Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 28

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Keep per consensus – PeaceNT 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kunoichi

Kunoichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This amalgam of original research and fantasies from various works of fiction is utterly devoid of sources. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The article does read like WP:OR and is unreferenced but Google = Results 31 - 40 of about 440,000 for "Kunoichi" most of which seem to support the premise of the article. It already has an unreferenced tag. Jeepday 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep AFD is not cleanup. Just H 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate article although could be improved, but I have seen worse than this on Wikipedia. PatGallacher 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All this needs is some cleanup and sources. Nothing serious here. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article needs a bit of work, but is a well-inclusive list on a notable subject. No reason at all to delete. --TommyOliver 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It just needs to sourced. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, needs some sources, a cleanup, if this is done, everything should be fine. Terence Ong 03:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've been watching this article for some time. I'm a little concerned about its steady growth into an all-inclusive list, but I think the article at its root is pretty decent. That said, it really does need some sources. --Mdwyer 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JustH. OR isn't a deletion criterion; if it needs cleanup, then do that. Part Deux 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wha? Of course OR is one of the criteria for deletion. --UsaSatsui 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see Wikipedia:no original research — as one of the fundamental policies of this encyclopedia, it is an extremely strong requirement for deletion ➥the Epopt 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Not in this case. In this case, cleanup would do much better, seeing as it's a notable subject. It would probably be much better to just tag the article {{OR}} or {{unsourced}} then to try to delete it. Part Deux 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and tag it for cleanup. --UsaSatsui 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As above, the article needs to be improved, but is notable and necessary. MightyAtom 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — I see a lot of "keep because I like it" votes here, but not very many explanations of why this article is not original research. May I suggest a review of "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions," which many of these entries seem to be quoting? ➥the Epopt 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Response to User:The Epopt a light search for references showed over four hundred thousand hits that seemed to support the articles content and indicate that the subject is notable. The page needs to be heavily edited and referenced but Wikipedia:There is no deadline. While the article does read like WP:OR it seems that that is wording/editing issue not a Wikipedia:Verifiabilityissue, every indication is that there are multiple outside references supporting the assertions. Being poorly written is not cause for deletion, there are multiple tags on the article identifying it's current shortcomings. Jeepday 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Response Response: Four hundred thousand certainly is a big number, isn't it? Now subtract the roleplaying game discussions, the ninja-versus-pirate jokes, the ads for martial arts schools, and the sexual fantasies. What's left? ➥the Epopt 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • et cetera: Your point is well taken, but I ask that you try to maintain some civility. --Mdwyer 04:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Response The lack of citation is certainly disturbing, especially when the article seems to miss Chiyome Mochizuki entirely, who appears to be the basis of the Kunoichi mythology. In any case, the mythology is firmly entrenched now. I see that Ninja is having the same credibility issues. I honestly can't see a solution to this credibility gap, but I really don't feel that deletion is warranted. Firm warnings about its credibility are indicated for the historical sections, though. --Mdwyer 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a rather idiosyncratic and contested essay. FWIW, neither games, jokes, nor sexual fantasies are not excluded from coverage. This is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Response Those game discussions, jokes, and fantasies show cultural impact, which is notability. Edward321 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Clean-up; the article includes content that defines a certain character archetype within manga and anime, however, it is poorly edited, and is sorely in need of the firm hand of a good editor. --Mhking 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I like it. Article subject is notable, but it definitely needs clean-up. ← ANAS ^Talk? 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Subject is notable and the article can be fixed; it sure would be nice if some non-video-game images were used in the article, however. It currently seems to identify more with the fictional than the factual aspects. ◄Zahakiel► 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I used Google Book Search and found some references. I have begun the clean up and reference on the article. Jeepday 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above Oo7565 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and tag it for cleanup. Interesting article. The book cited as a reference from 1991 is detailed and covers the topic well. MRoberts <> 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep Bucketsofg 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Find an Admin and close this please. I would, but i'm not an admin as of yet. Just H 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: AfD runs for five days — what's the hurry? As someone pointed out above, there is no deadline. What is it that you want to make sure doesn't happen before this discussion closes? ➥the Epopt 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think he's trying to invoke WP:SNOW. Personally, I don't agree it applies here. --UsaSatsui 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • We'll have to agree to disagree Satsui and Epopt. If this isn't "consensus", I don't know what is... Just H 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • See the two or three people who disagree with the "keep" still making decent arguments? That's not "consensus". If there's any doubt, better to leave it open.--UsaSatsui 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - We are not a catalog of fictional concepts with no chance of verifiability. It can be nothing but original research because it does not exist. Come on guys, I hate to be a WP:DICK, but are we really in the business of being a platform on which fictional concepts are showcased? No matter how many geekypedia editors like a particular anime/ninja fictional world, it isn't ever going to be within our scope or our policies. /Blaxthos 09:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that fictional concepts never deserve articles? Sorry, I don't buy it. Whether or not they really exist, they are verifiable concepts. Same here. Notability is an issue here, sources are, the presence of OR is. Verifiability isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
  • I do have to agree with Usasatsui that this argument seems to be a bit confusing. After all, it is Jimbo Wales, the one who is the first creator of Wikipedia and who best understands its design, that said there was no problem with there being an article on every Simpsons character that exists. Or should we not have articles on Elves, Dwarves, or ogres? Part Deux 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know all the past precidents, and I'm not trying to be dense... I think that my main point is that we're talking about something that, in essence, does not exist -- who gets to decide what Kunoichi is? How can we write a verifiable article on a concept that can't be measured, can't be tested, can't be verified? Some may say by incorporating only third party sources -- in essence, incorporating what others say about Kunoichi. I just think that this is an unverifiable article about a ficticious idea of questionable notability. Your point regarding other fiction that obviously warrants an encyclopaedic entry (such as vampires) is taken, but in this instance I don't believe that is the case. /Blaxthos 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly. There is a common theme to how Konoichi are portrayed, just as there are common themes to portrayals of Santa or vampires. As has been said, there is a lot missing and a bit of cruftiness, but those things can be worked out. The article as it stands sucks, but I believe the topic deserves an article. Worst case scenario, if when all is said and done there's not much left , it can be merged into "ninja". --UsaSatsui 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question, how do you say the naming for female ninja cannot be measured, tested, nor verified? There are people using it, at the very least it is a popular culture issue in Japan. I don't care if the article was kept or not (of course I am going to vote for a keep), but I do not want to see somebody's thinks that the term is not verifiable just because they have not heard it before. BTW, this word is found in two Japanese to Chinese dictionary and at least two Japanese dictionary where the meaning is literally Female Ninja. People have written in books saying why it is called that way, there are no exact final answer, but so do many science topics. The conclusion of actual reason for having this term is unknown, and thus the article should say that exactly, which does not mean it is not verifiable, but verified to be unknown by secondary sources. MythSearcher^talk 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, widespread, well-known concept in fiction at least, if not in real life. AfD Isn't Cleanup®. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it is def notable. --JavazXT 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm finding all these rebuttals in the name of "notability" hilarious. The subject may or may not be notable; that's irrelevant. The article is original research that is not based on reliable sources of information. It nothing but a collection of role-playing fantasies with no basis in fact and with no place in an encyclopedia. ➥the Epopt 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • • Comment Epopt, please calm down and try help guide the discussion or improve the article rather than talking ill of other peoples' opinions. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Just H 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: The No OR argument would work only if the individual who created this article coined or developed the meaning of the term beyond verifiable sources. In other words, the purpose of the OR policy is primarily for sources and arguments, not topics (e.g., Kunoichi as a factual occupation might be OR, and a poll taken by the editor indicating what percentage of individuals believe they are real would definitely be OR). I certainly agree that better verification is necessary here, but the topic in this case is not OR, and should be kept. By the way, there are lots of entries in wikipedia involving "a collection of role-playing fantasies with no basis in fact," so if you think the article needs to be rewritten to reflect that this is the primary focus, fine. Otherwise, I really don't see how your point stands up. ◄Zahakiel► 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Firm Keep After reading the article, I'm seeing a lot of statements which could be sourced. The lack of inclusion regarding the origins of the term is a little strange, but that's a job for cleanup. While the "Derivation of the word Kunoichi" section looks to be OR, the "History" section is quite well written. I can see the article is being cleaned up even as this AfD takes place and see no reason for deletion at this time. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for obvious reasons. The article needs help, but deleting is not the answer. At worst it should redirect to Ninja. JuJube 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Jujube. The article needs work, but at worst it should be merged with ninja. Edward321 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 15:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chewbacca Defense

This article was previously nominated for deletion on 2003-09-29. The result of the discussion was Keep. The discussion can be found at Talk:Chewbacca Defense.

