deleted this under WP:CSD#A7; it has been challenged, so I'm sending it here for more discussion. Chick Bowen 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete', fails WP:MUSIC. No Google News Archive hits. One album has a basic listing at Allmusic (no bio, though).[9] --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most notable independent artists do no have Google News Archive hits. Also Exillon meets WP:MUSIC on point 11 and with the release of the second album and upcoming european tour will satisfy points 3 and 4. See updated wiki for more info. Several other artists in the same scene of equal or lesser notability currently have undeleted wikis, for example Eustachian (artist) and Duran Duran Duran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heliophlex (talk • contribs).
- Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Ben 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point 11 satisfaction. Could you please make that clearer? -- Ben 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 different appearances/performances on Digital Nimbus on KUCI 88.9FM, a popular radio station.[10]--Heliophlex 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, future satisfaction of points 3 and 4 has absolutely no relevance to present day events, nor present notability. Furthermore, KUCI 88.9 FM is not a national radio station; it is local to Orange County, and UC Irvine. In fact, it is specifcally called "Orange County Community Radio (emphasis added). This does not meet standards under point 11 of that list, since it requires the radio station to be national. --Haemo

?Is this what you guys do all day? I'm deleting my article with my own hands because I'd rather delete something myself than have people who base their opinions off Google News Archive hits and Allmusic.com do it for me. I don't think it is worth it to have to argue with you guys on a topic like this, because there is no point when your judgements come from the mainstream, not everything worth mentioning is from the mainstream. I'm sorry for attempting to make a page on one of my favorite musical artists and having you guys tell me its not worthy of a mention. I'm wasting no more time to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heliophlex (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel Nobay[edit]

Filing a frivolous lawsuit that was dismissed does not constitute notablity as far as I can see. Delete. DMG413 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete While "a family of begging lepers had given him half their earnings to help put him through school." is... curious, it's hardly a valid claim to notability. Neither is filing suit when you're called out on your BS application padding. Caknuck 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be a notable individual, the Daily Princetonian article backs up key claims, and claims not backed up can be deleted. However, the New York Times article only covers the marriage. Need a second source clearly evidencing notability in order to keep. --Shirahadasha 03:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if more sources are presented the fact he sued Princeton is not very notable. Intinn^Talk! 10:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Princeton University. dcandeto 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO and a person who sued someone, there could be thoudsands more article on wikipedia about people who have sued, respecfully - what makes this special.Telly addict 16:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue that Nobay's absurd exaggerations make him a pop-culture curiosity of the same category as Aleksey Vayner, whose entry is not being considered for deletion. - Gforce1977 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gforce1977 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
'Comment That article isn't being discussed here. See also: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Intinn^Talk! 08:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per WP:SNOW. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shara R. Reyes[edit]

Notibility is questionable. I get hits on google outside wikipedia for this person, what do you think? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Main claim to fame seems to be an empty page on IMDB. The article also reads like a vanity article. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not meeting Notability criteria...yet. The article could be kept IF raised questions are addressed (empty IMDB, references to TV show appeareances, evidence of music career) Intinn^Talk! 10:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for a Filipina actress. Most likely, no one has heard about her. I have a sinking feeling that the article reads almost like a biography or an article written by someone within her circle of friends (bec. of the unencyclopedic details...love life, anyone? ;) --- Tito Pao 12:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. dcandeto 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, WP:BIO and WP:NN, it fails all three of these.Telly addict 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN War wizard90 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Plus the article sounds like a press release. --Polaron | Talk 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, might be OR. --Howard the Duck 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete NawlinWiki 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Popper[edit]

Notability not established, autobiography, resurrection of the material speedy deleted per A7 Alex Bakharev 01:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - no demonstration of notability, created by the subject, patent WP:COI. --Haemo 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, independent sources are included that demonstrate beyond a doubt that this subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics), especially since this seems to be autobiographical. Note that Rafael popper (talk · contribs) is a new user and was probably not aware of the policies he was breaking. I've posted to his talk page a detailed discussion of the problems with such articles and how they may be dealt with. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:SPAM seems applicable too.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SPAM. dcandeto 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM and loads of external links placed everywhere, no external links sections and its notability is lacking.Telly addict 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the sources to pass WP:BIO, and obvious WP:SPAM concerns.-- danntm ^T _C 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Meets WP:V and WP:N, what more do you Nazi's want? -Dual Freq 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Jerusalem[edit]

A category (particularly Category:Jerusalem) could handle the job this article is currently performing. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the looks of it, there are already relevant categories within Category:Jerusalem for this. --Hemlock Martinis 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is one seriously confused list. I don't regard a hospital or hotel as a place, for example. There is no added value over categories. BlueValour 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a category is not a reason to delete a list. This list is subsorted into hotels, monuments, and other buildings, which the category doesn't do.
List has no definition or criteria, which means that every structure and location, past and present, is elegible for inclusion. List adds not context to the content of the categories already in place. Delete -- saberwyn 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list made redundant by the presence of the category (which is subsorted into various headings and presumably can be further subsorted if need be). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Tariqabjotu that a category would do better, and lack of sources or inclusion criteria hampers mainatainability. --Shirahadasha 03:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I think the article could do better and should do better once a few more people who are interested in it interject more information. I say keep it. It seems worth the effort to me and could be a valuable tool for many people who run across it and hopefully expand it.. Artsojourner 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
more discussion Maybe it should merge with Jerusalem at some point in the future after it is fleshed out a bit. Artsojourner 05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has five days' worth of discussion from the moment that Tariqabjotu nominated it. Responding to your suggestion of merging it with the article on Jerusalem - with all due respect, I think that's a fundamentally bad idea. Even fleshed out, this will still be a very long (unboundedly long, some might say) list, which is going to take up an awful lot of space in the Jerusalem article if someone puts it there. No other city article has a "list of places" attached, for reasons which I've always taken to be aesthetic as much as anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Artsojourner: This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [11]. Thanks, IZAK 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fact that there are other lists like this one eg List of places in London. Kyriakos 08:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No reason to take this off WP. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is not simply an issue of "lists vs categories" (in any case, lists and categories serve different functions on Wikipedia and both are legitimate, see Wikipedia:List guideline and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes) and it's an integral part of the Jerusalem article and the {{Jerusalem}} template on this list's page. This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [12]. Thus this list is part of an important integrated totality. To remove it, or even to move it around, would scar and harm BOTH the Jerusalem article and the {{Jerusalem}} template. IZAK 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's neither an integral part of the Jerusalem article nor an integral part of the {{Jerusalem}} template. I don't believe the article is linked from the Jerusalem article anywhere (except in the template) and it's only linked from the template because the article exists. Several of the links in the {{Jerusalem}} template are links to categories that work perfectly fine. It is true that the page was forked from the Jerusalem article due to its length, but that alone is not a reason to keep an article. -- tariqabjotu 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tariqabjotu: I am not following your reasoning. If you admit that it's linked the to {{Jerusalem}} template then it's linked to the Jerusalem article and yes the article exists (that's why you nominated it and that's why we are voting here) unless you nominated something that does not exist so then this vote should be cancelled ASAP, as we can't vote for things that do not exist. IZAK 13:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might need work but no need to delete as it adds to the various existing pages mentioned above.Intinn^Talk! 10:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists are redundant with categories if it is an unannotated list of bluelinks in alphabetical order. That is all a category can do. In this case we have a number of redlinks which probably should be made blue at some point. The list also sorts things by type of landmark, collecting all of it on one page, the category system needs to divide it into a series of subcategories to achieve the same. I'll agree that the list probably ought to have some more annotations to it, but this does not make the presence of the list unjustified. In its present form, the list does serve a purpose as a navigational aid, although I won't oppose converting the whole thing into a navigation box (template for use on all Jerusalem landmark articles) if annotations are not forthcoming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a fair enough article, although in essence it is just a way of keeping a big list of the Jerusalem page, or a fork if you prefer. The Prince 11:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree 100% with Tariqabjotu that a category would do better or instead merge it with the article about Jerusalem because the way it is, does not seem very relevant and more like a wikitravel list (where I think it would be more useful) --JewBask 11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- JewBask: This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [13]. It is also an important part of the {{Jerusalem}} template. IZAK 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --YoavD 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--yidi 13:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless every other list on WP is deleted, no argument was given as to why this is different than any other list on WP.--Shmaltz 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just skimmed the page, but it seems it might be valuable to someone. If Wikipedia ever implements an ontology system along the lines of Semantic MediaWiki, then it should be possible to auto-generate a list like this (which would then be preferred over manual generation, for many reasons), but until that functionality is available, it will be hard to duplicate this kind of list. So why not keep? —Dfass 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think it would be better to have a category Jerusalem and link to articles from there, not adding my keep or delete because on the one side I think having this is a good idea, but as a list one can fast loose overview Alf^Photoman 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists and categories serve somewhat different though partially overlapping purposes. Any difficulties in maintaining a list are similar to the difficulties involved in maintaining the category; in fact, if you have one, it makes it fairly simple to maintain the other, and furthermore, if you have both, you are more likely to get a complete set including pages where somebody includes it in the list but doesn't categorize properly, or the other way around. Gzuckier 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A list has the advantage of having each type of place broken down, while we could do that with subcategories that would result in a fair number of categories with few entries. Also, the redlinks are useful to know what doesn't have an article yet. JoshuaZ 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep For all the good reasons mentioned above, plus for someone planing to go to Jerusalem it will give him/her a complete picture of what is of interest; I already found some articles that I didn't know existed. I think every city needs to have such a page, not only London and Jerusalem; the servers can handle it. As to the work involved; that's what we're here for; almost seven billion of us. Itzse 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as this is approaching WP:LC. dcandeto 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep This is really a confusing approach: good cities; some mess-ups. bobbypirate123 Bobbypirate123 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Revise and edit, respectfully. bobbypirate123 Bobbypirate123 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A category does not group things together, and to leave it in the [Jerusalem] article would make it insufferably long. (PS. Why do people always seem to fall back on the strict laws of whatever manual-of-style is "in" on the given week only when it is in regard with someone else's religion or icons thereof? Ever wondered?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyite (talk • contribs)
strong keep per all the above (and delete the category for what its worth!) Jcuk 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but... I would split this into two articles... one on "Neighborhoods of Jerusalem" and another on "List of buildings and structures in Jerusalem" The rationale is that Jerusalem is one of these ancient historical cities where there may be articles about very specific notable places. Also, I believe there is a wikipedia essay or policy on the difference between lists and categories and how both can be valuable in wikipedia if used correctly. MPS 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes MPS 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Just like there are other articles on list of places for other city's. Shlomke 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good use of grouping. Beginning of description of individual sites. Categories are not good for these. Fg2 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs expansion and elaboration, but lists and categories each have a place for organizing information. Alansohn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Other than with the category, the items which have not yet been initiated encourage the creative work of Wikipedians. The Jerusalem article is already very long and it is only natural that for such a large and for many also "central" city as Jerusalem that additional articles should evolve. gidonb 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? Certain editors prefer using categories. Others prefer using lists. Why should one try to impose its preferences on the other? Also, the list meets WP:LIST by aiding navigation and aiding in the development of new articles. -- Black Falcon 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? I hope that was a joke; for obvious reasons a paper map is not possible. There are decent arguments out there for keeping this article, and so there is no need to resort to a comment like that. -- tariqabjotu 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please accept my apologies. It was an unwarranted comment and I have revised my argument so that it is more relevant to the issue at hand. -- Black Falcon 06:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful. Savidan 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Danny-w 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course we should keep it. If it is "confusing" then make it less confusing, don't delete it. Guy Montag 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this lists vs categories issue has been discussed hundreds of times. It looks like each new wikipedian with particular dslike of some list has to drag us thru the same talk over and over again. `'mikka 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:31Z

The Spring Offensive[edit]

Band with no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC in the article. There is a vague assertion on the talkpage, but it isn't verified and I was not able to verify it. This is a recreation of something I previously deleted so I guess technically it could go WP:CSD#G4 but I figured I'd give it the benefit of a community review. My opinion is delete.--Isotope23 02:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be WP:COI. DanBeale 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -- Ben 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, possible redirect to Spring Offensive? -- saberwyn 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that is a great idea.--Isotope23 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per saberwyn. Non-notable unsigned indie band that just put out their first EP (remarkably coinciding with the creation of this article). Fails WP:BAND. Article's main contributor is a single use account. Caknuck 02:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Non-notable band vs. major German maneuver during WWII... I think the latter wins. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no article. But I would suggest deleting and then creating a new redirect so it isn't so easy to recreate this article. People don't often watchlist redirects. Natalie 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, possibly speedily. dcandeto 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - NYC JD (make a motion) 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian dancers[edit]

Adds no value over the associated category, will never be complete, fails the guidelines at WP:LIST Delete Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adds nothing to the category. John Vandenberg 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete detailed to a silly degree. Usedup 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists of people without explicit objective membership criteria. Lists are useful if membership of the list implies notability, and red links can show missing articles in Wikipedia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LC. dcandeto 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As currently written, the article appears to just be a list of names in the category. However, it seems like it would be possible for the list article to be improved by, instead of simply listing the names, also listing some ancillary summary information next to each person's name such as where they are from or some notable performances, etc. By providing auxilliary information not found in a simple category listing the list article could serve to enhance the category rather than simply be redundant with it. Dugwiki 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. No such thing as a list thats redundant to a category. Jcuk 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is -- this one! :-) In its current form, the list does the same task this list does. If someone wants to expand this list before the Afd is closed, then someone cares about building a nice list and its worth reconsidering. John Vandenberg 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list is redundant to a category if it does not have more information than a name for each entry, or red links for all other (verifiable) members of the list category who do not yet have articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would support retention of this list if it meant the conditions outlined by Scott Davis. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh boy, another incompletable list! Lankiveil 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand: Australia Dancing has a list of notable people relating to dance. So the list could be developed and need not be incompletable (sic). There are a number of dancers/choreographers redlinked in articles (e.g., Leigh Warren, Meryl Tankard) who appear notable who should be on a list. Other information, could include, companies, style, period active, etc. Paul foord 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand per Paul foord. --Candy-Panda 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fedorov[edit]

Possibly notable former Idol contestant. Pisspoor article which utterly fails WP:RS. The only sources appear to be interviews with same, but principally chat and idol forum postings. I always find it amusing that this sort of articles frequently say "started singing at an early age", inherently unproveable, yet implying some sort of prodigious talent. I've tidied it up somewhat, but I think this is a pretty hopeless article and we might as well start from scratch. Delete, without prejudice to re-creation if properly sourced. Ohconfucius 02:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nominator and due to non-notability. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 15:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete if this can be salvaged at all. Otherwise, it's of no use. dcandeto 16:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending better references As per the nom, the problem appears to be a lack of multiple reliable published articles. If that can be corrected, will reconsider my delete recommedation. Dugwiki 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really notable - just a TV show contestant, when all is said and done. WMMartin 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see everyone's point, but I would contend that being a finalist on American Idol (note:this does not mean all or even most reality shows. AI is the exception, not the rule.) is enough to drag the subject across the threshold of WP:BIO. I would find this to be more of a candidate for having a tag requesting sources or expansion, not deletion. If deleted, I would urge the admin to note in the deletion logs something about deletion due to WP:V so that a future article on the topic that does address these concerns is not knee-jerk deleted via CSD G4. I would also make urge said admin to create a redirect to the season of the show in which she performed. (note:this is a cut 'n paste of my comment on the Nadia Turner AfD. same arguement applies) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not being well-written is not a valid reason to delete an article or we'd be deleting half of Wikipedia. Notable American Idol contestant slated for Broadway appearance next month. Tag for cleanup with specific instructions and keep. Crunch 12:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anthony has a huge following. In addition to his American Idol past and other upcoming performances he will be performing at US Air Force bases throughout Europe in April and has the lead in the long running musical The Fantasticks off Broadway being May 1st. Looks like some upgrades need to be made to his page here.--Rob

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobOnWikipedia (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I deleted two sentences for which no attribution could be found and added one citation. AFCSiny

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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've disregarded 216.54.173.172 as a single-purpose account and 66.194.114.163 as a vandal. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Turner[edit]

Former Idol contestant. Article which appears to fail WP:RS. Although she may have a role in a film to be released, only time will tell if she is notable. Ohconfucius 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the current consensus regarding the notability of failed American Idol finalists? What direction have other recent AfDs been going? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nominator. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dcandeto 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To answer Youngamerican's question above, most of the afds have resulted in deletion, and a handful have been kept. I can't speak for everyone, but my view is that per WP:N the question isn't whether or not the person won or lost the contest but is instead the quality and quantity of reliable published articles and interviews about them. To meet WP:N the article should have multiple, reliable independently published sources talking about the subject in a non-trivial fashion. This particular article doesn't currently meet that standard, though, since its references appear to either not be independent (eg her blog site) and/or not from a reliable publisher (eg an internet forum). That sourcing issue needs to be corrected for me to reconsider my recommendation to delete. Dugwiki 18:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see everyone's point, but I would contend that being a finalist on American Idol (note:this does not mean all or even most reality shows. AI is the exception, not the rule.) is enough to drag the subject across the threshold of WP:BIO. I would find this to be more of a candidate for having a tag requesting sources or expansion, not deletion. If deleted, I would urge the admin to note in the deletion logs something about deletion due to WP:V so that a future article on the topic that does address these concerns is not knee-jerk deleted via CSD G4. I would also make urge said admin to create a redirect to the season of the show in which she performed. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why this page might be deleted. Every other finalst has their separate page. And this person is about to star in a feature film coming out in May. I don't understand why it should be deleted. Also, there are lost of semi-finalists who haven't done anything past Idol, and still have their own page!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.54.173.172 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. She also has a clothing line, and hosted the view. It should not be deleted. 66.194.114.163 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heartbreak Station. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:28Z

Sick for the Cure[edit]

Doesn't seem to have any notability in and of itself; possibly redirect to Heartbreak Station Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinderella (band) or Heartbreak Station (though I'm leaning towards the latter). --Wafulz 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heartbreak Station. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either of the above, the song does not appear to have notability in-and-of itself. SkierRMH 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn on the condition that the article be merged into Hillside Lake, New York in accordance with WP:LOCAL. --Polaron | Talk 04:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchess County Route 33[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL. County roads are not inherently notable and no assertion of notability is given. Nv8200p talk 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any sources, but even allowing it really is a road, does not satisfy WP:RS or WP:N. Edison 05:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All primary state roads should inherently qualify as meriting an article, but secondary roads like this should show some reasons as to why they are notable, and this one does not. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 15:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While some secondary roads are notable, this one is not. It is also entirely unsourced. Per comments above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, there's an entire Category:County routes in Dutchess County, New York of local roads. I don't think county roads are notable enough on their to get articles, unless they meet some other notability criteria. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep County routes are inherently notable, and this article will greatly benefit from expansion as has been done with the List of 500-series county routes in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, county roads are not inherently notable. -Nv8200p talk 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. State highways have been shown to be notable. County roads have not. There are hundreds of county roads in every county in almost every state. This road is not shown to be any more notable than the county road I live on, or the three others immediately adjacent to it. --Sable232 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hillside Lake, New York. This is the main arterial road through this hamlet. I don't know enough about the road to assess its notability as a stand-alone article. --Polaron | Talk 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion and support the suggestion to merge and redirect. -Nv8200p talk 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Alansohn. Please also take a look at WP:USRD/P for the other CR AFD. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 03:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to establish a new precedent. -Nv8200p talk 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skirt (slang)[edit]

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already at wiktionary. --Wafulz 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as no context. Natalie 04:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. --Haemo 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. dcandeto 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's at wikitionary, it's not needed anyway. Retiono Virginian 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little more than a dictionary definition, as mentioned above. Also looks to be unreferenced. Would require better sourcing and more encyclopedic information about the term for me to consider keeping. Dugwiki 18:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. War wizard90 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Doesn't qualify as a stub and already at wiktionary, so there's no reason for the article to be here. Pea ceNT 17:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Torres[edit]

Vanity bio, fails WP:BIO. Creator also repeatedly spammed Ayn Rand with promo links. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find sources other than his own website, which is a bad sign. Not enough independently attributable information. --Wafulz 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of sources and second party references Alf^Photoman 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. dcandeto 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self promoting entry that fails policy. Also contains no reliable citations. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, obviously fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Pea ceNT 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:26Z

TinyWarz[edit]

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}}.

A webgame that doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB and doesn't contain information attributable to reliable sources. The three sources provided are a forum link, a weblog, and an unattributed review (I'm guessing user-submitted). search doesn't bring up reliable sources. Wafulz 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wafulz's asessment of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blue's News (a reliable source) source is not to a message board link, Blue's News archives have a message-board like format. Game was awarded Most Innovative of 2006 by an independent game news site that is also a blog. Lastly, TinyWarz is a notable independent game that is significantly different that other wikipedia-listed browser based games, over half of which have no sources (Evolution, Pardus, Planetarion, Shartak ... etc.) see wikipedia's list of browser-based games. BlKat
- Blue's News doesn't actually have any information about TinyWarz, and I see no reason to separate this weblog from any of the hundreds of thousands of other weblogs out there. Those other games that you've mentioned could also be facing deletion soon (though they're not relevant to this discussion). Notability is not determined subjectively- it has to meet WP:WEB. --Wafulz 05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd disagree, Blue's News chose to recommend TinyWarz to their readership, that represents a notable achievement for an indie game - are you saying that if CNN were to provide a link to an unknown news site that simply read "Great News Here" that wouldn't be significant? Those other games are relevant to this discussion, TinyWarz was given 6 hours to demonstrate WP:WEB, the authors of those pages were given weeks, months, and even years to get them into shape (I don't want to pull out WP:BITE, but something seems seriously wrong with this). BlKat
  - You have until this AFD is closed to bring the article up to standards. Furthermore, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument. Finally, one will notice that in the past day this site has recommend in an identical fashion no fewer than 4 games, all of which appear to be "indie", as it is put. As this site seems to be nothing but a link aggregator of stuff they think is "cool", I can't in good faith think that being linked to in such a fashion is at all notable. So, I'll say Delete, as well. --Haemo 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, upon further searching, there appears to be something like 40-odd games recommended in this fashion, with no substantive comment, since the start of 2007. You can't seriously contend that satisfies WP:WEB. --Haemo 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, you have a serious WP:COI commenting on this issue without disclosing that you're the primary contributor to the article in question, and then suggesting WP:BITE may apply here. --Haemo 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your main gripe about this article is the citation? I'm sorry but for a game of TinyWarz' size official recognition is few and far between. The author used what he/she could find, but the rest of the information is about the game itself. How is it possible to cite information if there is little outside information on the game to BEGIN with? Dr. Mordecai 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you just read what you wrote? What you just argued is that this site cannot meet guidelines under WP:WEB, but should be kept regardless. That's patently absurd. If you can't find reliable sources that show this game is notable, it should be deleted per standards under WP:NOTE. This isn't a popularity contest. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, it seems to me that the "Blues News" citation is the problem. If that were to be removed, along with the "information" from it, would that alleviate your issues with the page?