Funny, but still a neologism, and not especially widespread. Denni☯ 01:37, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Keep or possibly merge with other frivolous / non-logical arguments like Twinkie Defense User:Peter Grey 02:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just finished law school where, believe me, it's widespread. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete: Is the term widespread? The previous keep was "it might catch on." Well, I've never yet heard the term. It's a South Park reference. On the other hand, the Twinkie defense, while stupid, was an actual attempted defense strategy. Geogre 02:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: You'd think the Chewbacca Defense would just be, "Let the Wookiee win," but, nooo... ~Mbsp (contributing nothing useful) 02:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Chef Aid (which is the episode of South Park that this appears in, and is currently a redirect to the article), condense the part about the Wookiee stuff, and expand to cover the entire episode. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep. I have heard it applied to many different court cases as a parody. Ral315 03:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I have never heard of it, but that's because I'm not an Anglosaxon. It certainly looks notable. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although I would like to see more references from the academic world. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, - even if it's a neologism, it is one which is going to get used, both inside and outside lawyer-speak, and it's both useful and non-defamatory (since the Wookie is Fictional Character) --Simon Cursitor 07:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Have to disagree and say Delete. Non-notable neologism. - Sikon 07:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable term. JamesBurns 08:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The term was indeed coined from South Park as a neologism, but this was back in 2001. Since then, the term has become accepted (as far as I'm aware, even some lawyers use it to deride their opponents) - Google throws up 9,530 results. If anything it's worth keeping simply as one of the few recent neologisms that have survived. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Chef Aid. Quite notable. I've heard of it and I'm not particularly well versed in law. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Chef Aid.I've seen it a few places on the net and when I first saw it didn't know what it was about. I definitely think Wikipedia should have the answer when people go looking for things like this.old joe 09:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If Chewbacca is a Wookie, you must keep. Proto 09:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Chef Aid; even in back of beyond Germany, we've heard about this term; I'm quite surprised to hear that it has found it's way into 'normal' (lawyers?) speech Lectonar 11:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed VFD discussion, the nominator would certainly want you to believe that this is a humourous item from a single episode of South Park that has no relevance outside of the television series. And xe makes a good case. Hell, I almost believe it myself!
  But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed discussion, I have one thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca can be found mentioned in discussions about the U.S. Department of Justice, about Michael Moore, about Dan Rather, about Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and about Michael Moore again. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee — an eight foot tall fictional Star Wars character — turn up in commentaries on U.S. politics? That does not make sense!
  Look at me, I'm a Wikipedia editor discussing the deletion of a Wikipedia article, and I'm talkin' about Michael Moore. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, none of this makes sense!
  And so you have to remember, when you're trudging through WP:VFD/Old supposing and fussing on the closing of the discussion... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed discussion, it does not make sense.
  If Chewbacca is used as a rhetorical tool in U.S. political commentary, you must keep! The defense rests.
  Uncle G 12:46, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• keep. Delightful.--Ian Pitchford 12:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cultural tidbit which certainly seems to have spread beyond the show itself. I'd say to revisit this VfD in 10 years or so to see if it's stood the test of time. Also congratulations to Uncle G for an awesome vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. --W(t) 13:24, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Look at the silly monkey! (head explodes) -- BD2412 ^talk 13:31, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • If only to prove the real power of the Chewbacca Defense. Can we BJAODN Uncle G's text there? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we have a moral obligation to do so. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:10, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep. Well put, Uncle G. Bravo! Meelar (talk) 14:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't make sense . . . so confused . . . must keep if it makes no sense . . . --Scimitar 15:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to whatever the name of the episode of the stupid television program was, with a redirect. func(talk) 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If the glove doesn't fit, you must (a) rescue Yoda from Kashyyk, (b) Acquit, and (c) be played by Peter Mayhew. Were you played by Peter Mayhew? He is a player, for sure, that one. Cookies. Doody. Poo-poo. Mama. Keepy. jglc | t | c 16:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge This is stuff like the south park sex positions Muijzo 16:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this article was written the day of the first airing, yeah, but it's a matured concept with widespread adoption.--Chairboy 17:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Uncle G, you made my day. --Arcadian 19:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Chef Aid. I think the inherent "geek" bias of this community is showing on this one. I've seen it on a web forum or two, but I don't know that the world at large has heard of this. --Xcali 22:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep – I've heard of it and I'm... oh, never mind. Just keep --Mothperson 02:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I was about to send this link to someone as I use it often as an analogy for various things. I can't beleive you want to delete this!! This does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! See how many google hits there are..... Jgritz 07:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and incorporate evidence of use as described by User:Uncle G into article. --Metropolitan90 07:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Uncle G's argument is very convincing (and those references need to be incorporated into the article). --L33tminion (talk) 16:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. --cesarb 17:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fairly widespread use. Not entirely restricted to the South Park fan community by any means. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Look: Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed wiki, Denni would certainly want you to believe that this article, Chewbacca defence, is an unencyclopedic article. And he makes a good case. Hell, I almost fell for it myself!

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed wiki, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen of the wiki, this Image:Chewbacca.jpg is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me, I'm a geek editor defending a noted geek joke article, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in your computer rooms deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed wiki, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must keep! The defense rests. Project2501a 09:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've heard the term plenty of times, although I misinterpreted it as "let the Wookiee win." Also, Project2501a's argument is as inarguable as Mom, baseball, and apple pie. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 12:11, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

No, man, you got to ask. What would Brian Boytano do? Project2501a 15:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - me likes them hairy! -- AlexR 18:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. — Phil Welch 07:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We need this to show to some unfortunate editors who employ this defense. Mgw 16:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Heck, I just spotted it on a VfD two days ago! Extra points to silsor for the phrase argumentum ad chewbaccum. — Dan Johnson ^T_C 12:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

• The most fun I've had on VfD in a long time. Keep, and I hope it comes back again next year! argumentum ad chewbaccum... beautiful! -Eisnel 05:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, so we can proudly say:

— Rickyrab | Talk 22:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 not marked as valid disambiguation in total 15 votes delete (mixed in with keep disambig. delete rest votes), 3 keep all, 3 relist and 1 merge. Feel free to bring back any page as a valid disambiguation.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Abhay

Abhay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This a series of names taken from the Indian given names category. Some in that category were valid disambig pages, or articles, but the following should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all they do is define the name. Perhaps some of these will make valid redirects, disambigs or articles. I am happy to withdraw individual nominations. I am also nominating-