- Comment: Well, no, since we are arguing about notability, and this the only evidence of notability provided. If you remove the link, there is no notability, and it should be deleted. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this game originaly from that Blues News link. Blues news is a major link sight with comment. I even bought and wore out one of their T shirts. The Journalistic content of Blues News is their. I have seen Commenary and such that brought me back to that sight over and over, just to find out what Blues Dog had done now. I love Blues news and defenetly repect it as a great source of news and info. I really enjoyed the filter of links that he provides to both game and none game topics. There is so much on the internet that one can read, and the job of a good link sight is to tell or suggest to you what you might find interesting, and Blues News Does that for me in spades. 70.59.86.64 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Walterohdim[reply]
- Comment - how is this any sort of argument for notability? A link, without any comment, from a site that links to many, many sites in a similar fashion does not notability make. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a newbee to Wikipedia, I have got a few question to the person who have proposed to delete this article.
- Do you really believe, that games are not a part of our (human) culture and civilization? If you think that several web based games are irrelevant here, why don't you propose to delete the football article? It is not web-based, but still a game.
- Do you really believe, that small things do not deserve placing here? Let's take an example of a small city of Zabrze in Poland. Do you really believe, that it should be deleted, only because the external links lead to something that was created by Poles, who are definitely not objective (like people from the Tiny Warz community), and so they are not reliable? Should we keep small, new things, especially if thay have something special (like TinyWarz 2D graphics interface)? I allways thought, Wikipedians want to be leaders, and not the followers. Or maybe I am too new here to understand the idea of Wikipedia?
Having read what you have typed, I think that the most serious problem here is that the TinyWarz is not important enough, to deserve being placed in the Wikipedia. Am I right? That is true, TinyWars is a mere entertainment, and does not pretend to be something as important as the Vietnam War. But we do have articles about other games and sports, that are also not so important, don't we?
One more thing: the same google query, as proposed by Wafulz, but with "-forum" modifier gives 80k hits. Moreover, it is more reasonable to expect some info about a game on website like pc.gamezone.com than at BBC, CNN or in the .edu and .gov domaines. In my opinion, in this case some .edu sites should be cosidered less reliable.

If you believe, that information is not documented enough, maybe you could place the same warning as for the Vietnam War? Rafkory 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment this is absurd. If you want to argue that the guidelines under WP:NOTE should not apply, then argue this on WP:NOTE, not here. Guidelines are not subjective, and, yes, non-notable things do not belong on Wikipeida. As a "newbie", perhaps you should review WP:NOTE and WP:NOT, since your suggestion violates both of these. The article on the Vietnam War is exceedingly well document, and the topic is notable. This article is not.
- In addition, subtracting forum means you're getting hits from their forums. It's absurd to claim that makes it notable in any way, shape or forum. --Haemo 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability issues aside, there are still no attributable reliable sources which actually present any sort of information. User-submitted information, minor blogs, and trivial/passing mentions are not substantial or reliable. --Wafulz 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't mind, please tell us which sections in those documents that relate to how this isn't wikipedia worthy.
  - Well, right in the nutshell section: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
  - "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking." --Wafulz

Reply - To elaborate, upon a cursory examination of the guidelines, there appear to be the following violations of WP:WEB:

The content itself has not been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
The website or content has not won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

So, as we will note, it completely fails all notability requirements. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the material on the page is not attributed to anyone - and certainly not to any reliable sources cited on the page, which in any case say next-to-nothing about the game in any case. --Haemo 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Updated sourcing and game type - massively multiplayer turn-based strategy, which makes TinyWarz unique. Again, this article was nominated for deletion six hours after it was created, this delete seems a little over-zealous. Article now has more sources than most browser-based games on wikipedia (most of which have none), applying deleter's arguments: shouldn't most articles about browser-based games on wikipedia be up for deletion as well? BlKat
- Yes, they probably will be deleted once I have the time to research/nominate them. However, the source provided is just a reprinted press release- it was submitted by some random. I could also submit news via the "Submit news" option just below it. It also hasn't "created" a new genre if nothing about that genre has been mentioned yet (though most mentions of this "genre" point to a game called Evernight, which is also of dubious standing). --Wafulz 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... "could also be facing deletion", "probably will be deleted" - can you be any more transparent? You don't intend to delete those articles or nominate them for lack of WP:WEB (you've had years to it). This one is an easy target, it's still being built; so you can flex your wiki-muscle by going after it. I was really looking forward to joining the wikipedia community, but after this demonstration I think I'll be staying away. I'm not going to join a community that works so hard to destroy the work of others. BlKat
    - I'm not flexing "wikimuscle" at all- I've had articles deleted/nominated for deletion here too. I'm a student, so I have a weird, and often crowded schedule, which means I can't just make a dozen nominations at once. We're all new at some point, and we don't always know how things go around here. If you want some examples of "more established" articles I've nominated for deletion, then here you go: (they're all of the same variety as this one)

Unfortunately, not all material is suited for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I don't intend to make you feel victimized. --Wafulz 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP You didn't give this time enough to get into code. Whistles384 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)whistles384[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by the code comment. Also, you just need the four tildes- you don't have to type your name out. --Wafulz 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that you didn't even give it enough to get up to the guidelines. You just randomly found this conveniently after 6 hours of it posting and decided to delete it without being conscientious of the little newbie guidelines that BlKat stated up there.
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you have until this AFD closes to bring it up to standards. If this topic really is notable, then you should have no problems doing that. If you can bring it up to standards, I would gladly rescind my objections to inclusion. As it stands, you have not made any serious progress towards doing this, and my objections stand. I also seriously object to any accusation of WP:BITE - enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines in a civil and forthright manner is not "biting" anyone, and I find it tests the boundaries of my good will to be repeatedly accused of it in this discussion. --Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lack of credible citations is listed as a problem which "may not require deletion" in the Deletion_policy. Furthermore, the policy states that for deletion, the article must clearly violate the notability requirement. Tinywarz was cited by a popular game news website, and has over 30,000 external references (from google), so it's not clearly non-notable. In fact, looking at the pages that were deleted for being "not notable", it seems this reason is used exclusively for entries which have no external references at all. The two obscure web-games brought up earlier also had deletion discussions over notability, and both were kept. --yaroslavvb
- From the deletion policy: Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted. Those other articles, while not relevant to this discussion, should really be renominated (they defaulted to a "keep" because of lack of substantial discussion). --Wafulz 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, we have specifically addressed this argument. This article does not meet standards under WP:NOTE, and therefore does not qualify for inclusion. The fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this - especially when the keep was procedural! None of the sources assert, or support notability for this game, and, frankly, you aren't even arguing they do. Instead, you have decided that we should just ignore policy because, apparently, WP:ILIKEIT. This is not a compelling argument, and I strongly urge you to read up on the guidelines under WP:NOTE and WP:WEB before making arguments that run directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. --Haemo
REPLY Is there a problem with having information in an encyclopedia? Why are you (you being the collective group of "editors") attacking internet games, vying for their deletion? Allowing SOME information in and deleting others based on arbitrary, albeit confusing rules seems to be more of a restriction of information. How are we supposed to fix the page when it's doomed from the get-go? Is there anything you could suggest that would be HELPFUL and not as negative as deleting it?Dr. Mordecai 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The rules are not arbitrary- Wikipedia cannot be a primary source. Only attributable information is allowed to be used. While this page might be "doomed from the get go", there are tons of other articles that need work. Check out Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask for a good place to start. --Wafulz 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Echoing this, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No one is attacking anything, and the rules are neither confusing nor arbitrary. To repeat, notability is not an arbitrary, nor a subjective attribute of topic. Either bring the article up to standards, or it will be deleted. --Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

I would like to note that NO ONE has asked any of us to say anything here. We do this because we want to Whistles384 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mostly precautionary in this case. --Wafulz 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will assume good faith that this is true, but it is frankly more than a little suspicious to see a large number of brand-new contributors all appear, and make edits solely to an WP:AFD discussion, with apparent little to no regard, or understanding, of established Wikipedia policy. --Haemo 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't need understand of the wiki policy to argue for something we want to stay put. Whistles384 05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I think this just about summarizes the entire debate right here. You don't understand Wikipedia policy, or it's guidelines - but frankly, you couldn't care less, because WP:ILIKEIT. That's not an argument! That's patently the most ridiculous thing I have encountered, and a singularly offensive attitude to anyone who cares about this project. This is not a popularity contest. Your personal like or dislike has no bearing on this, and I strongly urge you to strike out all your comments if this is the rationale you have behind your argument. This is not a vote, and outright denials of Wikipedia policy totally abuse this process and degrade the Encyclopedia as a whole. --Haemo 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, For one thing, I'd like to know. Other than DrMordecai and Whistlese, have any of you people played the game? If you had, you'd know that there are MANY reliable sources in the game, for the game! Jesus, by your warped logic, all the articles on online games lack "reliable sources" - except for all the commercial games. Does anyone here in your so called "Editor's Circle" have anything useful to say to help us? How can we improve the TW page? Because, to me, it seems like all you're doing is slinging poo all over the place. --LordRex 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Find game reviews from reliable sources. Most often, online games are kept because they have had a full-length review printed in a widely syndicated gaming magazine. If you can't find one of those, try and find full-length reviews from websites that don't contain user-submitted reviews/recommendations/etc. Articles in major newspapers too. The only catch with all this is that the articles must have more than a passing mention (ie, more than a short blurb). Reliable sources have some sort of editorial oversight and credibility to them; Wikipedia articles are only as credible as their sources- if the sources aren't credible, then the information isn't credible, meaning it should be removed. --Wafulz 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Independent review added! Does that improve our standings? --Jester
- Again, this is an archive of a random weblog. See above with regards to editorial oversight. --Wafulz 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, it looks like this website is a conglomeration of friends posting on a shared weblog. The fact that "LOL" appears 7 times on the first page alone isn't comforting. --Wafulz 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I must ask that editors read the standards under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, and WP:WEB. This does not satisfy those, for obvious reasons. --Haemo
- Wafulz, in regard to the use of "LOL" here is the introduction to the staff page:

"The distinguished staff of TIGSource are a varied lot, culled from all over cyberspace to bring you all your indie gaming news, all the time.

Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills - just because we're casual and fun doesn't mean that we type like monkeys! The second is enthusiasm. You gotta love indie games. Both should be reflected in your e-mail, so don't slouch!"

They may not be proffessional but they are an independent source and quite numerous. The main fact we're trying to get across is that this game does not have major recognition but does have unbaised reviews from external sources. Provided this page continues to exist we will continue updating and trying to gain more "appropriate" reviews for more distinguished sources. But you must understand that if you kill this site from the start than we'll barely have the chance to do so. Also Haemo, "obvious reasons" isn't a phrase I particularly like, these guides are very wordy and difficult to translate into real english. If you would care to properly articulate why this latest reference is unworthy, it would be appreciated. --Jester

Well, from your excerpt: "Want to join the elite ranks of volunteers? Just pop me an e-mail telling me why you're fit to be a TIGSource editor. Probably the easiest way to get accepted to TIGSource is to have good writing skills." Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries). These people don't even have to be well-versed in anything online, let alone in games, which speaks piles about their credibility. It's the same as picking up someone off the street and asking them their opinion of the game.

I've done a pretty exhaustive search for good sources, and it doesn't look like the article has a chance of surviving. If you'd like, an administrator can have a copy of the article moved to your user page (or someone else's), sort of "housing" it until better sources (assuming they exist) come up sometime in the future. This is probably the best solution available right now- it won't have an article, but all the work on won't be lost. --Wafulz 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wafluz, you said "Basically, anyone can become a "game reviewer" for the site provided they write well (which is really subjective judging from the entries)". What other skills are necessary to write articles for Wikipedia? Sorry, but your argument does not convince me. On the other, I would like to thank you for the helpful hint.

- Wafluz, so, exactly what does TW lack in comparison to Earth 2025? Maybe instead of harping on about what's wrong, maybe you can offer your unique brand of insight on what we can do to make the TW page more interesting and more "up to standard". And maybe, just maybe, you can play the game for yourself and make an informed opinion on it. --LordRex 17:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could become a writer for that website. I could make a post going "Hey I heard about this game TinyWarz. It's really lousy and awful, avoid it at all costs." I don't even have to prove that I've played it, and yet by that site's standards I could write whatever I feel like. Anyone can write for it- it's not a good source, and that should be pretty clear. Earth 2025 has won two Webby Awards, which clearly meets WP:WEB, and has had multiple reviews (though only one is cited, I'll admit). These reviews are not user-submitted, and they actually have names attached to them too. Its publisher has also been named as a featured publisher by Right Media. I'm not here to make a judgement call on TinyWarz- I'm here to decide if there are reliable sources for the subject, of which there appear to be none. --Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - first of all, stop with the personal attacks. They're totally unproductive, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, we have clearly outlined what needs to be done - find reliable sources that assert, and support, notability for this game. None have been produced, so this article, by Wikipedia's own guidelines, should be deleted. Furthermore, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS before repeating this same argument. If you think Earth 2025 should be deleted, then nominate; don't try to get this article kept because another article does not meet standards either. --Haemo 07:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning entries like Shartak and Planetarion has to do with precedent, rather than "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". Similar discussion over deletion was initiated over two entries with similar problems as this one, and the editor decision was to keep. --yaroslavvb
- I could bring up precedent which led to deletion too. It's not relevant if it doesn't even meet policy. --Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precedent is relevant because it saves time on discussion that has taken place already. Similar arguments were brought up for Shartak and Planetarion and were not found sufficient, so the question is -- if they didn't work there, why would they work here? I believe you are trying to apply WP:WEB too strictly. Looking at the first several dozen deletions due to WP:WEB in deletions log, they seem to be used for entries with no external references at all, not the case here. --yaroslavvb
    - Neither of them really discussed WP:RS or WP:ATT (which are thresholds of inclusion). Most of it was spent bickering about "this number is big", which is not at all the main point in my nomination. --Wafulz 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the problem is not notability, but lack of sources, why not use the Unreferenced tag, and give Wikipedia community time to find some sources? After all, this entry is fairly new. For instance, that's what editors decided to do for Dark_throne which also lacked sources at the time of AfD nomination.--yaroslavvb
        This is a five day process. If sources can't be found in five days, then they likely won't be found at all. --Wafulz 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Five days is too short. Another entry I contributed to (Morphological_image_processing) took several months before even one external source was found. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if you take wikipedia entries at random, most of them started as unreferenced descriptions, and had references added weeks or even months later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaroslavvb (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        Well internet articles tend to have internet sources. If they exist, and if any are found, I'm sure they can be mentioned on this article's new home on the Tinywarz wiki- there's no need to keep unsourced material here just for the sake of keeping it just in case some sources exist. --Wafulz 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The reason to keep unsourced material is because it was just added, and the wikipedia community hasn't had enough time to add sources. The argument here seems to be that the if the Wikipedia community doesn't find sources within 5 days, the entry must be deleted. That is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and you can find many entries for which the sources were added weeks or months after the entry's creation. Similar discussion took place over deletion of Dark Throne entry and the decision was to keep the article with "Unreferenced" template -- yaroslavvb
        
        Furthermore, why would any editor produce an article in good faith that they knew did not meet standards? That violates not only Wikipedia policies, but the principle of the Encyclopedia itself. A hypothetical future source, which no one can find or produce, does not notability make. --02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        Editors are not paid, and you can't expect all the editors to always reference their information, that's why they put it on wiki where other people can add references. As far as notability, I think you are trying to apply it too strictly. I gave two examples which are very similar to tinywarz (in a sense that google doesn't give reliable sources) and for which discussion over notability led to a negative ( Shartak and Planetarion). If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. -- yaroslavvb
        If you look at the list of recent deletions over notability, you'll see that it's used almost exclusively to delete one/two paragraph entries with people writing about themselves, or things that can't be found on google at all. I don't know where you're getting this from- while it is sometime the case, it's certainly not exclusive. Material must be attributable from the get go. There's no way around this. --Wafulz 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that it must be attributable, but just don't agree that five days is long enough for wikipedia community to find proper attribution. Five days is too short to delete it for lack of sources, number of internet references to tinywarz and people interested in this topic is too large to delete it for lack notability. --Yaroslavvb
        I'm not sure of your logic here. You seem to be claiming that the 'number of internet references' and number of 'people interested' is 'too large', yet say you (or someone else) can't find a couple of reliable sources when you're given five days. Nuttah68 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's pretty typical of Wikipedia though. I'm willing to bet that most entries in wikipedia existed without any references for the first couple of weeks (just look at History for some random pages), and had references added later. You can't expect the original the first 1 or 2 editors to fill out all required information, that's the whole point of having the Wikipedia community to fall back on. All I'm saying is that we should tag the page with "Unreferenced" template as and give some time for the wikipedia community to fill in the sources (a month maybe?). --Yaroslavvb
Comment It seams to me, that the problem editors are trying to point out, is the lack of the notoriety that is confirmed by independent sources, that are reliable from the editors point of view. In such cases, there are two solutions proposed: either to delete, or to merge with the article, that stisfies the criterion of notoriety. The same was propsed for the Saint Monica's Church, Barre: "Merge into Barre, Vermont." Do the editors believe, that the article about the web games satisfy the standards? If so, we might just propse to move TW to that article, until the right sources are found.

Telling the true, due to the nature of the web games (all of them) they need a lot of time to become known to so called "general public", unless they have a big company supporting it, that is able to spend money on PR. If I may use the analogy, the same sittuation is with the SF books in Poland. Books published in big number of copies are not either mentioned by the "mainstream" magazines, that are sponsored by the Ministery of Culture, as there are not "serious" enough. Using this criterion, you would not be allowed to place any SF authors in Polish Wikipedia but Isaac Assimov, Philip K. Dick, Stanisław Lem and Mikhail Bulgakov and authors, whose books were used for making a movie picture. For all the other authors, the sources that exist are linked to SF community, and not the official 'literature' organisations, i.e. they do not satisfy the independence criterion .

Rafkory 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having native-language sources is not the same as having zero sources. I nominated the game Popomundo a while back, but withdrew my nomination once it was revealed that there were sources in Spanish. --Wafulz 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources seem to be blogs and sites that have no established reputation for fact checking. Arguments for keep seem to be WP:ILIKEIT. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nowehere near notable enough for a web game as far as I'm concerned, sources are in no way reliable, only arguement for keeping appears to be WP:ILIKEIT and self-promotional reasons, and the article is riddled with game guidey and how-to-play information, which violates WP:NOT. The Kinslayer 11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite many polite requests the article still has no reliable sources to support the notability claimed. Nuttah68 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reliable sources. Has it been written about in any magazines or newspapers, for instance? I couldn't find any on LexisNexis. — brighterorange (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this oddly feels like a continuation or expansion of the recent slate of afd's for various webcomics. if that is deliberate or accidental is a completely different debate. however, from what i have been able to glean from those debates, the afd should be the _second step_ after a request for sources hasn't been met. but, somebody will probably say if such is formal policy or just basic politeness. so base question, was that formal request for sources even made, or did somebody just light the primer cord on the article without even making the cursory attempt to start the process to fix it. 70.51.53.37 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) steuben (fixing my spelling)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TinyWarz&oldid=110529681 As this diff shows, the prod clearly states where the article was failing, and the removal of the prod by an editor is tantamount to acknowledgement of the articles failings. Following the failure to actually address these isssues, the deletion process was moved to an AfD. So yes, a chance was given for the article to be fixed, but it was squandered. The Kinslayer 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how a game is to be reviewed without someone actually playing it. Whistles384 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an issue for wikipedia. The Kinslayer 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing this, you seem to have maintained the belief throughout this whole AFD that this is process is somehow a "review" of the game. It's not. We're not reviewing the game - we're evaluating whether or not it should included in this Encyclopedia. Since it does not meet minimum standards under WP:WEB, it should not be included. --Haemo 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I mean. You guys say that there needs to be a source that is reputable and can't have anyone's opinion of the game in the reviews. How can the game be reviewed without someone actually playing it first? That's how all reviews are done.Whistles384 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We did not say that at all. Read the standards under WP:WEB, WP:ATT, and WP:RS before commenting further. Furthermore, you have a WP:COI commenting on this article without making it clear that you're an active contributor on the TinyWarz Wiki. --Haemo 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEB is an invalid arguement in this case. tinywarz is a game not a website. it is a game that happens to played through <insert browser here>. if tinywarz was played through a downloaded and separate client then the WP:WEB arguement would not apply. so by extenstion neither does the WP:WEB here. unless Wafulz would like to expand on reasons for including the wp:web argument.70.51.53.37 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]

You answered your own question. WP:WEB applies because you don't download anything to play. You said so yourself, you have to launch a web browser, go to the web site and play the game whilst surfing the web. There is no 'by extension', WP:WEB applies to web sites, and this game is played through a web site. Or to put it another way, the website is the game and the game is the website. Very simple, no big leap of logic needed. Looking at your argument, what you have essentially said is: WP:WEB doesn't apply because you play the game through a web site. If you had to download anything, then WP:WEB would indeed not apply. It is then covered by WP:SOFTWARE and this article would STILL be here in an AfD.The Kinslayer 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree with such an argument for basically the same reasons. First of all, WP:WEB does apply, as per Kinslayer's argument. Moreover, even if it did not the reason for deletion is per WP:NOTE and WP:ATT, which WP:WEB is a subset of - thus, a simple reductio argument shows that deletion is the proper standard in either respect. --Haemo 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also just like to comment that, despite assertions to the contrary, this AFD has been linked to from the TinyWarz wiki http://wiki.mobrulestudios.com/index.php?title=Main_Page by a developer. So, I would suggest tagging SPA's as they arise. On the plus side, the TinyWarz page has apparently also been TransWiki'd to their personal Wiki, so we can avoid having to do that. --Haemo 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Monica's Church, Barre[edit]

~~Non-notable church; only possible claim is the 'largest parish', which doesn't have a source.~~ Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep now that we have sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weak keep. If source can be added by end of deletion debate to substantiate it is the largest parish in the state, as would then appear to satisfy (Edit) I added the ref to a magazine article calling it the largest Catholic church in the state, which satisfies proposed guideline WP:CONG.~~Needs~~ Would benefit from additional sources independent of the subject. Edison 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources, without prejudice against recreation or undeletion if sources are found. The WP:CONG has already failed to meet consensus, is therefore {{rejected}}, and should not be used as an argument. >Radiant< 09:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment1 or 2 editors wanting to tag it and a number of other guidelines as rejected does not overrule the others who do not. Edison 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As has been pointed out several times, the lack of consensus for your proposal makes it rejected. "Wanting to tag" has nothing to do with it. >Radiant< 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unsourced stuff gets sources, not deleted. I've sourced it from a variety of places, and referenced all assertions. It proves to be a church that is significantly old and has played a significant part in the local religious history. Pretty critical to any understanding of Barre, Vermont. Why on earth delete this?--Doc^g 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not different ( in any substantive way ) from its peers. We're an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive list of buildings, however important they may be locally. WMMartin 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Edison and Doc - it satisfies the criteria used at WP:CONG; and it doesn't matter if that proposal has been rejected - it can still provide some help for us. JROBBO 12:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources provided are either primary or trivial, but willing to change my mind if nontrivial secondary sources are provided. I can't find any, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem here? Information is on organisation website and denominational website and corroborated with information from local govmt and elsewhere. That's clearly verification. There is zero chance of a hoax. WP:V is satisfied - to demand more is to introduce a systemic bias against information that is static rather than spectacular. The internet and media pic up on new phenomena not 19th century local institutions. We are by defauly an inclusive encyclopedia, and this is clearly more than directory information, on what basis are you calling for deletion?--Doc^g 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said in discussions before, I can write an article on my car that would clearly be more then a directory, and source it to publicly-available records. (Accident reports are publicly available, I was rear-ended once, detailing the accident and sourcing it to the accident report would go beyond a directory.) At a very technical level, that would satisfy WP:ATT (not my original research as it was done by a police officer, sourced to publicly available material), WP:NPOV (a neutral description of an event from a neutral, reliable source cannot be POV), and WP:NOT (not a directory entry, not soapboxing, etc., etc.). What my car is not, however, is notable, because unrelated sources have not covered it in any non-trivial manner. The same applies here, from what I can tell, so I argue to delete. It should not be to us to determine what is notable, it should be to those who write secondary sources. As to your argument above, Notre Dame Cathedral may noy be in the newspaper today, but there are certainly plenty of books and other secondary sources available on it. If that were shown to be the case for this church as well, I would happily argue to keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing notability with sources. Source it all you like, no-one is interested in your car. Whilst, a nineteenth century church connected with the history of a locality, operating a school (heavens, if I removed the rest and only mentioned a school it would be kept!) is obviously more than personal information. The problem with your criteria is it leaves us keeping passing internet fads which get mentioned in the media and then forgotten, but excludes perfectly verifiable information that will be of stable interest in 100 years time. It is a systemic bias, and it weakens the encyclopedia. And further, you still have given no reason why the encyclopedia benefits from removing this factual verifiable information, other than that it is the logical conclusion of legalistic pursuing of a supposed objective definition of notability. Objective standards of notability are a dangerous mirage - leading to foolish decisions. WP:NOT paper. No reason in policy or logic to remove this.--Doc^g 13:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is genuinely of as much interest and historical value as you state, someone will have taken note and written a book on it (or have devoted significant mention in a book to it at least), or studied it in a scholarly paper about old churches or the region, or the like. The news media may be a reliable source, but they're certainly not the only reliable source. If sources such as those were cited, again, I would happily argue to keep, and I looked, but I just can't find any such thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard bit. But tell me again what the gain is by removing this particular piece of verifiable information?--Doc^g 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The building is 120 years old! Also, this is church has really been important to Barre. I've got a source on it being the largest, but it's a book, so how am I suppose to use that? Should I scan it or something? It being the largest parish is also mentioned here [14]. I'll try to look up some more. I think I can do that, and have it in a day or two. Bmrbarre 14:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can give me the name/title/author of the book, I can likely find some excerpts, but a citation can certainly be written. There's no need that sources be readily available or online, just that they exist and be reliable and non-trivial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN local church. Foundation in the 1880s is not exceptional even here in California, and is less back east. Mention of the church would probably be fine in the article on its community, but I don't think St. Monica's merits a separate article. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barre, Vermont. As others have noted, it is not a question of verifiability, but of notability. Unfortunately, we have not come to a good, consensus decision as a community about how to judge the notability of churches (or schools), but this does not pass as the guidelines currently stand. Within the community it is notable -- so merge the info into there -- because beyond Barre, VT, it is not particularly. Further, if something comes along to assert notability of the congregation alone, you can always spin the article back out. -- Pastordavid 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) "does not pass as the guidelines currently stand" - what guidelines? We have none.

2) A decision to merge should merge should be done on the basis of organising content, not notability. If merging is a better way of organising material without losing anything, fine. But we don't merge for notability reasons.--Doc^g 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBy current guidelines, I meant WP:N. And actually, I do think a decision to merge could have something to do with notability -- you have two related topic, one notable, and one not. Well, the notable one gets an article, the other does not ... but the information could be included on the notable page. Seems reasonable to me, at least. -- Pastordavid 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously flawed. If merging makes for better organisation of material, then merge. If it doesn't don't. I mean we might merge 6 articles on battles into an article on one war simply because we don't currently have much info on any other them - equally we split pokemon characters into separate articles because we do. Merging has nothing to do with notability. If the information is verifiable and encyclopedic, we keep it. We then decide how to organise it. If merging improves this information's delivery, and that of Barre, fine. But we don't bugger up articles just to allow us to keep information without 'rewarding it' with its own article.--Doc^g 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a sourced article that meets WP:V. What good does deleting it do for Wikipedia? None! Unlike vanity articles and corporate spam this is an encyclopaedic article on a place with an extensive history. TerriersFan 18:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs to be disambiguated due to number of churches of same name (St. Monica's in Santa Monica, California - Arnold Schwarzenegger's parish - being a prime example), but clearly has a very extensive history and likely a strong impact in the area. MisfitToys 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Revealer source and the other source that establishes it as "the biggest Catholic church in the state". If anyone still thinks this is a borderline case, please keep this in mind: it is much easier to delete an article in the future, than to recreate it. -- Black Falcon 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. The nomination is way out of line. This has great independent sources. Spank the nominator for wasting our time! --Kevin Murray 07:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

writers note typo at official cometary website (accessed 28 02 07) -- sorry too tired to fix in text notes tonight. --Kevin Murray 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more notable than any other parish church. WMMartin 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Poser. Yuser31415 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posette[edit]

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be that common from a Google search. --Wafulz 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people need to understand that WP:WINAD --Haemo 06:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, redirect to Poser. Anthony Appleyard 07:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely. If you want to edit on a real dictionary, see Wiktionary. Auroranorth 11:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Redirect Doesn't seem like a classical dictionary entry to me. Trivia maybe. Redirect seems fine.Intinn^Talk! 11:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WINAD. dcandeto 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poser, because redirects are cheap. In the alternative, Delete.-- danntm ^T _C 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to poser, works as a possible search term. SkierRMH 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poser per SkierRMH. May be searched. -- Black Falcon 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:22Z

Strictly Comedy[edit]

Looks like an advert more then anything to me, I don't know if the subject of this is notable or not, "airing" as far as england does not impress me, especially as it is sourced. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yahoo! brings up some results that are relevant to this topic (I should add them, I know, I know!). --Ozgod 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with a hint of being an advert.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This sounds a lot like an advertisement. It has no sources or much of anything to warrant a separate page. It seems as if the user hastily plopped this page up without even doing much work or categorizing it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have heard of this if it was "notable." That aside, I looked at an awards section which shows winning a very, very limited festival. I don't think it is spam, as much as someone not understanding and using Wiki as a promotional tool. Yanksox 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beg for Mercy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:21Z

Stunt 101[edit]

Is this song notable? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beg for Mercy. --Wafulz 03:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beg for Mercy per Wafulz. dcandeto 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, no notability in-and-of itself @ this point. SkierRMH 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storage model[edit]

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WINAD --Haemo 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article tries to introduce a notable concept, for which a number of references exist that also discuss different types of storage models.[15]--Tikiwont 10:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo.Intinn^Talk! 09:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WINAD. dcandeto 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded and referenced As is, the article is just an unreferenced dictionary definition of the term. Delete unless it can be expanded to include some encyclopedic information about what a Storage model is, or its history or popular usage, etc, with some proper references for verification. Dugwiki 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid stub which provides a basis for further improvement. Many stubs start as dictionary definitions. Deleting them simply makes it harder to start an article, so that one person must create it from scratch. This is contrary to the Wiki principle of collaboration and a major reason for keeping expandable stubs. Fg2 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note this sentence from WP:WINAD: "a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article". This is a stub. Also, if this is indeed suited more for Wiktionary, shouldn't it be transwikied before being nominated for deletion? -- Black Falcon 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expandable stub. —David Eppstein 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tikiwont. SirSam972 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:20Z

Skills like this[edit]

I can't seem to find many good reliable sources for this other than the IMDB entry; I'm personally kinda weak on this one, though. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, Movie was apparently screened at SXSW but I can't find any RS outside of this interview. I think this is borderline, and the article creator may have sources. If they have not already been notified of this discussion that might be a good idea. Natalie 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified the article creator and pointed them toward some policy, so they may show up. Natalie 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the crystal-ball(ling) of Wikipedia, I am voting to have this article deleted, but reintroduced once the film is released (and gains any important notability). --Ozgod 06:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Agree with Ozgod about reintroduction. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but...: Reintroduce when there is more notability and more information. Wikipedia is not a ... oh you already know :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:20Z

St Thomas Missionary Society[edit]

I cannot find any reason why this is notable. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - very possibly notable, but online sources may be hard to find. They are apparently covered in an encyclopedia of Indian Christianity: [16]. Help from someone with more knowledge of the Mar Thoma church would be good. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: A weak keep but with the condition that more sources and a major expansion take place. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless you can establish that it's not notable. If it's not notable, merge it into an appropriate article. Deletion is a last resort, and even the first resorts haven't been taken on this. Fg2 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With particular regard to Fg2's comment, I'd like to say that the onus of proof is on the article's writer, not the contributor to the AfD debate. This comment alone swayed me to Delete unless better references can be found by the end of this debate. No objection to re-creation later, of course, if someone can do the job properly. WMMartin 16:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. I've looked for secondary sources and didn't see enough substance that's independent (though I added an item to the article). What swayed me was finding that "There are a total of 209 Religious Institutes in the Syro-Malabar Church."[17]. Let's only have the notable ones! Mereda 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - religiocruft.Baka man 23:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is asserted and sources/references are provided. utcursch | talk 11:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable, religiocruft. --Candy-Panda 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:19Z

Speed (club)[edit]

Doesn't many any mention of notability besides the vague "played host to some of the finest Drum n Bass stars of the time". Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and entirely unreferenced. Doesn't seem like there is much breadth to this article. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability seems limited and lack of references. According to the article active only in 1993 on one night a week? Exceptionally narrow. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa McGhee[edit]

Unsourced article about a former Idol contestant still apparently awaiting a record deal. She has apparently made some appearances post Idol, but which were not outside the context of Idol. No singles, no nationwide tours. Online press articles are a mixture of show marketing, and trivial mentions. Ohconfucius 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bottom line for me would be whether she's got multiple published articles specifically about her that didn't occur in the same few days. It looks at first glance at the references provided like she might meet that minimal standard, but I can't immediately tell. So I'll defer the verification to other editors and simply say that if her references checked out to what I described I'd probably give minimal support to keeping. Dugwiki 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does BuddyTV stand? She was just interviewed by them, but I don't know if an interview on that site does much to establish her notability. Otherwise, it's like Ohconfucius said, she's mentioned in a lot of AI articles, but they're not really about her at all. I'd say weak keep because she seems to be a sort of archetypical AI contestant. I could certainly be swayed either way, though. ObtuseAngle 19:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see everyone's point, but I would contend that being a finalist on American Idol (note:this does not mean all or even most reality shows. AI is the exception, not the rule.) is enough to drag the subject across the threshold of WP:BIO. I would find this to be more of a candidate for having a tag requesting sources or expansion, not deletion. If deleted, I would urge the admin to note in the deletion logs something about deletion due to WP:V so that a future article on the topic that does address these concerns is not knee-jerk deleted via CSD G4. I would also make urge said admin to create a redirect to the season of the show in which she performed. (note: this is a cut 'n paste of my comment on Nadia Turner's AfD. Same arguement applies.) youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The status of the American Idol phenomenon is enough to keep a page open for all the top 12 contestants. It shouldn't be deleted for now. --Mystalic 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, obvious hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:18Z

Writing on the Wall Movie[edit]

Blatant crystal-balling; movie is part of a trilogy that is "initiating in 2015". Google produces 0 hits for the full name of the movie, "Writing on the Wall: The Curse of the Dead Locket", and for "Writing on the Wall" "Johnny Depp" "Madison Mott" (alleged star and director, respectively). No IMDB link provided, even. The writing on the wall is clear for stuff like this: delete. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Hollywood doesn't plan things that far in advance, and even if they did the movie as described sounds silly and unlikely. I wouldn't be surprised if this was thought up by some kids as a fantasy about being in a movie with actors they like. In any case, delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is probably someone's script outline at this point. Even LOTR or Star Wars didn't get article 8 years in advance. Natalie 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind you, was Wikipedia active 8 years ago? -- saberwyn 04:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, that should have been in the subjunctive tense. Natalie 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom - although I would like to get the author of the article's crystal ball. --Ozgod 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax / crystal ballery. Maxamegalon2000 06:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this might be relevant information. Just see what the authors might write up in the future; you never know, it might be very true. Ozzietheoct Ozzietheoct 18:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Delete: both sides to this problem. Agreement with person above. The authors specify that this was a rough outline/plot on Awyong Jeffrey's site. Well anyway, even if it does get deleted, Jeff has a point: if it's out in 2015, why not publish in 2013? That would be better for them, right? But they also said, on his page, that they didn't have a site yet! Professional work questioned... Bobbypirate12318:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone better at probabilities than me, could you work out the chances of two new independent accounts showing up within 5 minutes of each other, both posting on this particular AfD, and both signing their posts twice? No wonder I can never find a matching set of cotton footwear. Oh, and Delete per nom. Totally excessive Crystal-Balling. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. What if the people above you copied the same signature and worked out a different name? Honestly, they're probably newbies right? 5 minutes...well...I'm just posting on this and then something else: what if someone just posted two seconds ago or something? And what does Delete per nom mean? Sorry, I'm a half-newbie, too! Gargoyle123 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Per Nom" = "For the same reasons given by the nominator". EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources, there's nothing to prove that this actually exists. -- hibou 19:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystalballism.-- danntm ^T _C 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the person or people involved actually prove in future that it exists then they should create one. Unsourced. Gargoyle12322:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Absolutely no evidence or sources. I suspect the "new" actresses are probably the authors of this hoax. And for good measure, WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL is an excellent policy reason to delete. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE* I had conversation with a writer that works alongside Terry Rossio, alleged to be writer for this movie. The writer assured me that no such movie is planned, and would not be planned so far in advance. Such projects are released via 2 different means in Hollywood, and not EVER via Wikipedia. Remove now, this abomination, as it is part of a myspace hoax. Gmorrison927 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETEHow do you know someone who works with Terry Rossio? Not that I doubt you, just curious. That sounds very interesting. I agree that it is probably a MySpace hoax, but it is probably a good idea to delete off of Wikipedia. Too much crystal-balling. Just my thoughts....sorry if it's long. Gargoyle123 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to be a hoax and even if it isn't Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish "blatant hoax" were a WP:CSD. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Transwiki not necessary; Wiktionary already has an entry. Mango juice^talk 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy (name)[edit]

We are not a dictionary. (Sorry about the many afd nominations, I'm going through Category:stubs, tagging what is good, deleting, or nominating here). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would have to say keep, as the etymology of words and names is worth knowing. Some may contest that, but since Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia it is up to interpretation what is important or not. If more notable information can be added to this article - importantly the origin of the name (what culture, what century, its first appearance in written text). As silly as it seems, names are important in view of the culture they stem from. --Ozgod 06:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The etymology of words, proper nouns or otherwise, is lexicography. If you wish to do lexicography, the project that will welcome you, and any other similarly minded editor, is over there. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 00:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending references and expansion The key here is that the article needs to provide some information a dictionary entry doesn't. As it currently stands, though, the article isn't referenced and doesn't have any more background information on the name than, say, a Wiktionary article would. If the article can be expanded and sourced, though, to include some referenced historical information about the name then I'll probably change to "keep". Dugwiki 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete. This is the nth name article to be listed at AfD and a pretty strong consensus appears to have been reached. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nuttah68 13:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if this info is added on the Stacy disambig page?
Delete I wouldn't transwiki as it is unreferenced and self-contradictory. Does it mean "beautiful", "ressurection" or "fruitful"? Caknuck 02:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:16Z

Video Game Show[edit]

Per the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. No claim of notability, no citations to third-party reliable sources. (also the related article Video Game Show: Show Notes) -- JeremyA (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Podcasts are covered by WP:WEB, and this doesn't seem to measure up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Starblind. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. The Kinslayer 11:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:16Z

Tea bed[edit]

we are not a dictionary. (Sorry about the many afd nominations, I'm going through Category:stubs, tagging what is good, deleting, or nominating here). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands now, yes have to the article deleted, if the article can, however, be furnished with an historical background, references in pop culture, then I would vote to have the article Kept. --Ozgod 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending references and expansion As above, the article is unreferenced and not much more than a definition of the term. If references and more encyclopedic information about the term are included, I'll probably change to "keep". Dugwiki 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above rationales are in line with our long-standing Wikipedia:Deletion policy. This isn't a dictionary article at all. It is a stub encyclopaedia article about a type of furniture. We don't delete stubs that haven't been expanded. We only delete stubs if they cannot be expanded. None of the above editors has shown that the article cannot be expanded, only that it hasn't been expanded yet. Uncle G 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There hasn't been any evidence, though, that this will be expanded. And we do indeed delete articles all the time that, in their current state, appear to be little more than a dictionary definition and/or are not properly referenced. So I would beg to differ on your analysis of deletion policy. Dugwiki 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree being a stub isn't a reason to delete an article. However, regardless of what search terms I use ([18] and [19] as examples) I can find no reliable sources to show that this name/term is anything more than a neologism used in a few blogs. Nuttah68 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian cartoonists[edit]

Badly maintained, incomplete list that replicates existing category Delete Steve _(Slf67)^talk 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Steve _(Slf67)^talk 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If more context was added (maybe DOB/DOD, career length, "style", major publications, awards, etc?) was added to make this list greater than that of a reformatted category, I would be inclined to keep. Unless this is done by someone with an interest in the subject before the conclusion of the AfD, delete. -- saberwyn 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there's something in it more than just a list of names (which there isn't), use the Category:Australian cartoonists. —Moondyne 06:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adds nothing to the category. John Vandenberg 06:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment We have a List of Jewish American cartoonists. What makes List of Australian cartoonists more worthy of deletion? Usedup 07:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because another article exists, doesn't mean that this article (or both) fail the inclusion criteria and should be deleted. There's a section in an essay that deals with this more, at the shortcut WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In reply, the Jewish-Yank list is slightly better than the Aussie list, because some context on what each individual does is provided, but I will shed no tears if this too is deleted or converted into a category. -- saberwyn
- You might well ask what makes those Jewish cartoonists more worthy of keeping! ;) --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 08:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists of people without explicit objective membership criteria. Lists are useful if membership of the list implies notability, and red links can show missing articles in Wikipedia. That goes for both the subject of this debate and List of Jewish American cartoonists and several hundred other ill-defined and incompletable lists of people. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending expansion and references It's ok to have both a category and a list on the same topic, but only if the list isn't just a copy-and-paste of the category. Otherwise there's no point to having both. So in its current form I'd say delete, but will reconsider if the list can be expanded so that it provides additional information about the individual entries that a category can't (ie make it an alamanc style list with some brief info about the people next to their names, and include references for verification). Dugwiki 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, perfectly valid list. Jcuk 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you propose to find independent NPOV sources for complete membership of the list that rules out every highschool art student who draws a caricature of their teacher, but include all of the "right" people? --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subjects of a list must be notable just like the subjects in a category. Why would we want a list of every high school artist? -- Black Falcon 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This "vote" feels like a cope-out. I think it might have something to do with the fact that I mentioned List of Jewish American cartoonists. Usedup 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cartoonists are not abundant enough to merit lists and there is no apparent relationship between a person's ethnicity or nationality and their ability to make comic books or cartoons. This is the "overlisting" version of overcategorization. Usedup 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The same objection applies to Category:Australian cartoonists. -- Black Falcon 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but Category:Australian cartoonists isn't up for deletion. In my opinion, that category is overcategorization. Australian artists seems good enough. Or even a category for Australian comics, since a cartoonist might be relevant to a certain Australian-based comic book. Like I implied before, there aren't THAT many notable Australians who work primarily as cartoonists. While we're at it, Australian Cartoonist's Association should go too. I would say the same for all other categories of ethnicities and occupations similar in fine detail to this. Usedup 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the clarification. I think, however, that the categorisation system should not be overgeneralised, as this makes categories unusable. There is a major difference between painters, musicians, and cartoonists, so I don't think it would aid navigation to lump them all together. Imagine if Category:American artists did not have any subcats: there'd be over a thousand entries to sift through--the category would become utterly useless. -- Black Falcon 08:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't have a problem with splitting categories when necessary and I don't think anyone does. Usedup 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support retention of a list if the conditions outlined by Saberwyn was met. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incompletable list with very inspecific criteria for inclusion. Lankiveil 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:10Z

HELLYEAH[edit]

Bandcruft - not released anything yet, speculations about future release (crytall ball), prod removed without explanation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom. WP isn't a soapbox.Intinn^Talk! 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah? Just which of our speedy delete criteria do you think even remotely applies here? -MrFizyx 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.A1octopus 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are on the cover of the March 2007 issue of Revolver. (link) This suggests to me that there are some reliable sources beyond the ol' crystal ball. Also the members have already attained notability elsewhere. -MrFizyx 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band contains notable artists (Mudvayne, Pantera, Nothingface), and the fact they have a major label record deal. The page will only be re-created once their album is released. Dmiles21 02:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My fucking god, wikipedia is going to hell.--XMBRIAN 05:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF this band is real, Album release on April 10th. DONT YOU DARE DELETE THIS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.80.117 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: As has been mentioned above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once the album is released, and has been covered by multiple neutral third-party sources, THEN this band might merit an article in Wikipedia.—Carolfrog 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not an artilce on the album. The band has been covered in detail in at least one neutral third-party source. Deleting something that is obviously going to be recreated a month later if a waste of editors time and effort. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply since this article does not contain unverified speculation. -MrFizyx 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Userfy than, and move back IF it really makes a notable debut.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to remain ignorant of the fact that the members of this group are already quite notable. I hate heavy metal and even I have heard of a few of them. They have already appeared on a magazine cover together. I am not defending the album artilce. What is the IF?
      Also are you also completely unaware that we have a Category:Upcoming albums? There is some precident here. -MrFizyx 17:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On closer examination, it appears that the band may have members that may be notable. However, the only source is still their MySpace page, and without sources, it probably fails WP:V. At least at this time. I would not be opposed to Userfying this article (if the article creator wants it) until the album release. Once sourced notability is established, it can be moved back into the mainspace. Carolfrog 09:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, Okay... Maybe you could try actually looking at the article one more time. I've formated the in-line citations to make it a little bit easier for you to read. You should delete articles when souces don't exist, not because they have been poorly formated. I'm starting to see why people feel compelled to write essays like "Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich". -MrFizyx 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for reformatting the sources so my blind lazy ass could read them. I encourage you to improve wikipedia articles whenever you find deficiencies in them. As a result of your reformatting, I hereby change my vote to Weak Keep. There appears to be at least one reliable source already (possibly two, although I'm concerned about the notability of rockdetector itself), and will probably be more as the date of the album release approaches and passes. — Carolfrog 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article as already been through a deletion review and the overwhelming opinion was that the article's deletion should be overturned. -MrFizyx 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The history goes back a bit further. The article's title was changed by cut and paste rather than page move which leaves an extended history under the title Hell Yeah (now a redirect). An earlier debate was held in December for that title. The result was an unanimous decision to delete (there were no sources at that time). -MrFizyx 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real band, notable members. --Sn0wflake 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How can this be considered a crystal ball? I heard one of their songs on the radio... --MindlessXD 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep! This is a Metal Supergroup with Radio airplay already, Cover stories and many sites.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HELLYEAH (at least until album is released). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:12Z

Hell Yeah (album)[edit]

Unreleased album by a non-notable group (in essense, speculation about their first album). Oh, and this crytalballing cruft is unreferenced, too. Prod removed without explanation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Intinn^Talk! 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal Alf^Photoman 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the band article. At least wait until you have a track listing. -MrFizyx 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now changing my recommendation to Merge and redirect. As discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HELLYEAH, the band itself is actually notable. Although this page provides no useful information at this time, its recreation is inevitable as the scheduled album release has been reported in several sources. We may as well preserve the history and not force editors to start from scratch. -MrFizyx 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery High School (Blackpool)[edit]