• Aiyush
• Akhil (Valid disambig. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
• Ananta (Valid disambig. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
• Anuj (Valid disambig. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
• Arindam (Valid redir. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
• Hansika
• Hanut
• Indradeep
• Manju (name)
• Manjunath
• Meghna (name) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragib (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
• Nandini
• Nimish
• Niyati
• Parthasarathy
• Pranab (Valid disambig. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
• Pranay --NMChico24 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Praneetha
• Pratyusha
• Praveen (Valid disambig. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
• Ritesh (Valid disambig. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
• Sajit
• Sanika
• Sastry
• Shweta (This has been speedily deleted J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
• Sujata (Valid disambig J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)) J Milburn 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment :Any that I have struck out, I am withdrawing the nomination for. Also note that I am withdrawing the nomination for Abhay itself, as it is now a valid disambiguation, but I reqest this discussion is kept open for obvious reasons. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Also adding in Meghna (name) which was speedily deleted earlier tonight, but then recreated. This will hopefully settle that matter. These all need to go. J Milburn 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a repository of redundant, unencyclopedic information. --Ragib 01:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Among the other things Wikipedia is not, it shouldn't be a baby name guide. janejellyroll 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; maybe transwiki to Wiktionary instead. Bigtop 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. --NMChico24 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and send somewhere else - perhaps to a sister project? --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Given names is an encyclopaedic topic that many traditional encyclopaedias also cover. In fact, the whole category Category:Given names is devoted in Wikipedia for this purpose. See also Adam (name), Constance (name) and Edith for just a few WP pages devoted to given names. Westenra 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all" per nom. They can't stand on their own as articles. As per above, wiki is not a dictionary --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Terence Ong 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep there are a lot of surnames on Wikipedia, and if we are going to nominate them for deletion, than we should go for other categories as well. But please, hear this before you cast your !vote for delete: a lot of these are notable. Anuj, aside from having 850,000 ghits, is part of Hindu mythology, according to the article. Clearly, these names are notable. If you believe they lack sources, then I say tag them as such and look for sources, then, when the source isn't locatable, nominate it for deletion under this premise. Part Deux 07:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, these are actually first names/given names, and NOT surnames. As for ghits, you'd definitely get ghits when those are part of many persons name. The word "Has" gets a lot of ghits too (2.6 billion). Yet its proper place is a dictionary. --Ragib 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Relist individually. For each of these names, a determination about deletion will need to depend on what verifiable sourcing is available. Some of these names have mythological applications, some do not. Some have been used in Indian business, some have not. Especially because there will be large numbers of false positives on Google, and because searching for non-English top, these articles should be given separate treatment to ensure that worthwhile content is not accidently removed. Serpent's Choice 08:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist individually. Most of these should be deleted, but a few such as Sujata contain more information than just the name. utcursch | talk 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I personally do not want to relist these individually. It took me long enough as it was, and relisting all of these will clog the deletion debate. If you tell me the specific articles that could be kept, the reason they should be kept, and I agree, then I will strike them out on my list and withdraw my nomination for that individual article. I don't know whether that is allowed, but I think that would be the best way of dealing with this situation. Relisting them individually would be very inpractical and inconveniant for everyone involved. J Milburn 10:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and repeat, do not relist individually, but without prejudice to recreation if and only if someone can create a sourced and expanded article in the future. As it is, they're effectively dicdefs (namedefs?) Seraphimblade 11:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, on the basis that Wikipedia is not a Dictionary of Names. (I have one, very interesting it is too, but it's just what it says - a dictionary.) The fact that some of these are also names of Hindu mythological characters is irrelevant: these articles are about the names, not the characters. If mythological characters have articles that's one thing; this is a separate issue. Emeraude 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nomination, Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Mhking 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or relist - Some of these serve as disambiguation, and many of these are oprevalent in Hindu history. Some names like Praveen are very common (for disambiguation, Praveen Togadia, do a search of praveen) and some Manjunath should be deleted, because there are very few manjunath's in the world.Bakaman 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist individually. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: To the people telling me to relist, I doubt you would be willing comment on all of them, never mind individually list all of them. As for making these into valid disambiguation pages- I am completely open to that, why doesn't someone do it? J Milburn 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: These names-entries are relatively short, why don't we just make an article with a sub-section for these names? I so no reason why they are not notable together, but they are weak, unnecessary stubs sole.Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Akhil, Ananta, Anuj, Arindam, Pranab, Praveen, Ritesh, and Sujata which have all been reduced to disambig or redirects. Keep and expand Nandini (important in Hindu mythology and also a notable trademark). Delete the rest per nom. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also keep Abhay, which has also been reduced to a disambig. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete those that read like Abhay (This name means: , People with this name are generally: , This is not a very common name. Keep all the others and expand them as much as possible. - AMP'd 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If Nandini is an important mythological character and a notable brand, then two seperate articles need to be written on them, and then this could be kept as a disambig page. Until then, I think it should be deleted. J Milburn 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete all: if any of them have includable factoids like links to mythology, include said factoids in the relevant articles for that topic. Given names are by themselves not notable, and WP:NOT is clear about not being an indiscriminate list of lists nor a dictionary. Jerry lavoie 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Munishk Gupta. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of historical confusions

List of historical confusions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As far as I can understand, this list is supposed to contain either (1) instances of confusion over history topics, or (2) instances of confusion over placenames/peoples throughout history. I don't think that either criterion is, of itself, particularly notable. In the first case, the list would essentially be a result of something that happened in school one day. In the second case, the list would seem to violate WP:NOR, be potentially unmaintainable, and be (again) unnotable unless the importance of these confusions was specified. My second (or fourth, depending on how you count it) reason for nominating it for deletion is that it adds little or nothing of encyclopedic value (after all, Wikipeida is an encyclopedia) as evidenced by the facts that:

1. the information contained in it is replicated on two disambiguation pages (Albania (disambiguation) and Iberia) and the rest of the individual article pages it links to;
2. it is unsourced; and
3. it provides no context whatsoever. Black Falcon 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unclear as to what was confusing, who was confused, why it was confusing...I'm so confused. I cannot fathom what kind of encyclopedic entry would be possible from this title, or how it would not be original research. Agent 86 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The list is poorly defined and far too broad to be satisfactorily encyclopedic. It's also subjective and unverifiable. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unverfiable. What's the criteria for such a list? --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm very worried that this could become a vehicle for POV. As in: "A common historical confusion is the Genocide XYZ hoax." --N Shar 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: If this is a list for historical confusions, then that article should be much longer than its current state. Also, what is the confusion about? I see no confusion! I'm as confused as Agent 86! Also, the article will eventually violate WP:NPOV, since confusion is a biproduct of perception of the mind. Also, the article provides no WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, and does not WP:CITE its sources.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V, WP:OR, unencyclopedic. Supposedly a list, but it isn't now. Terence Ong 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has been around almost a year, yet no effort has been made to provide any context. --Metropolitan90 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; violates WP:NONSENSE --Mhking 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe even speedy because it lacks context (A1). YechielMan 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT Bucketsofg 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Tom H 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Per nom and Dyseption. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

VUPlayer

VUPlayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

disputed PROD for NN-freeware media player. delete Cornell Rockey 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Foobar and VLC player are freeware too. Yet those are considered notable for some reason. What is this particular piece of software missing that makes it non-notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - VLC is instantly notable because it is included within Gentoo Linux - a major Linux distribution (as well as other reasons), whereas Foobar2000 has a very large number of Google hits, many of which are independent works regarding Foobar2000. For VU Player, Google only pulls up download links and the VUPlayer article from Wikipedia and its mirrors. --tgheretford (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is missing sources. Fails the Google test miserably compared to VLC media player. While there are no WP:V concerns, I worry about WP:N. --N Shar 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of meeting WP:SOFTWARE anywhere in the article. --tgheretford (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Seraphimblade 11:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:SOFTWARE criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as failing WP:SOFTWARE Bucketsofg 22:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as WP:SOFTWARE. Bigtop 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep --Durin 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tin Pot Operation

Tin Pot Operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. The first few attempts to delete were thwarted by a stagnant {{hangon}} and a pro'd removal. John Reaves (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi amendments have been made to the article to attempt to expand on the limited content. The original article was kept brief and factual in order to not breach guidelines for promotional content.— 80.76.203.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note additional references below that are not included in the article text. 2 articles on Culture Northern Ireland 1- [1] 2-[2]