Article does not meet notability criteria ubiquity 04:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon viewing its edit history it has sat here for almost four months with no notable information. I vote Delete. --Ozgod 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete My dad went to this school so I thought I'd have a look to see if I could improve this. Sadly I don't think I can justify keeping it. The school has a website and an online prospectus here. This suggests that the school has a good Ofsted report plus a number of awards. However the awards are things such as Investors in People which a great number of schools have, not enough to make this school notable. The website also mentions some press articles, but all of them are in the local evening paper. The school is named after Field Marshall Montgomery but he didn't attend it. Jules1975 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep following the edits from TerriersFan. I don't agree that all high schools are inherently notable though. Jules1975 10:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I have rewritten the article. This is a Specialist school, a Beacon school, and a school with 'Oustanding' Ofsted assessments that are infrequently and not-lightly awarded. In English education it would be hard to find many schools with more notable educational achievements than that. TerriersFan 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan's comments. Also, high schools are inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 03:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per rewrite by User:TerriersFan and the presence of multiple sources to establish notability. -- Black Falcon 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I made the nomination, the page was little more than "Montgomery High School is a high school in Blackpool. Here's its webpage." As rewritten, I think the article demonstrates sufficient notability. --ubiquity 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jules1975's original reasoning. The edits don't convince me. WMMartin 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The re-write has established notability. It is one of a few elite English schools which has achieved Beacon status and has an outstanding OFSTED report. There is plenty of scope for expansion. However, I don't think we really need to know trivial details such as the cycling initiative. Dahliarose 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments expressed at the essay User:Noroton/opinions. Edison 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above - rewrite etc,LordHarris 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ezratrumpet 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Showgirl - The Homecoming Tour. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:09Z

Showgirl: Homecoming Tour 2006/7 (Kylie Minogue Tour)[edit]

Is this show notable, and or watched by a large enough group of people? At minimum it needs some sources. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Showgirl - The Homecoming Tour and close. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above since it duplicates an existing article, though I have to comment that the rationale given for this AFD is a bit WP:OSTRICH-y, since Minogue is a very notable personality, so the question of notability never really needed to be asked in the first place. 23skidoo 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant info to the Showgirl - The Homecoming Tour page. Kylie Minogue is one of the most notable singers in the English-speaking world outside of the United States (and possibly the best-known among under-30s), and this tour has been heavily covered by multiple reliable news organizations, including the New York Times, the Grauniad, the Sydney Morning Herald, CBC News, etc., etc. However, I don't think redirecting is necessary, since nobody is going to search for the tour under this specific name. Edited. --Charlene 09:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was suggesting a redirect because it appears this article might have been created by someone unaware that an article already existed, so for my part it was more of a harmless way to discourage possible recreation. 23skidoo 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is a redirect really necessary here, what is the likelihood that anyone is going to type in "Showgirl: Homecoming Tour 2006/7 (Kylie Minogue Tour)" as a search criteria? Ergo, a Merge any relevent info and Delete would seem more appropriate. SkierRMH 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Willsayshey (talk · contribs) is now aware of the correct page based on the contribs. John Vandenberg 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after any relevant material is added to the Showgirl article as it is an unlikely search term. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per common sense argument put forth by SkierRMH. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Showgirl article (more pertinent) PTluw777 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter Kyliecruft, and this is a pretty unlikely search term, so a redirect is not necessary. Lankiveil 11:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though the article has large issues (e.g. citations) that need to be fixed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:08Z

Peter Wray[edit]

Incomplete/broken nom by IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 08:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete/broken nom by IP from 24.77.227.155 Has repeatedly vandalized article and posted AfD twice.--Kittengirlz 09:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, if non-bad-faith nom we can go into details, with apparent bad faith nom not Alf^Photoman 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reads as advertising copy. Suggest that, unless notability can be established independent of this entry, it be deleted. Re nom, I am assuming good faith per guidelines -- Simon Cursitor 08:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per discussion page it's a bad faith nom with a personal vendetta to bring the entry down. Tone down the hyperbole in the entry and No Delete -- NotWaldo Notwaldo 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:05Z

Hillary Clinton Nude[edit]

I am amazed that this article has not been nominated till now. Blatant advertising for a non-notable book which fails WP:BK miserably - criteria 1 to 5. Only notable thing is the person whose name is in the title. Author is non-notable also. —Moondyne 05:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. —Moondyne 05:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am swayed to vote Delete since it would appear to fail, but I ran it through Yahoo!... and egads... it has many many results. If it possible for it to be furnished with reviews from critics or any other references by the end of this AfD then Keep, if not, then Delete. --Ozgod 05:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO there is a small amount of notoriety associated with the book title which may explain the search hits. But I could not find enough to satisfy the requirement for "...multiple, non-trivial published..." reviews. —Moondyne 06:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published book, with no indication that it has attracted significant attention. There appear to be few unique webpages actually related to the book anyway -- mostly directory/bookstore listings and copies of press releases. (Incidentally, I can now add "Hilary Clinton nude" to the list of embarrassing things AFD has put into my Google search history.) —Cel ithemis 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm think the "many" result might be because of, erm,

something else, eh? Searching "Hillary Clinton Nude" give only 11,000-odd GHits. Searching the full title give only around 150 hits. --Haemo 06:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only Google News Archive result is a press release. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant reviews nor significant sales Alf^Photoman 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete; According to Amazon.com, a book search on Amazon for the topic "Hillary Clinton" lists this book, "Hillary Clinton Nude," number 3 in relevance among more than 7,000 titles.

Delete A self-published book published four months ago, it appears to have generated no reviews or news stories. Concerning the unsigned post above: number 12 when I try. Might this ranking be affected by those investigating the title? A more revealing ranking is the sales rank: #208,567. Victoriagirl 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a self-published book fails WP:BK.-- danntm ^T _C 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Savidan 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party 3 minigames[edit]

And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames

Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.

Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is an emerging AfD standard for such articles. See recently closed List of Mario Party minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames and List of Mario Party Advance minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames. All these "List of Mario Party * minigames" are of comparable quality, so AfD decisions should be portable. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated.Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this belongs on GameFAQs or somewhere, not in an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on .....Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them all into a Table of Mario Party games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A prose section in the main article using a combination of secondary sources and the primary source is more appropriate an encyclopedia-like. As it is, this is not useful for people who already know about the games and not useful for people who don't. This is fairly analogous to a plot summary and I believe the reasoning behind articles not being plot summaries is applicable to this as well. No improvement since at last AFD too. Wickethewok 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC

Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A clear case of Wikipedia is not a game guide, as the other recent Mario Party AfDs have shown. Krimpet (talk/review) 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent of the other Mario Party AfD's. I will reiterate my previous opinion that these are essentially unsourced game FAQs and do not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, not acceptable encyclopedia content per WP:NOT. In addition to that, the "articles" are unsourced, thereby failing WP:ATT. Picaroon 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOT. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis doesn't fail WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mini-game lists lack any merit and fail WP:NOT for being game guides. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fails WP:NOT and for the most part [[WP:ATT]. Listcruft. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. It's game guide content that is better suited for a gaming wiki. No list page for all of them is needed at Wikipedia either. RobJ1981 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOT#IINFO seems very relevant here as noted by Radiant, Wikthewok, et al. The WP:ATT issue is subsidiary to this as better sourcing would not fix the core problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These can never expand beyond basic gameplay descriptions or game guide material. I recommended redirecting at some of the other discussions, but upon further reflection that is not the best idea. --- RockMFR 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All per all possible arguments. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per other debates. Axem Titanium 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Yes, I know in the past I've said I'd prefer to keep these lists. However, I have changed my mind there, seeing that this is unsourced and fails WP:NOT#INFO, as the nom stated. My main concern with these lists is: How are they encyclopedic? "Mario Party is more about minigames than anything else." Sure. But how does a list of them benfit the encylopedia? From List of Mario Party 3 minigames: "Eye Sore- Circle around a Mr. I to shrink it away. Avoid Podoboos." Is that somehow not game guide material? Every other MP minigame list has this problem as well, except that they have a more encylopedic tone. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles are sourced. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't directly source the minigames in question. Also, please remember formatting here, with asterisks (*). — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all In what situation would this be of use to a user of an encyclopedia? That is how I read most of the WP:NOT guidelines. Slavlin 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you download them onto your hard drive if you want to keep them, we are not a web hosting service. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Other users are allowed to put deleted articles on their userspace, so why shouldn't I? Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the only purpose would be to recreate or to rehaul it, and neither would fly. People save content to improve the article over time (often to solve problems people have with the AfD). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they were put into my userspace, I would give them a massive cleanup and hopefully solve these problems and make them acceptable for all, I would want to show these articles to editors like yourself so that you could advise me on how to improve them further, or tell me if you thought they were acceptable. That would fly. 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      - I would be really impressed if you managed to make the article both quality and not violations of WP:ATT and WP:NOT, considering doing so would entail destroying the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I will manage to make it pass these articles and it won't destroy the articles, in fact, you could help if you wanted to. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think one page with a table of all the Mario Party mini-games from all the games should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useight (talk • contribs).
Merge all related articles into one A game guide explains how to play the game in detail, this isn't a game guide. Also not indiscriminate as they are clearly linked together by a notable game. If not merged into an article or list of its own, these could be cut down and merged into the game articles. At the very least there's some salvageable content in here. Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Notability is not defined by being associated with a notable thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One massive list of Mario Party games is better than 7+. MrMacMan 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, yes. Good enough, no. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't imply that your opinion is somehow better than mine since you didn't actually rebut my point with an actual policy or guideline. MrMacMan 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about one violation of WP:ATT and WP:NOT is better than seven, but still not within our inclusion policy? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot of them. WP:NOT a game guide works well here, as well as no claim whatsoever to any sort of notability. Game guides would be a trivial work here. Remember the standard is that it has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works before it can be considered notable. -M^ask 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic DDT[edit]

Minor wrestling move, "not known by practically anyone" according to the article itself. Redirect is pointless as the term is nonstandard. Even popular DDT variants do not merit breakout articles (with the exception of the brainbuster, which is commonly considered a distinct maneuver). — Gwalla | Talk 05:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like something made up by the editor. BTW, the Brainbuster is more of a suplex than a DDT (since you lift up the person in a suplex, and then drop them down on their head. TJ Spyke 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research article. Suriel1981 11:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, probably original research. Dugwiki 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsorced original research.-- danntm ^T _C 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notablity and everything stated above. 声援 -- The Hyb rid 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - markish cruft. Manager Of Champions 02:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:04Z

Quayleaf[edit]

Contest prod; pub-band with no releases, does not meet MUSIC, delete. --Peta 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Modern band with 9 google hits not including myspace and Chinese language pages. Most likely unsourcable. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MUSIC - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bucketsofg 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few relevant Google hits[20] only one of which appears to be a reliable source[21]. Not enough to write an encyclopedia article. Article's content as is is not reliably sourced. Delete for now, recreate if/when enough sources are provided. Pan Dan 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yuser31415 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qi (programming language)[edit]

Looks like vanity article. Certainly, notability hasn't been shown or proven. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Running it through Yahoo! brought a few results in, worth letting sit for a week and seeing if the author fleshes it out any further. Not to say it is still anything of note, but a Google group devoted to the subject was in the listing. --Ozgod 05:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but mark as unsourced to speed up nomination if no sources are added Alf^Photoman 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was tagged for deletion an hour after it was created. The creator is also a new user, so this may qualify as WP:BITE--though I don't think it was deliberate on the part of the nominator. Rather than nominating the article for deletion, it would have been more constructive to notify the author of any WP:N, WP:V, or other concerns. -- Black Falcon 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid reason for keeping the article. The fact that a new user created it doesn't give the subject any more notability than if an old user created it. --Nlu (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Seems moderately notable, but reads like an advert and is unsourced. I've just wikified it (reducing its problems slightly, but it still has several). --ais523 17:24, 2 March 2007 (U T C)

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

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

The result was semi-speedy delete. – Steel 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiro-Cracker[edit]

A move used by a backyard wrestler (i.e. an untrained amateur imitating pro wrestling with his buddies). Even popular suplex variants don't merit breakout articles. — Gwalla | Talk 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only link is to another AfD. --B.d.mills 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN (and perhaps fake) move used by a backyard "wrestler". TJ Spyke 06:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research article linking to vanity project. Suriel1981 11:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was semi-speedy delete. – Steel 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wolfson[edit]

Non-notable backyard (untrained amateur) "pro" wrestler. Backyarders are non-notable almost by definition (the only tme they come to anyone's attention is when one of them injures himself in a manner spectacular enough to get a "weird news" article). Google brings up some hits on the name, but none seem to have anything to do with wrestling (actors, mostly). — Gwalla | Talk 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --B.d.mills 06:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being only a backyard "wrestler" is enough for deletion. He fails WP:BIO too, if it matters. TJ Spyke 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity project. Suriel1981 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:03Z

Daniel Perkins[edit]

Entrepreneur bio, possible WP:COI. No independent sources, nothing on Newsbank, unlikely to be notable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like his CV, as written by himself or a close associate. Vanity and WP:COI not to mention WP:NPOV. Too much of this stuff swilling around in the encyclopedia. The Boy that time forgot 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am the author of this page and am neither Daniel T Perkins nor a close associate. This my first EVER entry on wikipedia so heaven forbid that I do not get EVERYTHING right. I am simply a STUDENT, that believes that Daniel T. Perkins and more specifically his company MTS Technologies, Inc., has the potential to be considered a resource in its field. I did not create this for the sole purpose of benefitting Daniel Perkins or MTS Technologies Inc., but I did intend for it to be a reference that is useful to the community as a whole. I still consider this page a work in progress, so I would appreciate that those eager to complain about this page PLEASE bare with me as I make the necessary changes and am sure to write this article from a NEUTRAL POV. Patience is a virtue. Id like to see some of you do this, on the first try with no imperfections and flags on your page. I take all constructive critcism to heart and I will make sure to change any and everything that is not in agreement with wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.66.107 (talk • contribs)
- It's less an issue of writing style than an issue of independent sources. If no one other than Mr. Perkins' company writes about him, we can't have a neutral biographical article. ~ trialsanderrors 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced bio, fails WP:BIO easily. 6 measly, barely-relevant hits was all I got searching for "Daniel Perkins" MTS 1974 (to find some other page that mentions both his 1974 graduation and his present job): [22] Awyong J. M. Salleh 05:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion order[edit]

It doesn't seem like this article can be expanded, and has been listed to be Wikified for a while. Looking it up on Google defines it as an order to place an ad in a newspaper or other media - hardly seems significant for Wikipedia, especially if there's no historical background. Maybe better elsewhere, like on Wiktionary, but it doesn't seem to belong here. Kiwizoid 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to wiktionary. -Markeer 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a dicdef. -- Whpq 17:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy per Black Falcon's request. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)[edit]

Huge, unmaintainable mess of a list, where all the blue links are already covered in List of actors from Germany and Category:German actors. List will never be completed, nearly all the red links are German actors who are not popular enough in the English world to merit an article on the English encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every semi-famous actor of every country in the world..etc.. Usedup 07:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Usedup 08:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without context added, there is nothing here that could not be handled in a category or a series of sub-categories. (Yes, I am aware that dates they began their carreer is context, but this can be handled as easily by a series of date-ranged subcategories). I am also concerned that the original article was straigh out copy-pasted from another Wikipedia, and that most of the contributions appear to be of a cosmetic or disambiguation nature. Delete. -- saberwyn 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable and what is worse, the fact that one claims to be an actor having had a minor role would suffice to be in the list. Maybe there should be a category German Actors Alf^Photoman 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Comment I agree with the comments above about the list probably being unmaintainable due to its size. However, I did want to point out that a list does not have to only include people with Wikipedia articles. Someone can be worth mentioning in a list but not quite be notable enough for their own seperate article. Therefore this list could include actors who might not otherwise appear in the corresponding category. Moreover, I think the general concept of a "list of actors" might be worthwhile if the list provides some additional summary information about the actor next to their name to supplement the corresponding category. Thus while I don't think the current version of this list is useful, I do think it might be possible to come up with an alternative way to present some almanac style information about certain related German actors that would both supplement the category and be more manageable in size. Dugwiki 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as a "list" you would expect most of the entries to have articles. Usedup 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most, but not necessarily all. Dugwiki 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am highly concerned by the statement "list will never be completed" being used as a reason for deletion. Few categories will ever be completed. Wikipedia will never be completed. History will never be completed. -- Black Falcon 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have misunderstood what was meant by "completed." Out of curiosity, why is this so much of a concern? and to what end? But to respond to your comment, I would point out that by "completed" I mean "a majority of list elements having corresponding articles." A list of red-linked names with no other information is not helpful to anyone, and for that reason, if a list like this were to exist and serve a purpose, the names would have to have a corresponding article. List of English people, List of Germans, and List of French people are all massive lists of somewhat equal proportion to this list, but all are "completed" (save maybe a few red-links here or there). This list will never be "completed" in the sense that those lists are because it is just plain impossible to make an article for every kinda-famous German actor and actress. Saying categories will never be completed either isn't at all analogous to this argument. A category serves the purpose of organizing already made articles. Lists serve no true organization purpose that a category couldn't handle. Usedup 08:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now what you meant. I was referring to a different meaning of "completed" as in "no more information will be added to this list because it includes all persons/objects in its class past, present, and future". However, I disagree with your contention that "Lists serve no true organization purpose that a category couldn't handle." Categories organize alphabetically only. Lists can organize by other context-specific and relevant information. In this case, I am inclined to agree with deleting the article. However, I agree not because this is a list of redlinks (which is acceptable per WP:LIST for development purposes), but rather because it's a list that does not provide any sourcing or additional information for the redlinks.

I also disagree with your reasoning that the redlinks "are German actors who are not popular enough in the English world to merit an article on the English encyclopedia". First, WP should not be biased toward the Anglophone world. Second, just as inclusion in WP is not necessarily an indicator of notability, not having a WP article is not necessarily an indicator of non-notability. If you will note, the proportion of redlinks falls over time in the article--it could just be that the mass of redlinks for the first half of the 20th century are notable actors, but in whom there is little current interest and/or easily accessible online sources. -- Black Falcon 08:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond to the comment I just want to clear up I'm not judging their notability by their lack of an article. I'm judging their notability because I randomly selected a few and looked them up. Obviously, tons of notable people don't have articles on wikipedia yet. In fact, because of the inherent prejudices of a lot of editors, we end up having tons of semi-notable people of some particular orientation and a lack of Universally-notable people.

Anyway...what encyclopedic value does a list of unknown (to the English-world) German actors serve on the English wikipedia? In a way, that's similar to having a list of characters from an American television show not aired in Germany on the German wikipedia. It serves no beneficial purpose. Of course the English wikipedia should be "bias" (I'm using this term in a non-negative way) towards the Anglophone world. Should we make articles for department stores that are really popular in Germany but completely unknown to the English-speaking world? I'm fairly positive an article like that would be deleted in a flash. Maybe a mention of the department store would be legitimate in an article on "shopping in Germany" or something like that. I'm not saying popular German actors CAN'T have articles on the English encyclopedia, I'm saying semi-popular German actors SHOULDN'T have articles on the English wikipedia because it interests probably two or three German-language-majors...and indeed, lists of an interest to a minority never pass on wikipedia; they are usually labelled as listcruft. Usedup 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should not have a list of semi-notable people regardless of whether they are Germans, Christmas Islanders, or Americans. However, we should have an article on a department store in Germany if the subject passes WP:N. Should we delete all the History of X and Politics of X articles for all countries except Canada, the UK, US, Australia, and NZ (I'm assuming you are referring to the traditional European Anglophone countries, with the exclusion of other Anglophone countries like India, Jamaica, and Liberia)? A subject is notable if it meets WP:N regardless of when or where it happened.

Your comment that an article not directly relevant to the English-speaking world "serves no beneficial purpose" is entirely subjective and essentially a restatement of WP:IDONTKNOWIT combined with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTUSEFUL (the last link doesn't actually exist, but you get my meaning). The purported goal of Wikipedia is to be the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge in the English-speaking world. http://en.wikipedia.org is the English-language Wikipedia, not Wikipedia for the English world, and I think it would be a great disservice to both the project and its members to try to make it the latter. I agree with your comments about this list in particular, but completely oppose any attempt to generalise it to apply to non-Anglophone topics.-- Black Falcon 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Histories and politics of other countries are not "unknown" to the English-speaking worlds like a department store or TV-show would be. So because you think we should make an article for that department store because it passes WP:N in Germany, then we should also make an article of an unknown (to the English world) German TV-show with all the details on it and its contestants. Each time you refer to "wikipedia" as in "wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowledge" you make it look as if the only wikipedia that exists is the English wikipedia. To me, wikipedia is all wikipedias, and indeed all the wikipedias do cover all the bases pretty nicely. The "Deletion guideleines" have a lot of overlap, like here WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Again, irrelevant to this list but just for future deletions, I would say things completely unknown to English speakers stay on their corresponding foreign language wikipedias. Otherwise this opens up a can of worms to let people literally translate every article they can find on a foreign wikipedia onto here. Usedup 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is inherently subjective, in trying to exclude things "completely unknown to English speakers". Who is to say they are completely unknown? I am more or less fluent in three languages and can reasonably converse in two others and have long held an interest in the histories and politics of countries across the world. I see nothing wrong with translating articles that meet WP policies and guidelines. Ideally, all the different-language Wikipedia's should have the same content, only in different languages. Your view of notability does not conform to WP:N, which requires the presence of multiple nontrivial sources, and is thus not limited by time or location (and no, I would not want all the contestants of the show listed, though the show should be included if it meets WP:N--regardless of the language of the sources).

And how exactly do you define the "English world"? The English language is used by over 1 billion people worldwide. Is it just the 5 white Anglophone countries I noted above? Or does it also include India and Liberia? Does it include Germany, where a reasonably portion of the population can converse in English? Does it include a Rwandan Tutsi whose second language is English? I don't see why we should exclude material that obviously meets WP:N just because an editor deems it not to be well known in the English-speaking world (whatever that is). That is more likely an indication that the topic is not well-known to the editor (see WP:IDONTKNOWIT). -- Black Falcon 01:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people discussing it on the afd say they are completely unknown. This is how the system works. As I've already said "Histories and Politics around the world" are not "unknown" but a popular German TV show in Germany might be. All different-language wikipedias should have the same content? That is very idealistic and relies on a "perfect world" phenomenon. The English world is simply any nation who's primary language is English. There are minority speakers everywhere of every language. Things that are of an interest to a minority of people typically are deleted on wikipedia. There is precedent for that. Usedup 03:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an idealistic concept that will never be achieved (I'm a realist), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try to proceed in that direction. Being unknown has nothing to with whether a topic is encyclopedic. You define the "English world" as "any nation who's primary language is English". So, the English Wikipedia should have articles of relevance to countries like the US, UK, Ireland, NZ, Canada, Australia, India, Jamaica, Liberia, Ghana, Tanzania, etc.? That's seems rather a spotty selection not necessarily connected by geography or culture. Also, English is becoming a universal language, so it will not be too long before a large proportion of populations (at least those with access to education) in most countries will be able to converse in English (oh, and about 20-40% of a country's population--I mean Germany--is not an insignificant minority). I strongly oppose your suggested ethnocentric (no wait, more like linguo-centric?) approach and am surprised that you would want to create such a fragmented Wikipedia. I will, however, respect your views (even though I oppose any attempt to apply such views as the basis of deleting articles or content from Wikipedia). Let's leave it at that. -- Black Falcon 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, if the Tootsi nation (making it up) of Burundi happen to have internet access and want to write an article about a tribal ritual only known to them in their native language, I'm sure it passes notability among their entire population, but it is completely unknown to English speakers and I will gladly nominate it for deletion; I'm quite certain people will gladly support deletion on the afd. Equivalently if the entire cast of actors of a semi-popular German soap-opera were given articles on wikipedia, I would nominate these for deletion too. This isn't happening so far. Nearly all the actors we do have on this wikipedia are pretty much in line with general notability, enough to merit an English encyclopedia, but your extreme stance on this is, in my opinion, is compromising the legitimacy of wikipedia as an encyclopedia and turning it into a dumpster for everything that attracted some attention in the world. That's bad. Sorry. Usedup 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Even if that "ritual" is the subject of multiple reliable sources published in Rwanda or Burundi (the common languages in those countries are English, French, and Kinyarwanda)? I'm not saying that subjects on Wikipedia should not satisfy the notability criterion, and please stop presenting my arguments as such. The cast of a soap opera will not meet WP:N, regardless of whether it's an American soap opera or an Andorran one! However, your argument is that even if a subject satisfies notability, it does not belong on WP unless it is "known" to "English speakers" (which, for some reason, excludes English-speaking Tutsis). I don't want "everything that attracted some attention in the world". I want everything that passes WP:N, which makes no distinction as to time or place (or ethnicity or race). And if you nominate perfectly legitimate articles (i.e., meeting WP:N, WP:A, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT for deletion for no other reason than a claim that they are "unknown" in the English world, that is a clear-cut case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. No offense, but I'd rather not have the content of an encyclopedia determined based on what the majority of (apparently) white "English-speakers" know or do not know, or more accurately, based on the individual dislikes of editors. -- Black Falcon 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I react strongly against the ethnocentric attitude of Usedup, and his/her views are not in agreement with any of the notability policies/guidelines on Wikipedia. Personally, I have no problem reading the German article if I want to know something about a German actor covered in the German-language but not the English-language Wikipedia. But if I would want to know something about Thai cinema or theatre, and the only articles on Wikipedia were written in Thai, I would not have any alternative. English is the global lingua franca. At least at this stage in history, English is the only language in which a truly universal encyclopaedia is likely to be written. Pharamond 07:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind sharing what ethnicity I'm "centric" for? Usedup 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: This isn't actually covered by List of actors from Germany and Category:German actors. It seems to be a translation of an outdated and incomplete version of a list of actors in German-language films at the German Wikipedia. These may well be Austrian, Swiss, or actors from some non-German speaking country who have played in German-language films (like Kristina Söderbaum or Françoise Rosay). I'm sure the English Wikipedia will eventually have a much more complete coverage of German and German-language cinema. The actual problem with the list is the somewhat arbitrary character of the selection, but that is something it seems to have in common with every other list of actors (that is actually a list of lists, but follow the links). If this list would have been based on some authoritative source, I think it would have been fine. As it is, it is still probably a useful list of red links showing missing coverage. Any chance it could be transferred from out of article space but still kept around somewhere? Isn't there a "WikiProject" for film that could store this as a to-do list? (The point of keeping it here, rather than just at the German Wikipedia, is that one can see which links are blue or red.) Pharamond 07:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to the closing admin. In light of my discussions above with Usedup and the information provided by Pharamond, I request that this information be userfied to a subspace of my user page (assuming the consensus is to delete) until such time as I trim/improve it and suggest its recreation, merge it into List of actors from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, or find an appropriate WikiProject which would take it. Thank you, Black Falcon 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, I have no preference as to where on my page the link to the user subspace is located. -- Black Falcon 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:00Z

Covering the Bases: Making Sense of Bill James' Statistical Nonsense[edit]

This book was put out by self-publisher iUniverse. I could find no independent reviews of it, save a few blog entries. The only incoming link is from Bill James. Amazon sales rank is 298,083. Djrobgordon 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nn book that has received little to no press in the baseball world. Might also be a vanispamvertisement. Slic e NYC (Talk) 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the AfD, but the nominator just sold a copy of the book, since I love Bill James' work and am curious what the criticism is. Newyorkbrad 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:58Z

Diego Alliaudi[edit]

Young footballer who has been released by Real Madrid without ever making it beyond the youth team. Might sign with another club and become notable in the future but doesn't come anywhere near meeting WP:BIO at the moment ChrisTheDude 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:BIO and previous precedents set on youth team football players. Qwghlm 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must concur with nominator and previous voter. --Ozgod 12:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. --Angelo 15:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both not a professional players yet. Matthew_hk t c 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:57Z

Kumade toriichi[edit]

Non-notable fictional character, possibly a hoax. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following page for deletion by the same author about another non-notable fictional character:

NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while they are real characters, their importance is infinitesimal. Toriichi appears once in a flashback describing Zabuza's ability as a silent killer, the other just stands there and gasps for fifteen seconds. Hardly worth even a redirect. JuJube 10:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Characters of extremely limited impact, at best. Pretty much no chance for any outside sources, and even the primary source doesn't provide enough information for... well, anything more than there is. Both articles stand no chance of meeting WP:FICT, because there's no outside-universe impact to examine. Shimeru 06:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gosar[edit]

Subject's greatest claim to notability was being the editor of CRACKED Magazine for what appears to be only two issues prior to the magazine being gutted and relaunched. (The subject doesn't even warrant mention in the article for the magazine.) Only other stabs at notoriety are writing a handful of articles for a supermarket tabloid and running a non-notable memorabilia Web site. Article's author is Scott Gosar (a single-purpose account), which seems to violate WP:AUTO/WP:COI Caknuck 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own suggestion is to userfy this article to Scott Gosar. Caknuck 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am swayed on both directions on this. I would vote to have the article deleted, but it would appear to be a published magazine - but the article should not be devoted to recapping specific publication releases. --Ozgod 12:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for a notable entrepreneur I find remarkably few second party references, which after all is how we (still) determine notability. Would change my mind if references would appear Alf^Photoman 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTT GOSAR REPLIES: Hey "Gord": It was four issues. Why don't you spend less time worrying about what I'm doing on Wikipedia and more time minding your own affairs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.134.188 (talk • contribs)

No offense intended, but what you're doing is writing about yourself and contributing little else to the encyclopedia. Autobiographical articles are rarely permitted, and only so if they are about notable people and strictly adhere to the rules about maintaining a neutral point of view. I nominated your article because I have my doubts that you are notable enough, based on the guidelines here. One other note, removing the AFD tags from a page is not permissible. Please let me know if you have any specific questions. Caknuck 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Adaptationism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:57Z

Darwinian Fundamentalism[edit]

It's an article on a book review by Stephen Jay Gould. While the review itself might make a good example for an article on the famous battle between Gould and Dawkins, I don't think there's much reason to keep this article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incomplete nomination by Adam Cuerden. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I was in the process of writing it up when you replied. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two different topics presented. I suggest merge the first into Adaptationism or some other existing article per nominator, and delete the creationist paragraph. The only source for the latter is an on-line article in forbes.com which accuses "Darwinianists" of being "the most objectionable fundamentalists in the world today", but does not ever put the words "Darwinian Fundamen*" together in that order. I suggest against redirecting due to ambiguity as to which sense the phrase might be intended to mean, Gouldian or Creationist. Pete.Hurd 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Adaptationism. CenozoicEra 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:55Z

Macorino[edit]

I can't find any evidence of this existence of this person via a google search. Unless some reliable sources are found, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No other sources, doesn't meet WP:BIO. A1octopus 10:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Burton[edit]

author wrote an autobiographical wikipedia entry Csyberblue 08:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's great that it's in the form of an encyclopedic article, there's no notability or real significance here. The fact that it's autobiographical doesn't help the case either. Delete. Kiwizoid 13:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writing a number of articles for a non-notable journal does not confer adequate notability. Nothing else here measures up. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Caknuck 02:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:54Z

Sergio Tejera[edit]

16-year old who is a member of the Chelsea youth team, not a first team squad member. Doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines ChrisTheDude 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Punkmorten 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:BIO and previous precedents set on youth team football players. Qwghlm 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. --Angelo 15:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpolitical[edit]

Dicdef & non-notable Bennie Noakes 08:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to L.D. 50 (album). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:49Z

-1 (Mudvayne song)[edit]

This article is on a non-notable song, all it has is the number of the track on the album and tells us the title - not encyclopedic material at all M3tal H3ad 09:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Create a redirect to the album it's from - if interested editors wish to add the info from this stub to the article they can create a "Lyrical themes" section. If enough information on the song arises to warrant an article of its own, someone can then change the redirect and create the article? What do others think? LuciferMorgan 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What info? -- saberwyn 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Redirect to L.D. 50 (album). No additional content in this article that isn't covered in the article, (except that -1 can be written in words as "negative one"... i think we can safely bin that one). No development except for various tags since creation, creating user has made no edits in the month and a bit since this article was created. -- saberwyn 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Article does not provide any extra value, nor does it even mention its notability. I'd suggest M3tal H3ad to be bold in the future and just redirect these entries to the album. -- intgr 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

( )ette Collective[edit]

Previously, the article has been speedily deleted as self-promotion/not establishing notability. The deletion was contested by e-mail, so I am bringing it here; I suggest giving the creator a chance to clean it up. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- Freshacconci 10:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly self-promotional--the use of "we" is the giveaway and therefore WP:COI and WP:NPOV. This general guideline springs to mind: "Don't write about yourself or about the things you've done or created. If you or your work is notable, someone else will notice you and write the article." The article lacks references and the artists are non-notable. Freshacconci 10:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reported/reviewed achievements that meet WP:N. --Mereda 10:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources provided on the article, and very little claimed in the way of notability. John Vandenberg 10:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , no reliable sources Alf^Photoman 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best of luck to them, but clearly not notable yet. Johnbod 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established in article. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unfortunately. - Denny 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no note on the article creator's page about this AfD. I've just left one. Tyrenius 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Savidan 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Pea ceNT 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. But I can't help but point out that I see no reference to anything remotely related to "visual art" in the article. There is mention of "art practices." But, what art practices? They sound like very sincere people doing very good work. But how is it visual art? Bus stop 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it's primarily performance art and public intervention, which is legitimate enough. The (lack of) notability factor comes in the lack of references or exposure beyond the local. Some or all of them may become notable, but they are presumably young, which I've noticed is a common occurrence here: young artists seeking notability through wikipedia, rather than being written about in wikipedia because they are notable. Wikipedia is a victim of its success, I suppose. Freshacconci 19:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A very odd question from bus stop. They say the "collective created a new and alternative downtown exhibition space". If they are not doing visual art there and in general, what are they doing? Poetry readings? Playing string quartets? I don't think so. Johnbod 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnbod -- I read that part about their saying they "created a new and alternative downtown exhibition space." But I don't think an exhibition space is visual art. Do you? Is the creation of an exhibition space the same as making art? Why are we considering this article for deletion? We are supposed to be considering for deletion "articles related to the Visual Arts." If there is no mention of any specific visual art in the article, how can we bring our expertise to bear in our decision making process? Bus stop 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are they exhibiting in the space if not visual art? This is just silly. Johnbod 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creation of an exhibition space can be "visual art": installation art, site specific art, art which critiques institutions. This is what they appear to be doing: creating an alternative space, or a space for performance, something along those lines.This all fits into the Rosalind Krauss notion of "an expanded field." But this isn't really about what is and what isn't art. I'm inclined to think of this as art, so I have no problem with it along those terms. My main issue regarding notability is as above. Freshacconci 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Freshacconci -- I certainly have problems with it about notability, or lack thereof. But I am not so open-minded as you and Johnbod, that I think lack of specificity is acceptable. Whatever they are talking about, it has to be specified. If it is not specified, I don't accept that it is visual art. If it is specified, I may not accept that it is visual art. So, why should I accept that it is visual art, if nothing is specified? I guess we can just conduct our article for deletion process without knowing what we are talking about. Bus stop 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have resolved your issues about what they were doing before saying it sounded like "very good work" above! In unspecified contexts, "art" can be taken to mean visual art, as in "art critic" "art dealer", "art-lover" etc Johnbod 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod -- I thought they were doing very good work because they indicate on their website their concern for exploited women in the adult entertainment industry. I was moved by the extent of their involvement in that, and by what struck me as genuine concern. That is what I had in mind when I said that it sounds like they are doing very good work. I do not know how they use visual art to advance their cause. That is not specified in the article. And, no, I do not consider an "art dealer" to be a visual artist, and I do not consider an "art lover" to be a visual artist. From where do you derive the understanding that these categories of people are visual artists? Bus stop 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have trouble with the language. An art-dealer deals in visual art, and an art-lover loves it. Johnbod 21:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am referring to this web site, which I'm not even sure is theirs, but I was led to it from the link in their article: [23] Bus stop 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod -- I'm referring to the good work they are doing in the social sphere. That is what I think is commendable. But after reading the article, I am left with no understanding of what, in the field of visual art, they do. Why are you mentioning "art dealers," "art critics," and "art lovers?" Does this have anything to do with anything? Are you referring to the article we are considering for deletion? Is there any mention of these things in the article? Bus stop 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci -- There is no mention in the article of "performance art," "public intervention," "installation art," "site specific art," or art that "critiques institutions." I don't understand how you say "I'm inclined to think of this as art, so I have no problem with it along those terms." Since nothing is specified I don't see how you can reach any conclusion at all. Bus stop 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop -- Actually it does say: "promoting feminist ideology through their individual art practices as well as public organization and interventions", "the collective has staged public interventions, performances" and "creating new spaces and sometimes using public spaces", but I think this is all beside the point. They assert themselves as artists. This is an article within visual arts deletion. We are discussing the notability of the artists or in this case, the collective, not what specifically is or isn't art. As far as "not knowing what we're talking about," I feel confident that I understand where this collective is coming from within a history of performance and interventionist art. However, I do not think that they are notable yet in any art context. You may not like the work, or think of it as art, and as such you can recuse yourself, but I personally don't think that's necessary. I have taken part in deletion discussions about artists whose work I feel nothing towards, nor appreciate in any way as art, but I think I can distance myself enough to read it in a larger context of notability. Freshacconci 22:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci -- I don't know how one can avoid the question: Is it art? And, I am not saying it specifically in relation to this article. This article makes so slight a reference to art, if any at all, that one has to wonder why we are considering it in this forum. This is, after all, a forum for consideration of articles concerning visual art. There is no assertion of quality or of authenticity vis-a-vis visual art in the article. It is a given that it is visual art. I see no reason to be run over by a steam roller with that assumption. Therefore I point out that not only is the collective of artists in this article not notable, but that it is entirely possible that we are not even talking about art. Bus stop 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop -- I know it's a cliche, but we may need to agree to disagree on this one. I guess the only outstanding thing is, if not the visual art forum, where? They are calling themselves artists, we have chosen to take part in debates on notability for articles within visual art, so this seems to be the only forum for this discussion. And we're qualified (and I apologize for the cynicism here) because we can be bothered. Anyway, this is a good way to clear the cobwebs and actually think about what you're doing and saying and writing. Freshacconci 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci -- I am just amazed that it no longer is necessary to point out that it is art. No one has to assert anything. It is just understood that whatever it is, it is art. And that is not something I can accept. I am willing to consider anything as art. But you have to make your case to me. You have to argue your point. You have to convince me. In that article there is no attempt to assert that anything being done is art. Is it art because it advances a good social cause? Would it be art if it advanced a bad social cause? What if it advanced a merely self-serving cause, as advertising does? Is all advertising therefore art? Bus stop 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an example of an article that is a candidate for speedy deletion. That is because it is really not an article at all. Ostensibly it is an article about visual art activity. But there is no mention of any visual art activity in the article. Therefore it falls under the heading of patent nonsense. Notability is besides the point. The article is about nothing, therefore it should be deleted. Bus stop 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, to repeat: I think they are doing very good work in the social sphere. The article attributes to them what sounds like a sincere attempt to address homelessness in their area. I give them a lot of credit for attempting to tackle some of the most grievous problems in our midst. I think they should write an article about that work. Properly sourced, that could be a valid article. But mere allusions to artwork, without sources, is in my opinion just speedy deletion material. Bus stop 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:47Z

Mort (operating system)[edit]

Shameless self-promotion of a non-notable alpha-stage user project. Unreferenced & non-notable. /Blaxthos 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 10:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. JavaTenor 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, clearly self-promotion. Preymond 06:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. The site link doesn't even work, and there's no Google hits. Bennie Noakes 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:46Z

List of shōjo anime and manga[edit]

Unmaintainable list. The category does everything that this list already does, category:Shōjo.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. Squilibob 10:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but make sure that that all (non-Manhwa) entries in this list are, in fact, included in the category first. Snarfies 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too broad in scope to be maintained. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Circumcision. I think, since content was merged back, we may need this around for GFDL purposes. Consensus favors deletion. Mango juice^talk 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision policies of various countries[edit]

Article consists almost entirely of quotes from source material. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, Wikipedia should not contain "Mere collections of ... other source material." Jakew 11:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Haven taken "Human Sexuality" in college we covered this topic at great length, so I understand its importance. Some countries do not allow for circumcision, while in some countries "female" circumsion (female genital infibulation) is almost required at a certain age. The article needs should be rewritten to cover this history of these policies and their origins and their modern days practices. --Ozgod 12:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' Provided changes mentioned by Ozgod are made. Circumcision is a worthy subject, maybe revert it and stub it. Intinn^Talk! 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the concerns raised by the nominator, the article is apparently based on a false premise. I am unaware that circumcision policy is formulated at the national level and the article does not support the notion that it is. Otto4711 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge back into Circumcision. It was unilaterally spun off anyway. Put it back where it belongs. Avi 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd agree that some brief quotes are needed in the circumcision article, but do we really need 14 mostly long paragraphs of quoted material? According to WP:FU: "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. ... In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." Jakew 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree, but there is a particular user (actually one current and a few dormant) who have a tendency to cherry-pick and make improper claims about those policies, so the only recourse at the time was to bring the entire text to prevent mischaracterization of the sources. Should this not be a problem, I too would be happy to shave it down; but that does not change the fact that this material properly belongs on the Circumcision page, and not its own article. Actually, I may do what I did with Anti-Zionism, and bring a short paraphrase in the article and the extire text in the footnote. This should obviate all problems. -- Avi 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I merged the information, so I am now fine deleting this article. I do not feel that there should even be a redirect, as anyone looking for a policy will automatically go to Circumcision first. -- Avi 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- looks well sourced. Astrotrain 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete follows a false premise, no country among those in the article has established any policy, merely (voluntary) associations of some doctors have. Perhaps one could imply policies by statements of certain governments that they are Islamic replubics or follow Islamic law, but that's not the gist of this article. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no laws as far as I know ordaining circumcision, only religious and popular believes. I believe that we need references to the theme but not in a form that suggests that national governments either ordain or encourage it Alf^Photoman 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is absurd, since I know of no country which actually sets a policy regarding circumcision and the article (in spite of the title) does not show any national policies. Just a waste of bandwidth. Jeffpw 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The heading in Circumcision reads Policies of various national medical associations, not the countries themselves. -- Avi 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is precisely what we are talking about, the title is not ... in various ... but Circumcision policies of various countries , which is a false statement in itself Alf^Photoman 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why this article should be deleted and the section in Circumcision remain

. -- Avi 23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course, per WP:NOT. And I wish those saying things like "looks well sourced" would actually read the nomination and policy, and that those wishing it were a different article, like History of circumcision, would realize that those articles already exist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit hasty to suggest deletion. A retitle and cleanup is in order but it seems like a legitimate topic. Savidan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is amply discussed in Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. The current article is a misnomer, since there reallt is no governmental policy on Circumcsion, with the possible exception of Sweden, and the article itself was actually a somewhat unilateral spin-off of Circumcision to begin with. -- Avi 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename, or Merge a well-sourced article; but, let's stop mistaking AFD for WP:CLEANUP. Neier 07:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already been merged. See Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. -- Avi 07:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:44Z

Like Rain[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable band, run by a non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. This seems to be a vanity page and an advert for musicians to apply to join the band. Jules1975 12:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per that it is a non notable band and also as said above it is an advert for other people to join the band. Kyriakos 12:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously fails WP:Band on ground of no notablity and WP:Spam on grounds of advertising. A1octopus 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though major cleanup is needed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:43Z

The Gomers[edit]

Band with some local notability that fails central criteria of WP:MUSIC. There are some real WP:COI issues here as well - the article is apparently autobiographical (this account is a sock of the page's creator and is a member of the band). A lot of sources are given, but nearly all are either trivial mentions, self-published, or original research. Most of the notabilty claim seems to be built on a slender thread of secondhand connections with other groups that were notable in some way. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete - long list of sources, but as the nominator says, some of them seem to be trivial mentions, self-published, or in some cases primary sources (e.g. pictures). Leaving aside the COI issues, it doesn't provide evidence of meeting the central notability criterion of WP:BAND, i.e. multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. That doesn't necessarily make the band non-notable, but delete unless additional sources are added by the end of the AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - re: self-published references - I thought the Dr. Demento documentation, or the first (4) references, might be enough to show notability as those are national sources... I would contest there are multiple non-trivial mentions as the group has several notable ties that have been well-documented... The Fripp/Belew/Siggi/Bradley Fish connections all adhere to the wiki convention of notability if members have gone on to major notable projects...

please tell me if more sources are needed for this ? Will attempt to delete anything self-published...

--Debsuls 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the self-published references and notes.

I still put forth that even without the Fripp/Belew/Siggi connection (which has to be notable and is well documented in various non-trivial sources) - member Dave Adler performs with and produces the Willy Porter band (well documented) and also the Richard Cheese/ Adler connection seemed strong. Both Cheese & Porter have gone on to international success and are wiki'd...