2 articles on BBC Northern Ireland Across the Line 1-[3] 2-[4] 80.76.203.84 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Please also note that the previous AfD tag was removed at the request of the user who placed it. As shown here [5] 80.76.203.84 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. As far as I'm concerned 1 album and 1 EP with a total of 20 songs is notable. And that's without mentioning them reaching 'the final of the Irish Language competition "Deis Roc"' - Mgm|^(talk) 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks I have been trying to keep the content as factual as possible without introducing elements that could be seen as promotional. Would you advise removing the reference to Deis Roc?80.76.203.84 14:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep: The article can be considered notable, as argued by User:80.76.203.84--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Although unsigned, a fair few radio stations, the BBC and iTunes recognise them, according to google. Jem 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Jem's comments. Vassyana 11:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus --Durin 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Republic Tigers

The Republic Tigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Listed for Speedy deletion as a CSD:A7. There is a claim of notability on the talk page and in the article that one member was in another notable band (The Golden Republic (band)). I'm not sure they meet WP:MUSIC but I don't think A7 applies here and the Speedy was contested so I'm listing it here.--Isotope23 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Assuming that The Golden Republic is notable itself (a cursory search suggests it is), then the relevant point of WP:BAND is "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" (it is probably not appropriate to use redirects, as this is a band with members who weren't in the other band - and the guy who was joined this band after leaving the old one). I'm trusting that consensus has decided this is a good reason to call a band notable, because without it this would be a definite delete . Trebor 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not an expert on the music world, so I cannot evaluate whether a notable person in an old band starting a new band makes the new band notable. (In this case, I don't think so.) Sources on Google confirm that this band exists and has performed, but that's it. I see no significant press coverage. If the best links you can show me are a myspace profile and a blog post, you haven't made your case for notability successfully. Note also that the "history" section is unsourced. YechielMan 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Trebor and WP:BAND.Vassyana 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Scooby-Doo (character). --Durin 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Skippy Doo

Skippy Doo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A character who briefly appears in one episode of A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. Highly non-notable. FuriousFreddy 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - good lord, how did this article survive for a year and a half? Otto4711 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Lesnail 01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as throughly NN. But for reasons I don't competely understand, "Skippy Doo was born Skippy Doobert Doo at Knittingham Puppy farm, Coolsville Ohio" made me laugh really hard. janejellyroll 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. No need to delete outright. delldot | talk 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, totally a non-notable Scooby Doo character. Terence Ong 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect violation of WP:FICT and should be redirected to Scooby Doo. If that is not possible, then consider this as a vote to delete.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. Non-notable character, no page for the episode available. ShadowHalo 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to A Pup Named Scooby-Doo per above. Wryspy 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (no redirect needed, merge if necessary, but still delete the merge) - I had half an essay written about how you were all wrong, then I realize I'd gotten mixed up with Scrappy-Doo. Part Deux 09:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Merge into the main article on the TV show, or the episode where he appears. It is a minor character not notable enough for its own article. Retiono Virginian 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per all above -- Selmo ^(talk) 18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Daniel5127 <Talk> 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - do we really want a merge at all? Is he notable even to be mentioned in that article? Part Deux 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable enough for merge. Tom H 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect but to Scooby-Doo (character) instead of the show. Scooby's family should be mentioned there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
• Merge into Scooby-Doo (character) as trivia. Cleo123 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Should included in Scooby-Doo (character). Not notable as an individual character. Vassyana 11:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Woofering

Woofering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Neologism definition. More suitable for Wikitionary Jvhertum 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nn neologism, 177 ghits. MER-C 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO, and discuss with the Wiktionary community before listing it there. I'm not that familiar with their policies, so I don't know if it will be accepted.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in Wikipedia and transwiki to Wiktionary per nom as WP:NEO. Bigtop 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Bucketsofg 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this fits a dictionary more than an encyclopedia (or wikipedia for that matter)--JavazXT 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Pastordavid 23:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of American toolmakers

List of American toolmakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

By not specifying the notability of these companies, the article violates Wikipedia is not a directory and WP:Notability (companies and corporations). Of the six toolmakers listed, the first four lack WP articles (two are redirects to other pages). Moreover, even if all of these pages were created (presupposing that they are all notable), then they should probably be listed in a category (e.g., Category:Toolmakers in the United States) rather than on a list. Black Falcon 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same flaws:

List of British toolmakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no indication of the notability of these firms given. Nuttah68 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vassyana 11:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anime South

Anime South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion or indication of notability, only the company's own information cited as a source. Significant WP:COI issues (being edited to a good extent by User:Animesouth, who was found to be using socks during disagreements regarding inserting links to the article elsewhere). No indication why this would pass WP:CORP, WP:ORG, or WP:N overall. Seraphimblade 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-Notable, plus it's a commercial event being pushed by the owner. --TommyOliver 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Terence Ong 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and my comments here. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Obvious bad faith nomination due to disagreement on List of anime conventions RfC. Retaliatory recommendation evident by this quote: "Here's an idea, let's AfD Anime South...." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC). — 68.63.22.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I just did a search of that talk page. First, those words don't appear in the page. Second, the debate appears to have been going on for some time. Please assume good faith, here, as hard as it may be, and remember that this must adhere to the standards that all other Wikipedia articles are held to. --Dennisthe2 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You may want to look again. Ned Scott made that comment, which started this AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
      • Thanks for the pointer. Read farther into it, though, and while Ned's comments were rather acerbic, no doubt, my statement still stands - as does my !vote. Sorry, man. --Dennisthe2 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure why that would be considered bad faith considering it's a logical path of reasoning. We became aware that the article itself should be deleted using the same rational as why it shouldn't be in the list article. It's that simple. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to note that this AFD was started by a neutral editor and not by one of the parties involved in the dispute. Even if the topic did come up in the RfC, this nomination is not in bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It was not a neutral editor. Seraphimblade was specifically thanked for getting involved with Animesouth before this AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.22.57 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
      • Comment First, Marc, stop hiding behind anonymous IPs. Second, the only other thing Seraphimblade did was revert your obvious sockpuppets. He doesn't have a dog in this fight. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Honestly, I couldn't care less, but as has been shown in the link above, the AfD is clearly a bad faith nomination. Maybe the article should be cleaned up, maybe it should be deleted. But not like this. Shrumster 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It should be noted though, that User:Animesouth has been working on the article itself and removing tags and the like. WP:COI? Shrumster 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Per the link to the List of Anime Conventions talk page, deletion has been debated thereon. This is not a bad faith nomination, the convention is simply not (yet) notable per criteria. --Dennisthe2 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It's somewhat hypocritical to claim this is a bad faith nomination based on List of anime conventions RfC... the creator and sole proponent (minus his socks) of the Anime South article has tried to nominate list of anime conventions as an AfD simply because his small convention did not meet the criteria. Also, several of them are joining wikipedia just to "vote" [6] for this article. --TommyOliver 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've put the {{not a ballot}} tag on just in case --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm ambivalent in general about individual articles for individual conventions and issues surrounding the RfC that led to this. However, looking at a few articles on List of anime conventions, this particular article has citations that are about average for its type. It cites AnimeCons.com and, yes, the convention's own webpage. Anime Weekend Atlanta, a far more notable convention in my estimation, doesn't even go that far. As for notability... AnimeSouth probably fails the test. But I think a lot of other convention articles would also fall under the axe.--Monocrat 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I guess. If it's notable, it doesn't tell me why. --Masamage 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After repeated requests to add some actual content (with references) to the page before removing the "stub" tag, neither User:Animesouth (nor anyone else) has done so. Therefore one must assume that there is nothing else that can be said about this convention. Surely someone must have posted an independent third-party con report that could be cited as reference. If there were detailed information on it, I might be able to support keeping it...but seeing as how nobody has anything to add -- no history, no details on past events, etc. -- I don't see anything in the article that makes this any more notable than the next convention. (If there IS a reason this convention is notable, why isn't it here?!) Additionally and unfortunately, the repeated vandalism by User:Animesouth has made maintenance on this article far more troublesome than it should be. --PatrickD 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of any sources other than primary sources. - Chardish 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and move to proper name, leaving redirect --Durin 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Naty Botero

Naty Botero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Moved from speedy. Author claims WP:MUSIC 1 and 2 would apply (assuming that she did have a gold record and that Top 40 is a "hit") but no sources. Neutral. ColourBurst 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not withstanding, it's still unsourced and unverifiable. /Blaxthos 19:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Sourcing remains an issue. Unfortunately, the only two sites I can find that list Colombian chart info don't have archives or a way to permanently link a given week (or I can't figure them out). The first shows a song currently in the top 20 here, and there's another which shows two songs in the top 100, with Te Quiero Mucho with 27 weeks on the chart and a peak position of 3 here. There is also [7] this ElTiempo article] that calls her one of the "most known Colombian artists," though gives no statistics to back that up. If anyone can find more/better sourcing that satisfies the verifiability requirements, those might be good places to look. Any suggestions on how the above could be construed into filling the requirements? Hwonder talk contribs 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - appears notable to me. Has plenty of non-notable coverage: [8][9] [10] and especially [11], which calls her the recommended singer for January (el tiempo is the main newspaper in Columbia); there are more links, but I can't look forever. There are also plenty fans with blogs [12], or her "not official blog", as it says in broken English: [13]). There is plenty of raving about her new video, on and off youtube: [14]. This all seems to show notability, especially for being a singer in a smaller country like Columbia. Part Deux 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, despite above. Most links above are blogs (unreliable and/or primary sources, especially fanblogs), and only one source (first one listed) is nontrivial and appears to be reliable, which fails being the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources, the notability requirement. Number of fans etc. is irrelevant, nothing in the notability requirement refers to "is popular". Looks like she may be on her way to being notable, however-if a few more sources write about her, deletion should be without prejudice to future recreation. Seraphimblade 11:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep per additional sourcing, but move article to subject's proper name (this one should be left as a redirect) to fit formal tone. Seraphimblade 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• You absolutely must be kidding me. Did you read what I said? I gave those blogs in addition to the notable sources. Eskpe.com is a blog? Coverage in El Tiempo [15], as well, the most notable newspaper in Colubmia, isn't notable? And [16], [17]. Let's do a comparison: the New York Times picks someone as an artist of the month; this artist has plenty of other coverage (though this isn't as easy to find because it's in Spanish, which has a smaller audience, and is in Columbia). Are you telling me that an artist of the month for the country's most notable newspaper isn't notable? I mentioned several blogs as well, not only blogs. Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And here we go: [18]. This was a top 5 song in Columbia in December 2006 (not just on a specific chart either). Which means it not only passes WP:MUSIC by the multiple non-trivial sources (I've now listed several), but it also passes by the Has had a charted hit on any national music chart (as I've just proved) and [19] (terra.com is another extremely notable site in Spanish), and Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network (in Columbia, and on MTV Latino [20]). Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly sourced and quoted by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• How is it not properly sourced? It gave the Columbian top 40 biography right there! Just because you're not familiar with the site because the site is in Spanish does not mean it's not a trustworthy site. But I've now sourced it better anyway. Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Amiguette, mi castellano es cerca a perfercto por lo que entiendo la pagina en questión bastante bién. El problema aqui es que se requiere múltiples citas no triviales. Lo que tenemos es una. Alf photoman 15:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, with the changes made by Hwonder WP:MUSIC should be satisfied Alf photoman 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Update. I've incorporated some of the sourcing. A note that Los 40 Principales is not a blog, but rather the official site by a major radio conglomerate owning 8 Colombian stations and several dozen in Latin America. It could still stand for some clean up, and more "gringo"-friendly sources after the U.S. release this year, but I think these changes should satisfy WP:MUSIC. Hwonder talk contribs 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Part Deux 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletions. -- Part Deux 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
• keep per aboveOo7565 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Part Deux is right: all the references provided should be more than enough to meet any sane person's notability criteria. --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Part Deux has provided ample evidence of notability. Vassyana 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic

Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV fork of material originally in (and deleted and then readded several times see Talk:Rush Limbaugh) Rush Limbaugh ElKevbo 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a non-story and not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Press coverage initially focused on the drug abuse angle expecting that Limbaugh would be sanctioned due to his previous drug issues. However, no charges were filed and the story died. It's certainly not something you would find in an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not even gonna waste my time here... --TommyOliver 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, speedy if possible. Non-story. "Celebrity uses Viagra." Really? That must be so uncommon. And having seven references for it? Sounds like someone having a fit. Blatant POV and probably WP:POINT. --Sable232 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews, I don't see it growing beyond this stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not possible to license incompatibility. MER-C 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Belongs on Wikinews, not here. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, so? Anything encyclopedic here? Terence Ong 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, when another editor added this basic info to the Rush Limbaugh article two other editors said they thought this didn't belong because three sources didn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability guideline of multiple non-trivial sources, so I added more sources independent of each other, and now having seven sources is supposedly a problem. After I added more sources the two editors said it met the notability guideline for its own article but not to be in the Rush Limbaugh article, so I moved it to its own article. Now those editors think that the article ought to be deleted. Or maybe it should move to Wikinews. Or I need to find more recent sources showing that the story didn't just die after the incident. It seems as if the rules keep changig faster than I can keep up. KimmyChanga 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The content of this article is currently the subject of a mediation case filed today over whether it should be included in the main Rush Limbaugh article. I don't think Wikipedia needs it at all, but it certainly doesn't merit a separate article of its own. --Metropolitan90 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia != Wikinews. MER-C 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Artw 06:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not your newspaper. Wryspy 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this was not an extensive controversy and can be entirely handled by the Rush Limbaugh article. Keeping the content in there would seem to be a content dispute (I would favor keeping it, and three independent sources should be plenty). Note that Transwiki to Wikinews is not allowed because the GFDL does not permit reuse under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license used there. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not a newsservice, should go to wikinews (but, apparently, can't). Part Deux 09:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• This article is in the canonical form for a news article. It has a news article style title, covers the story as a news article would, and cites more than enough sources to qualify for publication as a news summary piece. It thus does not belong in Wikipedia, whose articles are encyclopaedia articles, not news articles. An encyclopaedia article would have a different title, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), for starters, and a far broader scope. The proper place to write news articles is Wikinews. However, Wikinews won't cover this story because it is more than 6 months old at this point. Forking out a news article that does not belong in the encyclopaedia is not the way to solve a content dispute over a biographical article. Delete. Uncle G 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --Mhking 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete News item. Nkras 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything notable into Rush Limbaugh. Today's news is tomorrow's encyclopedic content. Just H 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete we're not Wikinews and this is not exactly a major incident that warrants encyclopaedic discussion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there is no other alternative to including such pertinent information on such a controversial demagogue given the active censorship on the main Limbaugh page that his paid PR flaks are doing on a 24/7 basis, eg removing all mention of Dominican Republic, hate speech, hypocrisy, and sex tourism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk)
• Delete POV Fork. --Allen3 ^talk 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything new to the main Limbaugh article. This event is hardly notable enough to justify its own article.Delete. On second thought, he was never charged and the article fails to suggest that this is any sort of major event. 23skidoo 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Rush Limbaugh. Googling to see whether "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed" back in July turned up seven stories in recent months, including one from this January,[21] four from December 2006,[22][23][24][25]and three from November 2006.[26][27][28] The incident also seems to be referenced in an encyclopedia review, and possibly covered in the encyclopedia itself. [29] It would appear that this incident has had some life long after last July. KimmyChanga 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So there's still a bunch of humor pieces. Big whoop. Those aren't news. Face it, the only reason this is an issue is because a lot of people vehemently disagree with Limbaugh, so they make it their mission to disparage him in any and all possible ways. Give it up. The political shit ain't worth it.