--Debsuls 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added Gomers member Steve Burke's recording work w. Eugene Chadbourne on Killdeer Records' Country Protest Anew in 2003. Eugene is a well-known international performing artist --Debsuls 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added several more reliable sources citing the band's work w. Gen Jereb (international sensory therapist) on her four albums that support challenges associated with Autism, ADHD, Learning and Behavioral Disorders, and a couple more verifiable sources to strengthen the Willy Porter cross connections. also added a reference to the Biff discography, which shows work and associations beyond the scope of the Gomers article[24]

from the article: The Gomers backed up Jen Gereb on her album for autistic & sensory-challenged children titled Cool Bananas which was released in the USA and Australia. No Worries, Say G’day and Jumpin’ Jellybeans also featured Gomers Dave Adler, Steve Burke, Gordon Ranney and Biff as instrumentalists.[25][26] --Debsuls 20:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intensely Strong Keep per massive amount of references (i.e., multiple, non-trivial coverage). The city of Madison has dedicated a day to them. -- Black Falcon 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- added Westwood One link, the largest radio company in the world, to the Dr. Demento playlist references. Hopefully this will show the non-trivial and verifiable nature of these playlists, as the Dr. Demento show is syndicated and distributed throughout the USA, USVI and other international markets, like Jamaica, via Westwood One's massive radio network.

added newfound non-trivial, verifiable and reliable evidence showing Dave Adler as keyboardist Bobby Ricotta with Richard Cheese, to whit: Dave Adler, The Gomers' music director, was pianist/keyboardist Bobby Ricotta for Richard Cheese on Lounge Against the Machine's first 2 releases Lounge Against the Machine and Tuxicity [27][28]

--Debsuls 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added the Subgenius connection w. multiple non-trivial sources: Rev. Ivan Stang from the Church of the Subgenius collaberated with The Gomers on his 1999 release, Live at Starwood from the Starwood Festival on the song Pain Stain 2K. [29][30][31] The band has also appeared on the Hour Of Slack several times.[32][33][34] --Debsuls 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intensely Strong Keep - I agree w. Black Falcon --Debsuls 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:Black Falcon/Advertising and disability (the article creator, Bhaller (talk · contribs), doesn't seem to be an active editor). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:39Z

Advertising and disability[edit]

A personal essay: NOR. Utgard Loki 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tidy up a bit. It doesn't seem to be original research, it cites about 40 sources. The sources could do with being turned into links where appropriate and the article could do with being annotated to refer to them. Jules1975 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a good essay, but it is original research. Userfy if the creator wants it. Sam Blacketer 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy. Claims of NOR have been made, but not proven with reference to any particular statements that are inherently unverifiable (see the definition of original research). That being said, I would highly suggest that the author include in-text citations. -- Black Falcon 04:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revising my initial suggestion. This reads too much like an essay to be kept. However, it should not be deleted if the creator is willing to accept it. -- Black Falcon 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I really don't believe that one proves that something is original research. Rather, articles prove that they are not original research by satisfying WP:V. In this case, it wasn't that there was no citation, but rather that it was a meditation upon a subject, an "essay." In other words, the citations served only in the purpose of an argumentative proposition. Utgard Loki 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right: the lack of OR should be demonstrated by sourcing. However, OR refers only to material that is inherently unverifiable (not unverified). There are many such statements in the article, I'll admit, but it could be the basis for a better article (at the least, it provides relevant sources). That's why I'm suggesting that it be userfied. -- Black Falcon 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note to the closing admin. If the consensus is to delete and the article's creator is either unwilling to take it or does not express an opinion, I would like to receive the article into my userspace. Using the given sources as a foundation, I think an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject. Thank you, Black Falcon 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is for encyclopaedia articles, not a dump of the paper you just turned in. GassyGuy 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:36Z

Eric Lane[edit]

NN actor. Appeared in minor roles in a few films. No references. Does not pass WP:BIO and violates WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The recent expansion of the article and the addition of references clearly establish notability; comments favoring deletion were written prior to such expansion. John254 05:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kölling[edit]

A "biography" that says he wrote software and has a tattoo. That's not a biography, and he seems to be a basic professor, of which the world has many. Utgard Loki 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - his award may make him notable, but no evidence is presented of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, which is required to establish notability per WP:PROF. Delete unless further sources (independent of the subject) are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article about the award indicates this bio is missing quite a bit of information about his recent positions in Australia. John Vandenberg 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I always believe in what I see. What I saw here was a "biography" that looked like it came from a student who didn't know anything about the professor and had noticed the tattoo. That it failed as a biography was obvious. Most professors of most things at most good universities have awards and honors and publications, and so we need to look for the ones who really stand out from the background. There's no indication here that this fellow does (except for that tattoo!) Utgard Loki 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; while I understand you dont trust my "feelings", it would be a lot easier if people did :-) Anyway, you have spurred me on to look further. lots of journal articles[35], at least one book that has been translated into a few languages, an award as is already mentioned on the article and sounds rather prestigious, a "best thesis award" in 2000, 50% shared inventorship of Blue (programming language) and a Senior Lecturer position. Worth a second look IMO. John Vandenberg 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More content has now been added R.E a BlueJ/Microsoft patient issue —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Hunter (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- There is more material. I can't quite withdraw my nomination, but it's much better. (And the stuff about his grad school should really go, as that's CV stuff, not biography stuff.) Utgard Loki 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something that I believe makes him stand out of the crowd is the BlueJ list of users, firstly it's very large, over 780 institutions and secondly the caliber of the institutions on it: Cambridge University, UK, Durham University, UK, Otto-Nagel-Gymnasium, Berlin - the list goes on. BlueJ, his joint project has spread so far across the globe and to so many thousands of users, I believe that he is worthy of a mention in wiki.Tony Hunter 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance to the Wikipedia:Notability for academics rules, three reasons why Kölling should stay in wikipedia.

Rule 3 The person has published a significant and well-known academic work: Kölling has co-written a book that has been translated into at least four languages and is the core text for the CO320 and CO520 Computer Science modules at Kent University.

Rule 5 The person is known for originating an important new concept: The object bench was the subject of Kölling's Ph.D dissertation^[1] and is key feature of the heavily used BlueJ and a concept that Microsoft have now adapted.

Rule 6 The person has received a notable award or honor: Kölling has received two awards for his work as noted in his entry.

I now quote the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page again:

"If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable."

Kölling satisfies at least three of these main points and therefore his entry should stay Tony Hunter 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 06:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Suggs[edit]

A non-notable college player. Suggs was primarily a back-up quarterback for 2 different teams. It was nominated for speedy deletion, then prodded but prod was removed. Thomas.macmillan 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm between weak delete and weak keep on this one. He was a starting qb on a major Division I FBS team. But, it was a position he only held for a short amount of time with no further playtime in the professional league. Ultimately, if he had played for an entire year or more or had been an All-Something player, I might have said weak keep. But in the end, I'm going with delete on this one. ↔NMajdan•talk 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would like to point out that he started all of 2002 and was relegated to backup his senior season. Excaliburhorn

Keep Starting QB for 2 major NCAA DI-A teams. He "only" played 13 games ("His record is 7-6 as a starter") for two different major teams. The article does have problems ("skill position", uses A.J. instead of Suggs, uses NFL player infobox, should use college one since never played in NFL) but all could be fixed. --MECU≈talk 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup and add Refs - he was a starter for two different major teams. The article needs more references. Most of the article is from just one source. Johntex\^talk 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a second source. Finding more sources is not going to be hard at all. This guy has received a lot of press. Johntex\^talk 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the 'nique articles listed on the talk page. I'm sure we can work those in somewhere. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. several published sources about him. IMO, College football quarterbacks are definitely notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would like to point out Justin Zwick, Xavier Lee, Wyatt Sexton, Rick Clausen, & Kirby Freeman (other similarly notable if not less notable QB's who were wikified). AJ Suggs is part of a mini project to wikify all starting QB's for GT. I'd prefer we keep him on wikipedia and expand in the name of completeness. Excaliburhorn 15:18, 26 Feb. 2007 (UTC)
Comment- Every starting quartback for a division 1a team do not deserve a wikipedia article. If a player, wins an award, sets a record (i'd even settle for a school record, like wins or touchdowns) or plays professionally, then he should have an article. If his most notable accomplishment was being an average quartback on an average team (with Georgia Tech at least), then he really does not deserve a bio.--Thomas.macmillan 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was a starter for more than a year, that means he passes WP:BIO. He is the subject of multiple non-trival press reports, that means the subject is verifiable. The fact that he started for not one but two Division IA schools puts him in a very small group of players. People are likely to want to know about him. Also, we can't have a complete record of the starting QB's of either school without this article. Johntex\^talk 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:BIO, "[A]thletes...who have played...at the highest level in...competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." Starting QB for a D-1A team qualifies, in my opinion, as playing at the highest level. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If he had been a long-term starter, then I would agree. However, he only started 13 games and only won 7 of them at that. He was a back-up for the equivalent of 3 seasons In a 4 year career, his teams played at least 44 games and he played in only 13!--Thomas.macmillan 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't know why you've got this vendetta against AJ. I think you don't really understand the college game. College QB's don't typically play four full seasons. College teams typically play a QB for a year or two and their backups "mature." It's a pretty common practice. Four year starters are much more rare than you'd think. I assure you that being a full season starter for an ACC bowl team is noteworthy. And he actually played in 22 games: 7 at UT and 15 at GT. -Excaliburhorn 17:28 Feb 28, 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think Thomas has a "vendetta" - it's probably a good idea to assume good faith and just assume that he's attempting to enforce WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, policies that, despite being agreed upon by community consensus, are still subject to individual interpretation. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, QBs typically mature and then come into starting roles during the latter part of their career. This player started playing early and lost his starting job to somebody younger. That is not typical.↔NMajdan•talk 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where my "vendetta" is. I am sure A.J. Suggs is a wonderful human being and I do understand the college game very well. I just don't want every Division 1 player to have a wikipedia bio, as it would create glut of unhelpful articles. Given that there are 119 D1 teams and many times 80 or so players on a team, I would hope any college football fan would agree with my statements. Even if you broke it down to the BCS conference teams, you still have dozens of teams with most of the players having biographies and other sources online due to the fact that college football is very popular (and a huge money maker for all the networks). We should wait until they play at the highest level of college for a consistent time period, set a major record (aka Timmy Chang) or go pro to create Wiki-bios.--Thomas.macmillan 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Georgia Tech deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the current state of the article (multiple non-trivial, reliable, independent references). I think this is more than enough for notability. -- Black Falcon 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recurring characters of Neighbours. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:35Z

Abbie Stafford[edit]

DELETE There is no way known this article should exist on its own. This character is way too minor. A mention in Recurring characters of Neighbours would be enough. Kogsquinge 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above or we'll be having individual articles about articles of furniture in soap operas next. A1octopus 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Koqsquinge and A1octopus are both right; being in the Recurring characters of Neighbours list should suffice. Hardcore gamer 48 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, author request. NawlinWiki 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Onion New Media[edit]

Please delete I've not deleted a page before so I'm hoping someone will be able to come along and clean up what I've done wrong here. I've tried to delete this page in the past. I originally created the page, but the main reason for deleting the article is because I created it and the company isn't as significant as other company articles. Peter 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per author's request. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author's request! SkierRMH 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 09:19Z

Closing notes

There is some serious hoaxing going on here, perhaps by Duiek, or by Gillis himself.

Facts:

User:Duiek said he is the same user as User:71.232.30.194, so I'll just refer to both as Duiek.
Duiek created the biography article for J.R. Gillis.
Duiek says he created this garden after he met J.R. Gillis, who told him his family history.
Duiek later says he has asked a friend and the friend says he has the book and has sent him scans of the book. So Duiek was working based on what Gillis had told him, before that.
When the forgery was found out by User:Proteus, User:Kittybrewster, and User:AlexTiefling (good work), Duiek later says he checked the book in the library and agrees the scan is fake.

It's possible that:

Duiek is Gillis and lied.
Duiek is not Gillis and Duiek is telling the truth. Gillis lied to Duiek.
Duiek is not Gillis but Duiek lied about having been told about the Gillis family by Gillis himself.

As far as I can tell, Gillis is indeed family name with a long history rooted in Scotland. Houseofnames.com sells Gillis family plaques and such. [36] There's a book called Gillis Family in the South by Clayton Metcalf [37]. There's even a whole web forum dedicated to Gillis geneaology [38]. I'm sure they'd know about this baronetcy already if it weren't a hoax.

In the real world:

W.M. Gulliksen Mfg. Co., Inc. is real, and J.R. Gillis is the owner and CEO of the company. I assume Gillis is a respectable person and wouldn't create a hoax like this.
I would like to assume good faith of Duiek. However, he is implicitly accusing Gillis himself of lying, a serious charge. We should assume good faith of Duiek, but on the other hand Duiek is a pseudonymous person and Gillis is a known semi-public figure, and we should also assume good faith of Gillis.
Gillis has been quoted in press, e.g.
"Nowadays you can do a search on the Internet and you can find everything, but you have found nothing, because everybody is just as good as everybody else," said J.R. Gillis, president of W.M. Gulliksen Manufacturing Co. Inc., a plastic injection molding company based in Boston. "How would you know who to talk to out of the hundreds or thousands of results returned by the search?" added Gillis. [39]
Therefore, J.R. Gillis cares about what people find when they search for his name on the Internet. If Gillis himself is not the one creating the hoax, he might be interested in knowing about this incident. The contact information for his company is available on the Internet: 187 Gardner St., West Roxbury MA 02132, United States (617)323-5750, (617)323-3784 fax [40], and also in the whois records for gulliksen.com.

Gillis Baronets, Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet[edit]

Note: I am merging the AFDs for Gillis Baronets, Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z

This section was originally for Gillis Baronets only. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z DELETE

Speedy delete. Fictional baronetcy. Linked to Baronets who are also fictional. Also linked to vanity page of not-notable person which will soon join afd.- Kittybrewster 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not a genealogy service. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , totally unreferenced and sincerely to no interest to anybody who would not prefer a genealogy site over wikipedia Alf^Photoman 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If fictional, why are we arguing ? Speedy delete -- Simon Cursitor
Delete - If it was genuine I would be arguing strong keep, it is not however.--Couter-revolutionary 09:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above Astrotrain 11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to point out that there seems to be some evidence this is not fictional, as discussed here [41] with reference to [42]. This alone does not make the baronetcy notable, but seems at least to indicate its existance. If this book is somehow fictional as seemingly discussed here [43], then someone needs to explain the situation in greater depth.--Jackyd101 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The photocopy page used as evidence is obviously forged. It claims that the baronetcy was created by Queen Anne in 1687 - when her father was still on the throne! The dates are clearly adapted from the entry above. "Of Menstrie" is a handle applying to the Holburne family. The thing is a pure cut-and-paste job. AlexTiefling 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next section of comments was originally for Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet only. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z

DELETE

Fictional baronetcy. Linked to Baronets who also appear fictional. Also linked to vanity page of not-notable person which will soon join afd.- Kittybrewster 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kittybrewster. But if he is in the big book of baronets like all the others, what makes this more fictional than some other dude who bought or inherited a title? If a person who does not exist gets into the book, then is it not a reliable source? Edison 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not in the book. - Kittybrewster 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:DiscourageVanity Alf^Photoman 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - baronetcy was allegedly created by Queen Anne in 1687, several years before she ascended the throne. The only supplied source document is a crude forgery. (See the various related talk pages.) AlexTiefling 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 09:36Z

Gillis family[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillis Baronets

DELETE

Not notable. Linked to Baronetcy which at first check appears fictional. Also linked to vanity page of not-notable person which will soon join afd.- Kittybrewster 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and a one-liner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:WeDon'tNeedAnyVanityArticles Alf^Photoman 22:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - part of fictional biography project relating to the alleged Gillis Baronets. AlexTiefling 15:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Certainly no consensus exists to delete, and some of the keep arguments are strong and not well refuted. Mango juice^talk 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been pied[edit]

Nominated because there's no reason at all to list people who have had pies thrown at them. -Roofus 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why not have such a list. It's amusing. And the link-citations, when you click them, lead to interesting stories. This list originated as part of the Pieing article and was put here. It works in tandem with that article. I don't believe Roofus articulated why removing this list is recommended. He said "there's no reason at all." Can he elaborate? Griot 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a useful list, though it could use clean up. Add clean-up template remove deletion template. -- Craigtalbert 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incredibly trivial, but extremely well cited and maintained, far more so than most lists that teeter on the listcruft edge. I'd say this is a good example of Ignore all rules. -Markeer 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see that that is not going to happen now, as my last two attempts at voting delete have been interrupted by keep votes. However I will still lay out my arguement that it is not encyclopedic. It could be the best article in the world, and I'd want it deleted. And speaking of Ignore all Rules, I'm struggling for not only a person to back me up, but a policy as well! I do not understand how a list on 'people who have been pied' is ever going to be useful, to be perfectly honest. I also do not see why it should be on Wikipedia. Remember, humourous as it may be, Wikipedia is not made for humour. However, I concede that this article is well done, so I wouldn't worry too much if it were to stay. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also not emotionally attached either way, and I can certainly see your point, but it seems to me that while there's no overwhelming argument to keep this article, there's also (oddly enough) no real guideline for deleting it. It's not a neoligism, it's not original research, it's not unverified and because someone seems to have done a great deal of work, it doesn't even fall into those vague concepts behind the term "listcruft" (e.g. unmanageable, POV, etc). The closest valid guideline to delete that I can think of is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but even then I can see at least a vague argument that as a split off of pieing it's not necessarily "indiscriminate".

As I say, I'm not emotionally attached to it and wouldn't cry if a deletion vote were to happen, but my opinion is -- lacking any strong valid argument to delete, it should be kept (with perhaps a passive and kindly-meant prod to this article's editors to focus their admirable editing energies to some other articles that need work). -Markeer 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider putting the remainder of the listing in the table format that was started. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but delete any uncited examples (like the dubious one for the White House plumber (???). I agree that this should also be reformatted into the chart that was started. "Pieing" or whatever the term is, has become a notable form of protest expression with enough media coverage to warrant a list of examples. The intro could be expanded a bit to set criteria so the list is restricted to politicians or notable personalities who have been pied in public, otherwise we could start seeing names added of actors who have received pies in the face in the movies. 23skidoo 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial. The above arguments that it is WP:USEFUL and WP:ITSFUNNY do not establish that the list is in any way encyclopedic. A heavily modified and pared-down list of only the more significant 'victims' could be merged back in to the parent article but this list itself should not remain and is nothing more than a trivia repository. The above keep votes have even conceded the fact that the article is trivial in nature. Arkyan 18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though obviously restrict to new-making incidents, and the list itself needs some cleanup to make it consistent. Still, the fact is, being pied has made news in several cases, so the subject itself is not a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is no reason to publicize and thereby encourage this type of assault. Conflict of interest warning: it's happened to me. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we better delete every article on every murder and war. We wouldn't want to encourage such behaviour. I'm sure that the people who pie other people do so in the hopes of being immortalized on Wikipedia. Otto4711 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in 1981, so I'll give you that part. Newyorkbrad 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there's a list of more indiscriminate information, I've yet to find it. - fchd 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' BTW, I'd like to remind folks that AfD is not a vote. FrozenPurpleCube 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate information. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pieing has been a reasonably high-profile form of political protest, and the victims are generally quite notable. Apologies to Newyorkbrad, and personally I think pieing is inappropriately violent not to mention juvenile, but the list is reasonable for wikipedia. bikeable (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what is indiscriminate information is not precisely defined, and this article does not fall under any of the obvious criteria at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This list is not too general or specific, and its content is verifiable. Claiming it is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not a strong argument. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is an extension of pieing. Also, pieing (and incidents of pieing) apparently seems to receive quite a bit of coverage. I am unconvinced by arguments to delete, which so far have been WP:NOTUSEFUL (including the nom's reasoning), "no need reason to publicize and thereby encourage this type of assault" (I doubt people do things just so they can end up being mentioned on WP; it's much easier to just create a hoax article), and WP:NOT#IINFO. The last one is rooted in a guideline, but even a cursory examination of WP:NOT#IINFO shows this list does not qualify any of the 8 categories of articles that are listed there as inappropriate. On a different note, it may be appropriate to merge the info to Pieing (not too long an article) so that the content is better organized. -- Black Falcon 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, let's keep the funny stuff. We , and the world that provides us with material, can do better than this.DGG 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete any unsited information PTluw777 00:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wiki is not a directory of people who have been assaulted in public. Best case mergeto pieing. Ohconfucius 06:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subtrivial and crufty. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and all that. Dragomiloff 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a subarticle of pieing, which makes for notable news events. Archiving a list of examples is encyclopedic, and it is neither unverifiable nor unmaintainable. –Pomte 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it is a bit of a silly list, but it is obviously well done and well cared for, and does help to show how throughly pieing has become a form of protest. I will agree wit hthe above comment that it does need converting into the table format and needs some additional information/cites for some of the entries. Improbcat 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G10 Tizio 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary ghisolfo[edit]

Obvious nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 2007/02/27 22:52:43

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to ECW Originals. Please discuss the final name of the merged article on Talk:ECW Originals. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:31Z

New Breed (ECW)[edit]

Starting. See User talk:72.225.255.18. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New Breed is a legitimate, established heel stable that is part of the ECW Brand's biggest current storyline. They will run their course after a while, but so did Evolution, The 4 Horsemen and the nWo as well. Ohgltxg 00:25 28 February, 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are a stable that is playing a major role in current ECW storylines. TJ Spyke 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per TJ & Ohgltxg. Inhumer 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ECW Originals - I still think it should be merged with ECW Originals, separately neither group is really notable and the articles are pretty close to mirrors of one another. Same story, different point of view.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The ECW Originals article can be expanded more since it is also the term used for any alumni of the original ECW. TJ Spyke 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems, to me, like a small point. Aside from mentioning that fact and maybe listing the non-stable members there's not a lot to add in that respect to the article.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merge I don't think this article is really needed, we should create a complete new article containing both maybe. Something like ECW Originals vs the New Breed and have all the information in one place like that. Just my opinion Govvy 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per TJ, Ohgltxg, and Inhumer. ~~fhb3~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.254.149.1 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 March 2007.
Delete ECW Originals, Merge with New Breed (ECW) - There needs to be a merger. Keep the New Breed name, since that's more of a stable than the ECW Originals. Mshake3 16:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haven't been established for long enough. Seems like more of a loose association of performers at current. Mirrors ECW originals article in terms of storyline content. Without storyline content is just a list of names. The fact that they have had a big storyline for a couple of weeks doesn't really deserve Wikipedia immortalisation in my view. Suriel1981 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ECW Originals article wasn't tagged for deletion. Can't have one without the other. Ken S. 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fan cruft. Manager Of Champions 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:29Z

Popug[edit]

I don't think the website is notable. Gnews search. --Hojimachong^talk 04:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. The most interesting thing that comes to mind is the section about 'The No Wang Policy', sadly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

DELETED BY DOUCHBAGS.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 09:19Z

Closing notes

There is some serious hoaxing going on here, perhaps by Duiek, or by Gillis himself.

Facts:

User:Duiek said he is the same user as User:71.232.30.194, so I'll just refer to both as Duiek.
Duiek created the biography article for J.R. Gillis.
Duiek says he created this garden after he met J.R. Gillis, who told him his family history.
Duiek later says he has asked a friend and the friend says he has the book and has sent him scans of the book. So Duiek was working based on what Gillis had told him, before that.
When the forgery was found out by User:Proteus, User:Kittybrewster, and User:AlexTiefling (good work), Duiek later says he checked the book in the library and agrees the scan is fake.

It's possible that:

Duiek is Gillis and lied.
Duiek is not Gillis and Duiek is telling the truth. Gillis lied to Duiek.
Duiek is not Gillis but Duiek lied about having been told about the Gillis family by Gillis himself.

As far as I can tell, Gillis is indeed family name with a long history rooted in Scotland. Houseofnames.com sells Gillis family plaques and such. [44] There's a book called Gillis Family in the South by Clayton Metcalf [45]. There's even a whole web forum dedicated to Gillis geneaology [46]. I'm sure they'd know about this baronetcy already if it weren't a hoax.

In the real world:

W.M. Gulliksen Mfg. Co., Inc. is real, and J.R. Gillis is the owner and CEO of the company. I assume Gillis is a respectable person and wouldn't create a hoax like this.
I would like to assume good faith of Duiek. However, he is implicitly accusing Gillis himself of lying, a serious charge. We should assume good faith of Duiek, but on the other hand Duiek is a pseudonymous person and Gillis is a known semi-public figure, and we should also assume good faith of Gillis.
Gillis has been quoted in press, e.g.
"Nowadays you can do a search on the Internet and you can find everything, but you have found nothing, because everybody is just as good as everybody else," said J.R. Gillis, president of W.M. Gulliksen Manufacturing Co. Inc., a plastic injection molding company based in Boston. "How would you know who to talk to out of the hundreds or thousands of results returned by the search?" added Gillis. [47]
Therefore, J.R. Gillis cares about what people find when they search for his name on the Internet. If Gillis himself is not the one creating the hoax, he might be interested in knowing about this incident. The contact information for his company is available on the Internet: 187 Gardner St., West Roxbury MA 02132, United States (617)323-5750, (617)323-3784 fax [48], and also in the whois records for gulliksen.com.