And, just for the record, I'd say the same thing if this were about Al Franken or anybody else regardless of political leaning, so don't even go there. --Sable232 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ZAP (motor company)

Non-notable company as far as I can tell; only links or references are to the sites of the companies mentioned. Article itself just barely contains enough factual-sounding assertions to pass the adcopy test. Opabinia regalis 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Doing a search on this corporation on multiple search engines, I see quite a few websites. Some are owned by the company in question, but I found a lot of sites that talk about and use their motors. Seems notable enough to me. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For an automobile company it's very small but it's the biggest electric bicycle company in the USA. I haven't paid much attention but ought to put in something about their add-on kits for pedal bikes. Jim.henderson 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a real company producing a notable product. It should be included. mikemoto 04:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:CORP guidelines. Just need a complete rewrite and cleanup. Terence Ong 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Legitimate company listed on NASDAQ. Nkras 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable company with wider reaching links. Just needs cleanup. Jem 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, I've added a secondary source and there are obviously more out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep comes up in google and yahoo, in objective articles --JavazXT 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Fischbach

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

Largely reposted content previously deleted A7, but it does make a stab at asserting notability. However, '6th out of 100 webcomics listed at topwebcomics.com' may not be the most solid claim to notability. The guy himself gets just over 1000 google hits, with us first, which is never a good sign. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, does not seem to pass WP:WEB criteria. Terence Ong 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question I've seen a few web based comic artists posted to AfD lately. Is there a WP standard for this genre? Would he be notable if his comics were in print? --Kevin Murray 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Kevin, the standard is covered by WP:WEB and/or WP:BIO for webcomic artists. There is an editor who has been systematically cleaning out the webcomics category via PRODs, AFDs, and probably CSDs when appropriate, so yes you have seen quite a few recently. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Terence Ong. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, etc. I've removed some unsourced personal details (none of which involved claims of notabilty) per WP:BLP, but this whole article needs to go. -- Dragonfiend 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'For the person, I don't see why we need an article. This should probably be merged to the article on the webcomic Twokinds, but that was speedy deleted back in November, because it didn't claim the business about "6th out of 100" or the 2 million hits per day. I consider this to be a claim, so I will undelete that article now, then I suggest we simply redirect. Mangojuice^talk 10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The "6th slot in the top 100 webcomics of all time" claim is at best highly misleading. That's a list that resets every month if I understand correctly, the list includes only a small fraction of the comics on the web, the list is open to manipulation, and it does not include many of the most read comics on the web. The idea that "If you don't count Penny Arcade (comic), Ctrl+Alt+Del, User Friendly, Sluggy Freelance, Diesel Sweeties, and on and on, well, then "this comic is #6" does not seem like much of a claim of notability. -- Dragonfiend 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and or WP:WEB by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mangojuice, but do I have to take issue with the nom's suggestion that having one's wikipedia bio turn up first in a google search is a bad sign notability-wise. I've heard that brought up in AFD before, and it seems to be a misconception. We're the top result for Bill Clinton and George Bush, too (although the web site for An Inconvenient Truth is the top result for Al Gore; must have something to do with him inventing the internet.) I've searched a few less-notable names (Christopher Fry and Chris Regina, for example), and the same seems to hold true. It looks like you need to have a web presence that is not just notable but really, really notable in order to beat Wikipedia's Google clout. The number of google hits may be a factor in determining notability, but the position of the Wikipedia article in question in the results probably shouldn't be. -- Vary | Talk 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fab Five

The Fab Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The unsourced claim that this tribute band is currently touring the US is the only concession made towards meeting WP:MUSIC. I have no idea if the standards for a tribute band are any different than the notability standards for a non-tribute band, but I would argue that this band is NN. janejellyroll 01:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - There was only one real fab five and that was the Spice Girls. Wikipedia has strong policies against impersonations --TommyOliver 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we do have a Category:Tribute bands, it's just a matter of whether this one is notable enough. I know of them, I think, but that's not a sign of notability. I don't see enough here, but at the same time I don't think I can make a judgment.--T. Anthony 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that category out to me. It seems to be kind of a mixed bag, but at least of couple of the bands go much further towards meeting WP:MUSIC than The Fab Five does. Lez Zeppelin, for example, was on the cover of Spin. And West End Girls (Swedish band) have released albums. janejellyroll 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The touring schedule is listed on their myspace website (link fixed), it just needs to be correctly sourced on the page. I'll try to do some research to find when they were established, but they are definetely currently touring. Also several things have been nicknamed Fab 5 as a play on The Beatles nickname Fab 4 (spice girls among them), this is not an impersonation it is the actual name (not a nickname) of the band. I believe TommyOliver's reasons for deletion are completely void. On another note it seems this artice was originally nominated for deletion because it was only made to promote the band. This is untrue, I started this article because I was doing research about them (having heard how great they were), and was suprised to see I couldn't find any information on wikipedia. After finding information elsewhere, I decided to start this page to help users in the future looking for this cover band. I have no connection to the band and have never even seen them play, so I would have no motive to promote them. War wizard90 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is going to have to have sources beyond the band's myspace page or website. Please look at WP:MUSIC to get an idea of what kind of sources establish notablity for a band. The reason I nominated the article for deletion is because it lacks reliable sources about the notability of the band. janejellyroll 08:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability. Wryspy 07:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability offered. The US tour is actually 16 dates around their local area over the next 9 months. Nuttah68 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, not notable. Vassyana 11:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sage Vivant

Sage Vivant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

• Delete Does not seem to meet WP:BIO standards of notability. Blogger and author of a few non-notable books, none of which are within the top 1,000,000 books on amazon, with no evidence of reviews or articles independent of author. First link seems to point to advertisement for erotica writing service. Editor who created this page no longer has a userpage, and links to other wikipedia articles point to uncreated (or deleted) pages. zadignose 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• A Counterpoint was presented on the article's the article's talk page. It appears that some of the story anthologies edited by Sage Vivant are within the top 1,000,000 Amazon sales (though not very high), and some web reviews of these anthologies exist on a site dedicated to erotic fiction. So, the reliability and independence of these citations should be considered. Reference to other media mentions was made, though it is not clear that Sage herself has ever been the subject of an independent review or article, and the majority of citations listed do appear to be mere "mentions," possibly trivial in nature.) In any event, I guess some of her editing projects have gotten more mention that I at first supposed, so this could be a borderline case.zadignose 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't look borderline to me. I see no reason to believe this person even passes any of the "probably" criteria in WP:BIO, let alone WP:N. Seraphimblade 11:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The info is factual, and biographical in nature. The facts are citable. (If not currently cited to someone's satisfaction, that is a Cleanup issue, not a reason for Deletion.) There is no copyright issues with the article. The author is well published in her field, and involved in many related endeavors, which may be of interest to the general community. Also, by comparison, articles on other authors of similar stature and genre (M. Christiansen, Violet Blue, and the like) are not recommended for deletion. Notability issues: highly subjective, as Wiki policy states. However, there is no case that their are objectivity issues with the content. User:dan13732
• Keep. As per above. Comparable to other authors in that genre and market deemed notable. Vassyana 11:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Long Road Ahead