Gillis Baronets, Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet[edit]

Note: I am merging the AFDs for Gillis Baronets, Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z

This section was originally for Gillis Baronets only. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z DELETE

Speedy delete. Fictional baronetcy. Linked to Baronets who are also fictional. Also linked to vanity page of not-notable person which will soon join afd.- Kittybrewster 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not a genealogy service. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , totally unreferenced and sincerely to no interest to anybody who would not prefer a genealogy site over wikipedia Alf^Photoman 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If fictional, why are we arguing ? Speedy delete -- Simon Cursitor
Delete - If it was genuine I would be arguing strong keep, it is not however.--Couter-revolutionary 09:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above Astrotrain 11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to point out that there seems to be some evidence this is not fictional, as discussed here [49] with reference to [50]. This alone does not make the baronetcy notable, but seems at least to indicate its existance. If this book is somehow fictional as seemingly discussed here [51], then someone needs to explain the situation in greater depth.--Jackyd101 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The photocopy page used as evidence is obviously forged. It claims that the baronetcy was created by Queen Anne in 1687 - when her father was still on the throne! The dates are clearly adapted from the entry above. "Of Menstrie" is a handle applying to the Holburne family. The thing is a pure cut-and-paste job. AlexTiefling 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next section of comments was originally for Sir Alexander Gillis, 3rd Baronet only. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 08:32Z

DELETE

Fictional baronetcy. Linked to Baronets who also appear fictional. Also linked to vanity page of not-notable person which will soon join afd.- Kittybrewster 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kittybrewster. But if he is in the big book of baronets like all the others, what makes this more fictional than some other dude who bought or inherited a title? If a person who does not exist gets into the book, then is it not a reliable source? Edison 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not in the book. - Kittybrewster 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:DiscourageVanity Alf^Photoman 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - baronetcy was allegedly created by Queen Anne in 1687, several years before she ascended the throne. The only supplied source document is a crude forgery. (See the various related talk pages.) AlexTiefling 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:28Z

Rob Brooks[edit]

Incomplete nomination by IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 21:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced for this college athlete. WMMartin 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Rothko65 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Conversations with Other Women. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:46Z

Hans Canosa[edit]

Merge with film article Rothko65 15:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, although AfD isn't the right place to propose a merge. Use {{merge|PageName}} for that. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Hysterical reaction to AfD reads vanity AUTO BIO. Nothing here to warrant a separate article 90.187.54.234 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:27Z

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series[edit]

Previously listed in a group AFD. Received some individual opinions, but the group AFD closed as delete all. Discussion at deletion review agreed that this merited individual consideration, because some of the issues are different. Please read both prior discussions before opining, this is a technical nomination by me. GRBerry 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original nomination. This list is actually worse than most of the "List of X" articles floating around. The scope of the list is extremely narrow, and with VERY few exceptions none of the listed characters has any importance beyond the movie in which they appear. These are horror films, after all, and the list of deaths is practically a rehash of the cast of characters in the individual film articles. This list serves no purpose other than to create a quick reference of deaths in a particular series of horror films - hardly something that fits in the scope of an encyclopedia. Arkyan 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this point-form "plot summary/spoiler" OR convert the points to prose and merge to the article on each individual movie. -- saberwyn 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Neutral. -- saberwyn 10:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial information at best. --InShaneee 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noteworthy list of an important plot element. In line with WP:LIST. Unless we decide that the Friday 13th series as such is unencyclopedic, we should keep the list. -- User:Docu
Keep Even a non-fan can see that the deaths are pretty much the entire point of the films. -- User:Subcreature
Keep As an above argument for deletion stated, this list serves no purpose other than to create a quick reference of deaths in a particular series of horror films. However, this particular series of horror films is seminal, very popular, spans over two decades, and has been the focus of scholarly works ("Games of Terror" by Vera Dika is one that comes to mind). The list itself avoids common pitfalls we've seen on other horror movie death lists (pointless pictures, lengthy plot recapitulations, unnecessarily gory details) and meets the guidelines at WP:LIST. Would it really be a better solution for readers to have to go to eleven different articles to see, for example, how many people have been killed with a machete in the Friday the 13th series? (Okay, I know some of you can't imagine anybody wanting to know that information ever . . . but anyway) janejellyroll 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia Ja ^{wat's sup} 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possible weak merge to Friday the 13th (film series) or the induvidual films - listcruft. WegianWarrior 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per janejellyroll. The deaths are the whole point of the storyline. Also, as noted, this horror series has iconic status. Unlike other "List of deaths", it's concise, direct, and to the point (and unlikely me, not overly redundant and verbose). -- Black Falcon 08:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:23Z

Balkans Peace Park Project[edit]

This organizations appears to fail WP:CORP. Part Deux 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, promo. Dragomiloff 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Asian Australian. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:22Z

Bangladeshi Australian[edit]

This article is fairly short on context: just a list of the information on the Australian census, thus failing WP:NOT#IINFO. Suggest deletion without prejudice to recreating a better article. Part Deux 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would support the retention of this article if I thought that it was capable of expansion with history of Bangladeshis in Australia and current information. I don't know that it is. Capitalistroadster 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asian Australian without prejudice to proper recreation. -- Black Falcon 05:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is primarily unsourced speculation. What remains is a single statistic out of the census, which is not really encyclopaedic on its own. Lankiveil 11:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:42Z

Steggy and Lacy[edit]

Steggy and Lacy is a complete hoax. No Google hits except for the Wikipedia article. --Caldorwards4 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would appear to indeed be a hoax. Therefore delete assuming if the existence of this show cannot be substantiated. It does appear from a Google search not to exist, I assume there would be something about it if it had indeed had five series on TV, voiced by notable actors, with a theme tune sung by Russell Watson Jules1975 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't locate any information pertaining to this show; it's not listed at IMDB, etc.. It is also entirely unreferenced and contains no useful content outside of episode listings. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this the day it was created, but the prod was removed, as was another one later, without comment. And now the AfD notice has been removed. I Googled various things from the page before I prodded it, and got no results for any of them... this is almost certainly a hoax. Pinball22 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Water management. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:41Z

Water Management[edit]

Original research, essay, better article with same subject matter already exists: Water resources - Ozzykhan 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is an original research (signing the end of the article with the editor's personal information is a dead giveaway) that is poorly written, without citations, and whose subject matter is redundant to other articles already in existence. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just thought I'd throw this in for good measure: WP:NOT#OR - Ozzykhan 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entirely original research and an existing article already exists, per note above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Water resources~~. -- Whpq 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Water management disambig page identified by Tikiwont is actually a better target for the redirect. -- Whpq 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Water management, a disambiguation page. --Tikiwont 11:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tufts[edit]

Page does not meet notability guidelines per WP:Bio Mocko13 17:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and reads like a vanity page. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person, no assertion of anything that might indicate this person passes WP:BIO. Also, it reads like the storyline of a very bad TV movie. Jules1975 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Boy meets state? NN, overwrought purple prose attempts to goose apparent importance of narrative. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources therefore fails WP:V Alf^Photoman 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whatever...this person was a candidate for elected office so it wasn't a vanity page. It was created so people could atleast have an idea of who this person was when they would look over the list of candidates for that particular office.

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:34Z

Armenian blogs[edit]

There is no real content here. It is just a giant linkfarm for blogs. IrishGuy ^talk 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a linkfarm. Article was first started with the expressed purpose of bookmarking Armenian blogs. Some unreferenced (probably just opinion with no sourcing) content has been added, but the article remains primarily a link farm. -- Whpq 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as linkfarm and unreferenced listcruft Alf^Photoman 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of links. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelloggsville[edit]

Non-notable school district; no reason given why it's any different from all the others. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason to see how this meets WP:N criteria. L uis₁₉₇₂ (Talk •

My Contribs) 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The British equivalent would be something like North Hants Local Education Authority, which (suprisingly enough) doesn't warrant a Wikipedia Page. I daresay this school disctrict comes under some sort of county government that is notable, so a simple line on that page stating the schools disctricts would be far preferable. A1octopus 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not of WP:N criteria--Cometstyles 15:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 will create a redirect after deletion.

Web communication[edit]

Original research, essay, better article with same subject matter already exists: Computer network and Telecommunication - Ozzykhan 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Telecommunication until someone provides verifiable differences between the terms and has the time to develop the article beyond its current incarnation. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read through the article and it has nothing to do with telecommunications, so a redirect to that artcile would be inappropriate. The article is in fact more about managing a marketing project that is using a website as the primary communication vehicle. The article is unsupported original research-- Whpq 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I quite agree that the article has nothing to do with telecommunications, but the title its author gave it does. A redirect from "Web communication" to "Telecommunication" would be quite appropriate. Redirect without a merge implies a deletion of all the current content. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snollville[edit]

Article purports to be about a place, but contains little or not information about the town. Instead it includes information about a specific murder incident that occured there. Contains little of use. Ian Goggin 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article purports to be about a town in Switzerland with a very un-Swiss name. The description of the murder is marked by anachronisms, improbable names, and so forth. In short - totally made up. FreplySpang 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete

Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr.[edit]

Candidates for municipal office and city councilmembers are not notable under WP:BIO. Relevant information (his declaration of candidacy) already exists in the article on the 2007 Mayoral Election. Mocko13 17:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. ObtuseAngle 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:27Z

Nicole Girard[edit]

Insufficient evidence of Notability --Strangerer 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. L uis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 18:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently she might not even be real, as the Jeff Fillion article claims she is fictional. ObtuseAngle 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete if not real then obviously no claim to notablity, but even if real we do not list every last therapist, sexual or otherwise, practising across the world. A1octopus 13:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathleen Vitale[edit]

County council members and rumored candidates for higher office do not meet notability criteria in WP:BIO - Mocko13 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even a winner of the office would have questionable notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks notability and sources. L uis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like she would flunk WP:BIO, even if sourced. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor apparatchik. Wikipedia is not a repository of junior politicians' resumés. Ohconfucius 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:37Z

Early Sunsets Over Monroeville[edit]

Wasn't a single and no third-party coverage. No assertion of notability. There is no information that can't be placed on the main album page. Rehevkor 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all non-single tracks on I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love to that album's article. The album is supposed to tell a story, so it makes sense to put the bits of the story in one place. All of the non-single tracks have 2-4 non-copyvio unique sentences, so merging them together now (and splitting them out later if that becomes necessary) makes sense. --Interiot 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:38Z

Romance (song)[edit]

Wasn't a single and no third-party coverage. There is no information that can't be placed on the main album page (i.e. a summary of the story in one place would be more appropriate. Rehevkor 18:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylines and Turnstiles. I have to ask why the nominator nominated about ten of these articles on individual songs separately, rather than nominating them all together as one AfD - it would have saved everyone a lot of time. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the opinion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End.. Rehevkor 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism[edit]

Denialism: Orwellian words for the 2000's. This article opens an epistemological can of worms. This is not consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia.

I believe this whole article is simply well-disguised original research. From the Wikipedia viewpoint, the article violates the WP:NOR as well as indeirectly violating the WP:POV policies (the existence of this article would seems to amplify "anti-denialism" propaganda, closing a self-justifying loop.) Also, reliable sources do not usually include mere blogs. From a functionalist viewpoint, the problem with "denialism" as a concept, and as an encyclopedic entry, is that it promotes poisoning the well: denouncing a view as denialism or its proponent as a denialist has the effect of leading to judgement before inquiry. Using User:Quitter's own words against him:

Hence scientists and sciencebloggers have begun to recognize the phenomena of denialism in their interactions with those who use emotionally appealing or confusing arguments to cast doubt on well-established and supported theories.

we see this very kind of thinking. "Well-established" might mean theories which actually are demonstratable beyond reasonable doubt, or it might mean uncontested propaganda. Which is which?

Global warming is climatological / recent trend
AIDS is caused by/not caused by HIV
Holocaust was a systematic / happenstance killing of 6 / 2 million Jews
Evolution versus ... whatever

--Otheus 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just at a glance my main concern would be that I don't see much in the way of reliable sources for this article. Keep in mind that blogs don't normally count as "reliable publishers". Ultimately, the article has to provide some references to reliable publishers as described in WP:V in order to verify that the term isn't simply a neologism and that the information in the article about the term isn't original research and is also accurate. Dugwiki 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The word and the concept appear to be legitimate (49,200 Google hits), but this article smacks of OR. This article would need to be tagged for better sources or stubbed to remove any potential OR and/or POV content. ObtuseAngle 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This really does seem like WP:OR. The sources seem less than directly supportive of the current existence and use of the term and more like, surprise! sources supporting an original synthesis. Unless there's more specific cites of it, I'm reluctant to let it stand as is. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It does need some references, but the references to use will inherently be NPOV on that particular topic, or else a recapitulation of the debate. The article itself need not be, for there are cases where the denialism is against something which turns out to have been false. A bad argument by bald assertion against the false can be denialism--either a stout denial that there is evidence for evolution, or a stout denial that there is evidence against--there can be both, & one of them will be correct, regardless of how illogical the argument may be. DGG 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of the article was a Wiki admin (and had been for quite a while). It would seem the admin would "know better". --Otheus 08:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Turns up 52,900 google hits. Needs some sourcing though. Suriel1981 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deny this article until reliable sources are given, as "denialism" could mean any number of things and most of the search results appear to be blog entries. If this is indeed a notable term, mention it at propaganda or disinformation, and take it from there. –Pomte 01:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a real term, and it very relevant to the current debate on Global warming, evolution, HIV "reappraisal", holocaust denial... and there's a well-established trend of the same people denying most of the above (like my senator; lucky me!). Guettarda 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Geuttarda and DGG, common term but the OR needs to be removed and better sourcing given. JoshuaZ 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:NEO. There are tons of google hits out there but they're all (as far as I could find) examples of use, not discussion of use as is required by WP:NEO. In other words, OR. Furthermore, as the nominator points out, this is a term that doesn't refer to a specific group or philosophy but is rather a way of deriding someone else's opinion, so the article doesn't seem accurate either. Mango juice^talk 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a neologism. Regardless, the article itself is overly vague. It's not a specific concept, but rather a broad definition which could apply to several entirely different topics. It's also terribly sourced. Nothing gives us a distinct definition of denialism past the idea that denialism is about denying things. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is someone here in denial re the word's value? Jim62sch 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word would be more suited toward Wikitionary than here. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:37Z

This is the Best Day Ever[edit]

Wasn't a single and no third-party coverage. There is no information that can't be placed on the main album page, possibly no notable info at all. Rehevkor 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylines and Turnstiles. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:20Z

Ten thousand smiles[edit]

The article doesn't cite any independent reliable sources, and a somewhat thorough search via Google didn't turn up anything remotely independent. Article was written in a first-person style in December 2004, little has been updated since, and now that the group's website went down, it's not even clear that any first-person updates will occur. Interiot 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable student group; only links are to their own site; no evidence of multiple coverage in third-party sources to establish notability. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a non-notable student group; no sources in evidence, and I too was unable to find any. Shimeru 06:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:36Z

Demolition Lovers[edit]

Wasn't a single and no third-party coverage. Not notable. Seems to contain only vague, unvarified info and a description of the song. Rehevkor 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylines and Turnstiles. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - spam, no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmotiv[edit]

I just don't see the importance and the article does not assert the notability of the invention. It's possibly spam. Just because it has a patent doesn't mean it's notable. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per db-ad. Djma12 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was probably being too kind and cautious to go to AfD from my initial prod when the author protested. Sometimes I don't trust my judgment. Live and learn. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD G11. So tagged. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete: this is spam, pure and simple, liquid-lense projectors have been popular for ages especially with muscicians (60s psychadelic practically had a fetish for them), a specific non-notable projector isn't worthy of an article. Wintermut3 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:38Z

Drowning Lessons[edit]

Non notable non single with only un sourced meaning and lyrics (which are not allowed according to WP:L&P). Rehevkor 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylines and Turnstiles. Would have been simpler to nominate the two together as one AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 10:36Z

Skylines and Turnstiles[edit]

Non-notable non-single, only contains unsourced info that could be moved to the album page if necessary. Rehevkor 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love (main article on the album). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:19Z

Gerald Starr[edit]

Failed candidates for local office are not notable. Sorry for all the Maryland politicians in AfD today, BTW - am clearing out the category. - Mocko13 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - election candidacy doesn't make him inherently notable; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced Articles needs multiple, independently published articles about the subject as per WP:BIO. Dugwiki 20:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Irishguy as nonsense. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The native volcanic bumble bee[edit]

The information in this article seems to be fabricated. No additional information about the native volcanic bumble bee, Asinius-Perperus, or Mountain Smoke bug could be found with searches. Strangerer 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. No references sited, and none findable through googling. And the text does make it look like a hoax. A bee that makes a nest from magma? Not likely. -- Whpq 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Patent Nonsense. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G1. So tagged. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:19Z

The Jetset Life is Gonna Kill You[edit]

Non-notable non-single. Contains no notable infomation/speculation. Rehevkor 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Redirect without merge to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, the album responsible. Once all the unsourced speculation is cut out, we are left with ""The Jetset Life is Gonna Kill You" is the seventh track on My Chemical Romance's second album, Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge". It is not a single. -- saberwyn 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion by admin Steel359 as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tailies[edit]

This time-travelling article claims that the band had top 40 UK hits... in summer 2007. I can't find any verification of this with Google, not even when I engage the time-machine patch. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have just speedied this. My brain must be overheated. Speedied now. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:18Z

Dukinization[edit]

Reason Delete - Appears to be spurious nonsense. Googling "Dukinization" only brings up copies of this article. Googling "Duke Kim" + composer brings up nothing relevant. MakeRocketGoNow 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ezratrumpet 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:17Z

The Ruby Square[edit]

Not notable online community. Fails WP:WEB. Selket ^Talk 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no third-party sources (i.e. those independent of the site itself) are provided to establish notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does seem to exist, but no sources appear to. Not notable per WP:WEB, as far as I can tell. Shimeru 06:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZPanel[edit]

Fails WP:ATT, no sources provided or could be found. Fails WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE, whichever you want to apply. Page makes no claim to notability and from what I can tell has little hopes of expansion. Is not included in Ubuntu, Debian or Gentoo, showing lack of notability among Linux software. BJ^Talk 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all links are to sites associated with the software; no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not quite sure how this works but here goes: We are working behind the scenes and have an active forum. Progress can be checked at http://blog.thezpanel.com/. If you have any further questions feel free to contact me at mmulla(at)zee-way.com

Regards,
Meisam Mulla
ZPanel Developer

Delete as non notable and unverified, being behind the scenes and all. The only google news results describe a vulnerability. Recreate this article when notability has been achieved. –Pomte 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:16Z

GateWay Church[edit]

Article does not establish church's notability ObtuseAngle 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of any importance, most likely text was ripped from the website. Yanksox 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV unsourced article fails WP:N and proposed WP:CONG.Edison 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected WP:CONG. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rejected status is disputed, and besides, the fact that it is rejected doesn't mean it can't be of help. JROBBO 09:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, if a guideline has so little support that it can't even be clearly established if it's proposed or rejected, it's rejected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion perfectly illustrates the folly of keeping the rejected guidelines: (a) they remain contentious, and (b) they continue to be quoted. Regardless this was never a guideline only a proposal which never should have been cited at AfD as having weight. --Kevin Murray 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past practice has been to cite proposed guidelines in AFDs, labelling them as such. That was the way WP:PORNBIO 's authors got it accepted as a guideline for notability. It is not established by a vote at the discussion page. Edison 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that it's helpful in deciding what is or isn't helpful (like a WP essay). JROBBO 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Edison. JROBBO 09:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability assertion, might be speedyable under A7 or G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would speedy be as effective in preventing re-creation? This was redirected before and then brought back. --Kevin Murray 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If something is speedied, and then the exact same thing is recreated, it can just be re-speedied under G4 (it was already determined that the old article was unacceptable). Of course, if something different is created, that would need to be evaluated on its own merits, but if the new article really is acceptable where the old one was not, that's not necessarily bad. If someone's really bent on recreating something, they're just going to keep it up until they get blocked or the page gets a dose of salt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not appear to be a congregation of a widely recognized denomination; from what I can tell from the article it is a small independent denomination although local in membership. As such it is subject to the rules of WP:ORG, which, at this time, specifically excludes congregations but includes denominations, without regard to size or geography. --Kevin Murray 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see no reference to congregations in WP:ORG except where it says For proposed guidelines on local churches and schools see: Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) and Wikipedia:Schools.