The Long Road Ahead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is supposedly an album from Nicholas Strunk, so if you're interested in the theoretical existance of that subject, please see that AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Strunk. It seems as if a Nicholas Strunk does exist and that he has released at least one single, but these articles have little to nothing else to do with the reality. Sources are very difficult to come by. The author of both articles has repeatedly removed the "hoax" tag I placed on this article without adding sources. Statements in the article to the contrary, billboard.com shows no entries for this artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing at Billboard.com that substantiates the US Charts claims.[30] In fact, the top 100 albums claims appear to be blatant fabrications. There is nothing that substantiates the sales claim. There is nothing that substantiates the UK charts claim[31]. It is also interesting to note that the artist claims that Wikipedia is the band's official website! [32]. More myspacecruft :( SkierRMH, 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The artist appears to not be notable. His album is not-notable, whether the whole thing is true or not. That of course brings up the serious issues with reliable sources. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per everything above and the discussion at the Nicholas Strunk AfD. At best, these articles are bold-face distortions of the truth, at worst they are out-and-out hoaxes. From my previous searches, I am aware that a high school student from Michigan named Nicholas Strunk truely does exist, but could someone point me to a link confirming that he has released a single? -- Antepenultimate 03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here it is. [33]. There were also scattered and not very reliable references to him getting ready to work with Timbaland at some vague point in the future, but those references also refer to him as a UK artist, not some teenager from Holland, MI. I think there is a not-yet notable Nicholas Strunk who makes music. I think he has nothing to do with this myspace kid who is hoaxing Wikipedia. janejellyroll 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 06:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Robertissimo 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete with optional salt. Seems real. May one day be notable. But not yet. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Montres allison

Montres allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability in question. ghits for company: [34]. NMChico24 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Evidently fails WP:N. The author of the article seems to have some serious axes to grind as well. It could be edited for NPOV, but I don't really see the point without notability. janejellyroll 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I had tried editing for NPOV but the current author keeps reverting. Agree that notability is questionable. --Newt43 11:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP -- Selmo ^(talk) 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all aboveOo7565 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• REMAIN there is definite notability. This is the only American watch company who manufactures anything. Every other American watch company purchases their components from foreign countries for assembly in the US. In addition, Newt43 has continuously posted links to bulletin board websites and a customer complaint website that doesn't verify anything. The site is well known for allowing defamatory information to be posted and the owner of the website has been sued many times and thumbs his nose at the courts. Newt43 displayed that he could not write anything with a NPOV. He continuosly erased the non-biased information that was previously posted to post his inaccurate information obtained from others with an axe to grind. In fact, Newt43 may be the person who wrote those articles to which he made reference. I would love to know how to retrieve his IP address information. -- IP Address ^(talk) 18:02, 28 January 2007 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.94.121 (talk • contribs)
  • Please be mindful of civility when making posts. Thank you --NMChico24 01:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please point out any non-civil comments I made, so I won't repeat them. Thank you. It is not my intention to antagonize anybody, so I would definitely appreciate your help in pointing out the comments I made that were not civil. Thank you --User:IP Address 07:05, 29 January 2007 (PST)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.94.121 (talk • contribs)

Thank you. The person about whom you referred, posted libelous information about Montres Allison and Terry Allison. If my tone seemed hostile to you, please understand that Newt43 caused any hostility that you are perceiving in my tone and comments. Repeating defamatory statements is not a defense against charges of civil nor criminal libel. He should not have continuously posted information about which he had no first hand knowledge and that he knew came from sources that were not accredited members of the press nor organizations well-repsected in the community for consumer complaints. He took disparaging information posted by practically anonymous authors and replaced earlier, accurate information with the disparaging information. He should be ashamed and should be punished for acting in such a manner. Thank you.

• Remain Has new links that show notability. ip address 14:56, 28 February 1 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:V, the links provided are either adverts, forums, user-submitted link sites, personal puff pieces, broken web-pages or do not provide any notability from reliable third party sources. After an hour on Google (I was bored) all I can find is news reports of the supposed rip-off linking me to a Press Release on a PR website. This is a company that hasn't made much of an impact on it's own industry's press (except for adverts) let alone local or national news; I can't find any reports from Colorado newspapers or networks about the company at all. The statement that celebrities wear them is unsubstantiated anywhere apart from on the Manufacturers website and press releases, and does not lend notability to the company anyway. - Foxhill 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete: fails WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Stunning. - Chardish 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bus Route 12

Bus Route 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

They've got five records, but zero sources attesting to WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and Scabby Knees too. Don't forget that one. Part Deux 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I was unable to even find a band website or a website for the label. Unless someone shows up with a source I somehow couldn't find, this is unverifiable. Mangojuice^talk 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- this article utterly fails CSD A7, with a claim of 5 albums and a record label. That's why we're having this debate. Mangojuice^talk 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Albo kali silat

Albo kali silat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Article was requested for speedy deletion by an IP editor, who asked me to start this debate since IP editors can't create the page as is necessary. I am neutral. Mangojuice^talk 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I wanted to nominate it, because I got only 3 distinct google hits when I searched for it: [35] with the words in succession, and under 300 when I don't even use quotation marks: [36]. 146.186.44.217 03:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with anon user above. Non-verifiable. Non-notable. Where are the sources? --N Shar 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. "Too interesting" for A7? I laughed when I read that, for some reason. --N Shar 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It seems that this is a real, albeit obscure, martial art. The anon's Google results are accurate. It's possible someone could write a passable article about the subject, but since I can't find any reliable sources, there's nothing in this article that could be kept anyway. --Djrobgordon 04:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V, single digit ghits. MER-C 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Vassyana 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Value Cinema Oak Creek

Value Cinema Oak Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As the name suggests, the article is about a cinema in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The article is very poorly written and could almost be speedied as spam as it includes details on the discount prices on nachos. I suppose I could simply clean that bit up. However, I feel that there is simply not enough in there to build anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Pascal.Tesson 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete It's not notable, it's advertising, it lacks reliable sources. Take your pick. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. I searched a couple of theater sites and found no evidence this theater is unique. --Djrobgordon 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've been there before (I live in Milwaukee, WI, of which Oak Creek is a southern suburb), I actually went on a date there once but nothing whatsoever about the place or any searches I've done would indicate to me that the place is even slightly remarkable, let alone notable. The amount of detail included is also a bit excessive for the non-notability of the subject. Consider speedy under criterion A1 (no context), A7 (no assertion of notability) and possible G11 (blatant advertising, marginal at best, but it's possible it's simply an ad). 69.210.42.22 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) ((sorry, wiki signed me out) Wintermut3 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If the author of the article sees this, I would recommend that he or she instead work on expanding Marcus Corporation, the article about the company that owns this theater, since the corporation clearly is encyclopedic under WP:CORP and its article could use some expansion. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've been there too. Not even the most notable Marcus cinema in the area. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable --JavazXT 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yana (name)

Yana (name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. NMChico24 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Disambiguation page already exists. MER-C 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Haha, Wikipedia is not a place to tell everyone your name is Bulgarian and means "Gracious, merciful, charming". --Candy-Panda 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Inappropriate - WP:NOT#DICT. Not even appropriate for a dictionary though. CiaranG 13:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On the contrary: It is. Wiktionary takes proper nouns as well as common nouns. Proper nouns are, after all, words (as long as they are properly attested). See wikt:Category:English proper nouns, for example. This article, which gives the etymology, part of speech, alternative spellings, and meaning of a proper noun, is canonical dictionary article territory. See wikt:Yana and wikt:Appendix:Names female-Y. Uncle G 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I was referring to an actual dictionary in the commonly used sense of the word, rather than Wiktionary. None of my dictionaries include people's names, except for the two specifically labelled as dictionaries of people's names. I didn't know that about Wiktionary though - perhaps I should pay more attention to it. Thanks for the clarification. CiaranG 14:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Wiktionary is an "actual dictionary in the commonly used sense of the word". That you have some dictionaries that do not include these words does not affect that — it merely means that some dictionaries with limited vocabularies exist. But that shouldn't be news to anyone. And that you have some dictionaries that include proper nouns indeed reinforces the point. Uncle G 01:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CSD and Prod tags removed by article author without reasoning. Michael Greiner 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & above. Has little importance and is unsuited to Wikipedia. Bungle44 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was moved to User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science and tagged with an appropriate "non-article" notice per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The page may be moved back to the main namespace when it is brought into compliance with these policies. Complete deletion is not justified, as there is significant interest in improving the page. John254 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and medical science