So reference to WP:cong is still perfectly appropriate. If WP:ORG were amended to exclude all articles about congregations, that would run contrary to the observed practice in AFDs and would be inappropriate and misleading, since many article about congregations have been kept. Edison 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - "Rejected" doesn't mean "totally meritless", it just means "didn't achieve consensus". If an individual editor still happens to agree with the ideas expressed in a rejected guideline, I see nothing wrong with a shorthand reference to that rather than a long posting of them in every debate they apply to. The closing admin is the one responsible to weight arguments accordingly. There's no prohibition against referring to something just because it's not a guideline or policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edison, please slow down and read what I wrote "This does not appear to be a congregation." I see this as a small geographic "denomination"; these are specifically included in WP:ORG. --Kevin Murray 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteTechnically this should be tagged for NPOV and having no sources, and get a POV haircut. However, the assertion to notablility is weak, and I suspect some copyright violations as well; if not the latter then potentially POV and/or original research. Has anybody contacted the writters informing them of the AfD and explaining or policies on sources? --Kevin Murray 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Page's sole author has been contacted, no reply. ObtuseAngle 19:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree with Kevin M.--this might conceivably be a denomination--but I cannot tell, as there are no sources at all. The doctrines as stated look reasonably standard. Is an unaffiliated congregation with beliefs and practices the same as some other denomination(s) to be considered as a denomination of its own? I do not know, & I don't want to do the OR.DGG 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 'no.' The notability of a denomination is based on the fact that denominations include multiple local congregations and have some sort of regional or national scope. Some individual non-denominational congregations have notability, like Saddleback Church and Willow Creek Community Church. This does not appear to be such a church. Googling 'GateWay Church Reminderville Ohio' returns this Wikipedia article as the first hit, along with a map to a completely different Gateway Church in Chagrin Falls. It doesn't appear the church which is the subject of this article has a website of its own. ObtuseAngle 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A trip to the dictinoary puts me in agreement with Obtuse: "a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination." Regardless this is an "organization" (possibly sect) and fits no case for special inclusion thus defaulting to WP:N, which it fails. --Kevin Murray 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Edison. *drew 09:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, advertisment, religiocruft. --Candy-Panda 09:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:14Z

Republic (United Kingdom)[edit]

Obscure, non-notable substub on tiny UK pressure group that seems to exist largely only as a website. Stringops 20:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does exist, and if you look at the supporters list on the website, they have some prominent supporters. I found an external source in the "Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations", at item 188 on page 76. And here is a press story about the group's campaigning. It needs expansion, that's for sure. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one online newspaper mention doesn't make the group notable. Anyone can ring up a newspaper and make a claim hoping to get a mention. Apart from allegedly trying to get an advert printed, 'republic' seems to have little recognition outside of its own website. Searching google news for Republic anti-monarchy produces nothing relevant. Stringops 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Guardian which ran the story, along with The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail who refused the ads, are slightly more than 'online newspapers'. Nuttah68 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only put one mention there. The problem is that the terms which might be searched for throw up a lot of irrelevant hits. Google news only searches the last few weeks. I can do a more lengthy search if you want. The group was founded in 1983 by Stephen Haseler. Sam Blacketer 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your point about the difficulty in accurately searching for something called 'republic', however, even if it gets an occasional media mention, I'm not convinced that it's well-known enough to satisfy notability. Also, having notable supporters doesn't necessarily make a group notable itself. If prominent people support it, there more of a case for mentioning that in their own articles. So far as pressure groups go, this one seems to me to be a pretty insignificant one from the evidence I've found. Stringops 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I'll do a longer search and place my results on this article's talk page. Now done. Sam Blacketer 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, may have some cursory supporters, but none take an active interest, apparently. It doesn't seem to contribute anything society other than having a website, which any organisation can have. It doesn't hold events &c.--Couter-revolutionary 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading Couter-revolutionary views Brian | (Talk) 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in line with The Guardian coverage plus further coverage found just by searching on "Republic - The Campaign for an Elected Head of State" at [52] and [53] (Peter Tatchell's site), . Also used to comment and linked from the BBC at [54], comments for ABC at [55], The Scotsman at [56]. Futher coverage is out there as the group is covered under the name and slogan. Nuttah68 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Nuttah68's comments and the details on the discussion page.--Vintagekits 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable Astrotrain 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per talk page references. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, references do not equate with notability.--Couter-revolutionary 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respectfully suggest you familiarise yourself with the notability guidelines then. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am and have seen many referenced organisations deleted. I could easily public lots of websites referencing a fictional society, would that make it notable? So far as I can tell this does not exist outside the internet.--Couter-revolutionary 21:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that would suggest you have not read the references, seeing as they contain reports from reliable sources of meetings, demonstrations, PQs and so on. Nuttah68 21:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it is interesting to note your attitude and interpretation of wiki policy switches depending on the issue. This AfD is a result of the previous AfD and the nominator appears to be a sockpuppet of one of those disgruntled by the imminent deletion.--Vintagekits 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your proof? Of course I've learnt my lesson from the previous deletions.--Couter-revolutionary 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep on the basis of the actual article. Who this group's supporters may be, how many they are, how likely its political goals seem, all of this is not relevant. If it is commented on by major national news sources it is N. WP is not a judge of political merit. DGG 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a list of its supporters http://www.republic.org.uk/supporters/index.php Including renowned human rights campaigner peter tatchellRepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are some references of its notability:

http://www.labourspace.com/campaign.php?whichcampaign=71

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/212we08.htm

http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/republic.htm.RepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first is a mention on a campaigns website, not a directory of notability. Does wikipedia have an article on Save Gloucester Mail Centre (Communication Workers Union - Gloucestershire Amal. Branch)? Should it?

The second concerns written evidence to a parliamentary committee. HMSO is obliged to publish all the written evidence it receives. If I were to submit evidence to such a committee myself, I would end up being quoted by the same website; that wouldn't make me notable enough for a wikipedia article! Indeed, if you look, you will find that the vast majority of the 96-odd published submissions are from non-notable individuals and organisations who quite rightly aren't mentioned on wikipedia.

The third link is Peter Tatchell voicing his opinion on his own website. Just because Tatchell is notable doesn't make any organisation he links to on his website notable! As I've said before, in the case of Tatchell, it makes far more sense to mention his support of this organisation in his own article rather than maintain a tiny stub in its own namespace. Stringops 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was only made because I nominated an unoitable monarchist organisation.RepublicUK 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. I nominated it because I happened to stumble upon the article whilst browsing and didn't think it deserved to be on wikipedia. I haven't contributed to wikipedia for several months previous to this and I have no involvement in any other arguments you might have had during this time. Stringops 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith of the user who nominated this article for deletion.--Couter-revolutionary 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Keep - Extra sources seem to provide enough notability. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to point out that User:RepublicUK is a member (and representative) of this organisation and has admitted this on his user=page. --Counter-revolutionary 09:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the additional sources of notability, which should be added to the article. —Nightst a llion (?) 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a topic of very significant consequence. People are advocating the replacement of the British monarchy with a republic, talk that would have gotten them spedily into prison in the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century. The issue of republice versus monarchy is one that stocked the conservative ancien regime reaction against liberalism in Britain and on the European continent throughout the nineteenth century.

It is rather remarkable that people are hurling charges such as sock puppet. This organization is a bona fide organization with dozens of supporters among political and cultural figures in British society. The BBC had given reference to it in a series of articles in 2003. Dogru144 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wkipedia's job is not to give forum to a voice for different/extremist views. If it's not notable it's not notable! --Counter-revolutionary 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it helps if you show why, rather than just assert it vigorously. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on prominent supporters, press coverage. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied repost. Opabinia regalis 04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 The Ranting Gryphon[edit]

The page offers no sources and does not assert notability of the subject.

Also, when the first comment on the talk page described the subject as "irrelevant", that comment was deleted by another editor; this is vandalism to prevent application of Wikipedia polices. Avt tor 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable outside Furry Fandom. Also, as Avt tor pointed out, the page does not cite any sources. --Efitu (Tlk Unc) 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously deleted (log) under the title 2 the Ranting Gryphon. The content looks similar. GreenReaper 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G4. A direct copy of the WikiFur article, which was previously deleted. A good article isn't inconceivable, but it would require someone to actually write a new article rather than copying text from WikiFur, which has different notability policies than Wikipedia. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fascinating, I was wondering why the talk page said "glad to see this page back" when there was nothing in the deletion log. I would have proposed this earlier if I'd known. I put a Notability template on the page a month ago in the hopes of eliciting some relevant sources. Avt tor 01:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

regreatably, speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Though I continue to maintain that he's a notable topic, recreating copy-pasted material that was previously deleted is not the way to change consensus. Wintermut3 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eje Records

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:12Z

Gradey Alexander and The Barnum Kid[edit]

Both the author and the book are entirely unverifiable on Google. For one thing, any author who'd gotten into literary spats with Mordecai Richler and V. S. Naipaul would certainly garner at least one Google hit. Articles listed under references don't appear to actually exist, either. Most likely a hoax — and even if he does actually exist, he's still neither notable nor verifiable enough to be on Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat 21:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as hoax. If the book were real, it would be entered in the catalogue of the National Library of Canada. (Neither the book or author is there.) Bucketsofg 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per above. "Gradey Alexander" receives a grand total of two ghits - neither concerning the subject. There is no trace of Gradey Alexander at the National Library, or through Abebooks and other used book searches. Note that the subject's claimed PEN/Faulkner nomination took place in 1978, three years before the presentation of the first award. A hoax. Victoriagirl 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax/vanity article. The user name creating these articles would seem to indicate some vanity going on here, and the only related ghit I get on Gradey Alexander [57] is from a freely editable "press release center" that claims to quote a local Whitehorse newspaper. The newspaper's website [58] seems to make no mention of it. I get the impression this isn't as much a hoax as perhaps a delusional small-time critic who is imagining grand confrontations with notable authors and trying to propagate a grander image of himself. Or, I could be barking up the wrong tree and it's just a run of the mill hoax. :) Arkyan 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the press release is dated today (28 February 2007), quotes "Daniel Yeoman" the creator of the Gradey Alexander appreciation website, and was posted by Yeoman under the Dyxxx tag he uses for the self-same site.Victoriagirl 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Extremely elaborate hoax, then? It just seems like a lot of work to go to for the simple matter of creating phony Wikipedia articles! Not that it changes whether or not the articles ought to be deleted. I just find it odd. Arkyan 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that I read one of his books when I was in high school. We had a teacher who was fond of obscure Canadian writers like Alexander or O'Groussney.

Comment I note that the vague, unsigned comment above was placed by Westrimble23, a single purpose account (indeed the comment is the user's only contribution). I also note the similarity between Westrimble23 and Gradey23, the single purpose account that created the two articles under discussion).Victoriagirl 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Westrimble23's unsigned comment was deleted by 24.137.96.117. As this is against Wikipedia policy, I have restored the comment. I note that in his most recent posting on the Gradey Alexander appreciation site Daniel Yeoman identifies himself as Gradey23 and joins Westrimble23 in mentioning a Canadian author named O’Groussney (as Darren O'Groussny). As with Gradey Alexander, no books by Darren O'Groussny (or O'Groussney) are held in the National Library, the Toronto Public Library, or the various lIbraries of the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia. The names "Darren O'Groussny" and "Darren O'Groussney" generate no ghits. Victoriagirl 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Resolute 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I too can find no reliable record of this interesting chappy on the web. The Philip Marchand Toronto Star article cited does not exist according to a ProQuest search. --Slp1 00:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I add that at least three of the four remaining references do not exist. This includes Mr Yeoman's own “Lost in Translation”, which he claims to have published in Queen’s Quarterly. About the remaining reference, “The Forgotten Patriarch” by “Jill Martin”: there is no record of the publication, “Firlotte Editions”, to be found at the libraries of McGill or Concordia. I note that the name generates no ghits. Those not yet entirely bored may wish to read a more detailed account of my research at Mr Yeoman's the Gradey Alexander appreciation website. Victoriagirl 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Chessington World of Adventures. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:11Z

Tomb Blaster[edit]

This is a non-notable amusement park ride. The entire text of the article was previously in Chessington World of Adventures but has since been changed, although a merge back makes the most sense. The author is a single purpose account, and based ont he user name, has a conflict of interest. There is not external referencing for this ride to estblish notability. PROD removed without comment. Whpq 21:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the associated amusement park, unless additional information and references supporting the article's claims can be added. Outright delete as second option. -- saberwyn 23:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It exists; it's not especially notable; merge back. -- Simon Cursitor 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, zero Ghits for band. NawlinWiki 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violador Profissional[edit]

Delete per WP:NN War wizard90 21:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the band involved is subject to speedy deletion, should this not be a speedy candidate also, as an undistinguished album track from a non-notable artist? Sam Blacketer 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yuser31415 06:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misery Index (band)[edit]

Non-Notable Band/~~Bandcruft~~ SERSeanCrane 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, band has existed for several years and released two albums, will tour Europe (see WP:MUSIC criterion 3), All Music Guide bio and review exist. I'm not really into the metal press, but it seems likely to me that non-trivial print sources exist. 96T 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, notable band, has two albums already and is currently on a European tour with Origin and Necrophagist. Certainly meet WP:Band Spearhead 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this a bad-faith nomination? The same user recently also AFD'd the Evoken article, which also clearly meets WP:BAND. I suggest SERSeanCrane to stop meddling with things s/he does not understand Spearhead 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article provided zero reliable sources, hence the nomination. Note that the 'official website' is not reliable because it is not a third party source. Perhaps if editors like yourself spent more time verifying their claims rather than accusing other editors of "bad faith nominations," there'd be less meddling. SERSeanCrane 13:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that albums itself are also reliable sources and it is easily verifiable whether they exist. Of course reliable sources are important but lack thereof does not require deletion. In such cases it is better to use e.g. Template:Unreferenced than to claim "bandcruft" particularly when you're not familiar with the genre. Spearhead 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. SERSeanCrane 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've never previously heard of them but a couple of minutes looking round the web are enough to show that they clearly meet WP:Band. A1octopus 23:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two albums, multiple EPs, and online coverage (see, e.g., [59]) are sufficient to establish notability per WP:BAND. -- Black Falcon 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Publications of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

The majority of these are just links to a site which is subject to a DMCA takedown notice. None of these publications appears to have an article, so t he list of links is not navigational, it's a bibliography which I need to unlink per WP:C, leaving not much. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be a link repository rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links I tried were working fine when I visited the page; if someone is claiming copyright over stuff published in the 1860's, it seems more likely that it's an attempt to suppress uncomplimentary material than a valid copyright claim. A group that wants to silence its critics by trying to use a controversial U.S. law the DMCA to have material pulled from a website -- especially one as otherwise well known as the Jehovah's Witnesses -- is a quite notable subject matter. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the site hoists material right up to the present day, including material that is unquestionably still copyright. They make no distinction between copyright infringing and copyright expired. That is the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The subject title implies that this is going to be an encyclopedia entry on the subject of early Jehovah's Witness writings, which would merit inclusion. The current state of the article is nothing more than a massive linkfarm. With an extreme amount of work (getting rid of the useless linkspam and actually writing on the subject in the title) by someone knowledgable on the subject I would easily change to a keep vote. Arkyan 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete will change if this article can get some real content, right now it has too many external links. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is supposed to be a counterpart to List of Watchtower publications, which is similar in design. The publications listed here are all quite old. Are there copyright issues with the links here (which come from a variety of sources)? I'd be willing to work at re-writing the page to meet objections mentioned here. Are lists like this and List of Watchtower publications not suitable material? Would it be preferred to create linked articles for each title? That could be done but would require some time. Would it be better to put the titles into paragraphs of text? Dtbrown 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is without prejudice with regards to the topic, the notability of the topic or the good faith and good judgment of the editors. It's normally reasonable to assume you're not linking to a copyright violation. I also want to emphasize that I am not taking a stand on either side of the main church vs the dissenters, theologically, or on the merits of their copyright dispute. I also have nothing against the Jehovah's Witness movement in general and I am very sensitive to deleting articles dealing with matters of faith. The problem as I see it is copyright. The article relies heavily on reexamine.info links and by our own policies, we need to remove these links -- and promptly. I am open to others recreating the article in the future if alternate, legally acceptable links are found. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are not most (if not all--I'm not sure exactly where the cut-off is) of the publications listed in this article no longer subject to copyright? Dtbrown 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the following:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Removing 279 reexamine.info links for copyright reasons
- m:Talk:Spam blacklist#reexamine.info
- That page is frequently archived; so here's a permanent link if the discussion above has been archived

Like it or not, the links have to go regardless of this article's disposition. I also don't think we're in a good position to judge which links violate copyright and which don't. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links are my bottom line -- fix the reexamine link issue and I'm fine with keeping or merging. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining what is going on and I understand the need to remove the links. Is there any way to find out who lodged the complaint? Dtbrown 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and I belive I have removed all links to reexamine.info in this article. Perhaps others could double check this. I have also tried to supply other "legally acceptable links". Dtbrown 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A day or two, the home page said closed for maintenance, but you could still load at least some of the links (very, very slowly -- felt like a 14k modem connection) --A. B. ^(talk) 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is replete with articles that are simply lists, so that alone is not justification for deleting the article. Whether the publications are out of copyright or not has no bearing on whether the publications may be listed. However, links to sites hosting material without permission that are still protected by copyright should be removed. Most of the listed publications are no longer protected by copyright. The article should probably be renamed "List of early JW publications" to make the intent of the article unambiguous. Another suitable alternative would be to merge with "List of Watchtower Publications" as a subsection. There is no valid reason for removing the information altogether.--Jeffro77 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thise lists are navigational. This is not. It's a bibliography, and every single liknk is (a) a weblink (WP:EL, WP:NOT a link farm) and (b) of no externally verifiable significance. This is just a list fo the publications some editor(s) thought were significant, it is unsourced. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of publications that may be of informational interest to persons researching subjects related to Jehovah's Witnesses. It may also prompt editors to provide further information or create articles on some of those publications that may be of specific relevance. It therefore has some value. As previously stated, it should probably be merged with "List of Watchtower Publications".--Jeffro77 10:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea to retitle this "List of Early Watchtower Publications" or to merge it with the complimentary List of Watchtower publications is a good idea. Dtbrown 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: comment on links At the moment the web site for rexamine.info gives a message of "Closed for Maintenance" and all links to pages on that sight are nonoperative.DGG 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:09Z

AK Comics: Comics That Bite Back[edit]

Article is unreferenced and appears to fail to meet normal notability standards (see WP:N). Also sounds like it might have been written by someone affiliated with the comic. Delete unless proper sources included. Dugwiki 21:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Googling for AK Comics indicates that there may in fact be an AK Comics that might meet notability, but none of the information matches with what is in the wiki article leading me to suspect that they are not the same things. There are no sources provided for verification, and none that appear to corroborate the information here, so fails WP:V -- Whpq 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, borders on patent nonsense and WP:NFT. Krimpet 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be about someone who self-published his own comics. No relation to the Egyptian AK Comics, which is a notable publisher. Shimeru 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - NYC JD (make a motion) 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmullo Bear[edit]

Hoax. Nonpareility 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a hoax -- Whpq 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a hoax, but quite funny. Sam Blacketer 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense and so tagged. Whisp e ring 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:09Z

Jengameister[edit]

Prodded, removed without explantion or additions. Claims to be a game invented 2007. Totally non-notable. Richhoncho 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected my omission - should have read "without explanation" --Richhoncho 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable drinking pastime Jules1975 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Sam Blacketer 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up in Ischgl one day. Gazpacho 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:08Z

Brooke Boisse[edit]

According to IMDB, [60] she played "model" in Monkeybone and appeared as "the potential roommate" in one episode of Friends. Nothing else. Non-notable actress. IrishGuy ^talk 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content." Also, the author used an infobox for an adult film actress (strange). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. She's cute, though. ObtuseAngle 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 and per WP:V and per totally unsourced and unreferenced Alf^Photoman 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A recreate may be appropriate if notability and reliable sources can be shown, but combined with the current patent nonsense... Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xirsi Ugaaryahan[edit]

Other than that this is about a person, I cannot make heads or tails out of this "article." A google result turns up nothing. Salad Days 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete tending stronger if nobody comes forward with more information. As far as I can follow, he's the ancestor of a large number of diaspora Somalis (from one particular clan?). Aside from the fact that his descendents are apparently all over the cookshop, he doesn't seem to have done anything much else of significance. O'course, Somalis tend to be under-represented in all but their own language. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete will change if this can be rewritten and sourced. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's largely incomprehensible. Fails WP:V without sourcing. -- Scientizzle 06:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Steel 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pewter Report (magazine)[edit]

Article has been nominated and deleted by speedy 2 times previous under PewterReport and Pewter Report with the concern of spam advertisement.--Hu12 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and salt Obvious spam. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why was this article brought back from speedy? Removing all of the blatant advertising material would leave about two sentences in the whole article. There are also no references other than the company's website, and why is this even being debated given the author's username and history? Someguy1221 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

brought back because author was attempting communication--Hu12 23:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Love Fist (done by User:Dbam). Pea ceNT 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Fist[edit]

As the page has been redirected to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Love Fist, I withdraw my nomination. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Non-notable fictional band. This is a band in the Grand Theft Auto Series. There are no sources and the article makes little assertion of notability Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Only the protagonists of the GTA games got their own pages so far, while even major secondary characters that recur in several GTA games are only mentioned in the "List of characters" pages. With that in mind, I don't see a reason why Love Fist can't be limited to the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City page.
In fact, Love Fist already had an entry in the List page. I've enriched it with non-trivia information from the Love Fist page (such as credits and references to real-world events). So now, the Love Fist page should simply redirect to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Love Fist. -- Ritchy 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevant information into the Vice City character list. 96T 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll withdraw the nom early if anyone familiar enoughh with the game goes ahead and does the merge. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've redirected the Love Fist page to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Love Fist and moved a little bit more of the content. Dbam 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charla and Mirna[edit]

Article regarding two Amazing Race competitors. I first queried the notability of the article on the 27th, suggesting that unless there were improvements made I would eventually bring this to AFD. It was prodded by Ian Spackman on the 28th as "sheer non-notable American cultural imperialism", Evrik later removed teh prod beause he felt they were notable.

To quote from my mesage on the talk page: My main problem with the article is that it is little more than a blow-by-blow account of their participation in each series of the Race - which is plainly unencyclopaedic. There is little biographical information here that is a) not on The Amazing Race 5 contestants (in fact, much of the biographical stuff is plain copy & paste from text I added to that article) or b) not suitable to merge into that article.

Ooops! Thanks for pointing out my mistake. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a similar article, Derek and Drew Riker, has already been deleted recently. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Riker twins article was actually redirected to The Amazing Race 3. Your link is to an old AFD from October 06. Otto4711 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Amazing Race 5 contestants. Pretty much a plot summary of their appearances on the race and the biographical information is already there. Otto4711 00:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Having said that ... the article needs some serious work. --evrik ^(talk) 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very Notable. --Thankyoubaby 05:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as TAR contestants go, not the least being selected for the All-Stars episode. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ignoring the drama between Evrik and I, there is already precedent that these contestants are not notable, even though they have participated on Allstars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs) 02:39, 5 March 2007

They pass the google test for notability. --evrik ^(talk) 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charla and Mirna are very notable and deserve their own article. Ben1283 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Charla and Mirna are notable. Masterpedia
Comment as I made clear from my nom... I am not contesting their notability, but I believe there is no use for the article because all relevant information is provided on The Amazing Race 5 contestants. I wish there would be more discussion of that, rather than simply agreeing with me that they are notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I support deleting/redirecting one-time contestants of reality shows, the subjects have appeared on three reality series (in addition to the other guests spots noted in the articles), and Mirna was co-winner of Battle of the Network Reality Stars. Caknuck 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Aves

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:05Z

Michael Kirsch[edit]

Does not seems to be notable Alex Bakharev 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, reads like a resume. Yanksox 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as being in violation of WP:NOT (repository). Created by single purpose account and possibly violate WP:COI, Mlyk, which I suspect may be the initals of the subject. Ohconfucius 06:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No harm done; many of us have newly-discovered algebraic identities in our younger days. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 09:03Z

Andrei's Powered-Base Rule[edit]

This page consists entirely of original research. Additionally, it was created by the creator of the alleged "rule", which violates the autobiography portion of the conflict-of-interest rules. Finally, it's not notable; there are literally an infinite number of "rules" that can be derived from algebra and some basic mathematical first principles, and there's nothing special about this one. Sarcasticidealist 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - per the author's own admission, this is original research. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Loniousmonk 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite the presentation, I am sure that this result, in correct, has been discovered and proved long ago. However, didn't we develop some kind of note or template to new authors whose first contribution was proposed for deletion, to explain the rules to them rather than just make them feel unwelcome? That would certainly be appropriate here. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Your suggestion to retain new users whose first contribution is AFD'd is a great one, and if no such note or template exists, somebody should design one. However, as to your comment about being sure that this "rule" has been discovered and proved long ago, it likely hasn't been just because nobody's bothered - the basic rules of mathematics are well understood, and finding new ways of making them interact with each other is generally just a waste of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- There are e.g. Template:AFDWarning to inform an author about the AFD nomination of his article and Template:Firstarticle for new users referring to a first article nominated for any type fo deletion referring both to speedy deletion crtieria and WP:NOT. --Tikiwont 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true, but naming it after a high schooler who supposedly (no way of verifying this) wrote it out for the first time is just silly. I remember discovering in grade school that $(n+1)^{2}-n^{2}=2n+1$ $(n+1)^{2}-n^{2}=2n+1$ , does anybody propose we call this Veinor's identity? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Veinor's point is well-taken, but let's not belittle the article-creator, either. Brad's Theorem was that the last digit of the fifth power of any (base-ten) integer is the same as the last digit of the integer. :) It seemed like a good idea at the time, and I am sure that if there had been a Wikipedia then I would have posted it, and been on the wrong end of this discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Michael’s Random Thoughts » Microsoft patents BlueJ

[1] Michael’s Random Thoughts » Microsoft patents BlueJ

[1]