Homosexuality and medical science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a common topic name or search term. Artical is a non-neutral mess and contains no references, and has been this way since 2003. Linked to by as many redirect pages as it is other articles. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article is indeed an unsourced mess, but there's definitely a worthwhile article to be written on the topic. Maybe we should give WikiProject LGBT studies a crack at cleaning it up. In any case, I'm leaving them a message so the know this AfD is happening. I'll also make it clear I'm not soliciting anyone to vote here. --Djrobgordon 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A discussion on this article has been started here, but it appears to be an amalgamation of several articles that need to be either split off or merged to other articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete basically an essay. Artw 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this unsourced mess of an essay. Wryspy 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Completely agree that the article is non-neutral and a mess, but it's an important topic, actually, and needs to be covered. I'm with Djrobgordon & would recommend not deleting this just yet. (We should have a probation status -- a category of articles to be looked at again in X months.) --lquilter 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. dposse 16:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete CSD A7 here. Navou ^banter 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew ceo

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

Biography of non-notable individual. High school wrestler and college cheerleader does not seem to meet notability standards. Cannot find any references on web. Glendoremus 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The closest thing to a claim of notability are the wrestling awards which 1). don't cut it, in my opinion, and 2). aren't verified. --Djrobgordon 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally non-notable. Gimlei 04:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, but "Ceo three times finished 51st in People Magazines 50 sexiest Men." Delete as pure NN vanity. janejellyroll 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - NN/hoax - "Ceo three times finished 51st in People Magazines 50 sexiest Men". Not even notable enough to avoid a7 and come to afd. Part Deux 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep.--Jersey Devil 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Redhouse Yacht Club

Redhouse Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Long established club admittedly but no statement that it has done anything notable and no multiple non-trivial sources. I prodded this but the prod was removed after 6 days with the comment "enough incoming links not to be prodded". In fact, apart from redirects and a DMB, the only incoming link is one that I added to the locality article! Delete. Bridgeplayer 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I see enough g-hits that are not just mirror sites etc. which discuss the Club. I also found three independent non-trivial articles which discuss the Club and/or its sponsored activities (regattas etc.) and added them as references --Kevin Murray 05:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Only the Centenary reference would be considered 'non-trivial' and even that doesn't show that the club has achieved anything other than longevity. I have taken out the last two because neither meets WP:EL for inclusion. Bridgeplayer 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's way out of line for you to be nominating an article for deletion and then deleting references and text based on your subjective interpretations of the WP Guidelines. I have reverted your deletion. You may be right about the quality of the references, but this should be discussed. I'm sure that you are working with the best of intent, but as the nominator I see implied bias toward the article. --Kevin Murray 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think that WP:EL is not the correct guideline for references. We should be looking at WP:CITE, specificaly the paragraph on a "Reference" section.

Discussion of References Proposed to be Deleted:

(1) "SHOOTING THE BREEZE" with Tim Stirk says: "THERE WILL be no organised sailing this week on the Border, as all attention will be focused on the 23rd Coca-Cola Eastern Cape inter-schools sailing championship in Port Elizabeth, hosted by Redhouse Yacht Club." I included this because the mention in this manner demsonstrates that (a) the Redhouse Club is hosting an event which is prestigious enough to receive all the attention in the area, and (b) the Club is "noticed" by independent journals which is among the criteria which WP standards define as Notability. --Kevin Murray 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(2) "Redhouse River Mile set for mid-February" says: " This historic annual event, first staged in 1924, will again be held from the Redhouse Yacht Club ... While the first Redhouse Mile attracted 48 participants, the 2003 event is expected to attract nearly 1 000 entrants." This definitely speaks to notability by demonstrating that the Redhouse Club hosts what is considered to be a historic event. Moreover, a 1000 participant swim-meet is a huge event which in and of itself may be notable for an article at WP.

(3) Both of the articles mentioned above are from online reprints of articles from recognized South African newspapers, at the official sites for the newspapers. How much more independent and non-trivial could the sources be?

(4) In and of themselves neither reference above is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but in concert, three sources certainly make an arguable if not compelling case for inclusion.

--Kevin Murray 19:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - per WP:NOT a server. Not really that notable a club. Part Deux 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Haven't done enough research to strongly advocate delete. Part Deux 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think being old establishes notability, and nothing else here seems to me to. delldot | talk 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep - notability clearly established now. While I don't think that all the sources assert notability - some are just trivial mentions, e.g. announcements - there is clearly enough here for inclusion now. Thanks to those who fixed it up! delldot | talk 17:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I would direct Kevin Murray to WP:AGF which he should read carefully before accusing fellow editors of being biased. I invite anyone to say that the version [37] is not more encyclopaedic than [38]. Bridgeplayer 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting anything more than the appearance of objectivity is questionable when you are the nominator of an AfD. It is good form to discuss major changes which might be perceived as biased. I've not seen a nominator perform editing during an AfD discussion. --Kevin Murray 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• It seems that you should withdraw the nomination if you believe that this can become a valid article through your hard efforts. --Kevin Murray 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have written to the Club asking for help in finding other sources --Kevin Murray 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I have posted Bridgeplayer's proposed text at the discussion page. I agree that it is more encyclopedic than the current text original text, but it is very short to the point of being a stub. I think that we should be looking at something in between and getting some feedback from the authors of the article. --Kevin Murray 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• On further review of the Club's website, I found that much of the text here at WP was cut & paste (unless they mirrored us). This was carried into Bridgeplayer's truncated version as well. This expeditied the need to rewrite the article to the form now shown. I suggest that footnoting from the references be postponed until a decision is made on the final text and the AfD. --Kevin Murray 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article's history extends back to 2005-09-07. The history at http://web.archive.org/web/20040703095833/www.ryc.org.za/History.aspx from 2004-07-03 clearly belies your theory that "they mirrored us", and reinforces the theory that Stephen Martindale copied the data from their website. Whether or not he had permission to do so is a question for him, as neither that page nor its parent http://web.archive.org/web/20040703094823/www.ryc.org.za/ sported a copyright on that date.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I think it is encyclopedic enough now, with enough clearly-documented references. Maybe we could even put back in some of the history from History | Redhouse Yacht Club, or at least refer to it?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, thanks for your hard efforts to find more sources and put them into footnotes - a lot of work! As to adding more history, I would tread carefully here, as a lot of the history at the Club website is probably only interesting at the Club level. --Kevin Murray 13:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kansas State University people. - Daniel.Bryant 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni

List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Creating deletion discussion for List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni because this article was a simple cut-and-paste from List of Kansas State University people, and the latter is the accepted naming format for lists of people related to universities. (To call it a list of alumni it is inaccurate inasmuch as it also lists faculty, etc.) Further, there is a high potential for confusion having two nearly-identical pages, so this one should be deleted. Finally, the original List of People has been updated while the article proposed for deletion has not. Kgwo1972 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) On second thought, should I just make this a redirect? Kgwo1972 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I say be bold and redirect the article. Part Deux 09:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Kansas State University people. The name is kind of POV, but not POV enough to make a redirect inappropriate. This seems like it could be a useful redirect, and they are cheap after all. delldot | talk 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. This is an unneeded fork and out of form. Vassyana 11:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cars included in Gran Turismo 2

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars included in Gran Turismo 4. Unnotable listcruft.--PCPP 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. To elaborate on the somewhat terse nom, the Gran Turismo series is important and noteworthy, as is the impact of the car designs licensed for each game. This impact is better described, however, with examples and sourced description of that impact, instead of simply a list of things that happen to appear in a game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP not an indiscriminate list of things. Part Deux 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A tough call as an editor of this page: External links exist elsewhere, but few show all the cars. Many Gran Turismo 2 "car lists" are pre-release "tease" lists that are quite inaccurate; having missing cars, non-existent cars and vague descriptions based on game region. On the other hand, it's tough to have every car because there's three game versions sold worldwide, all with differing levels of availability (missing, hidden, renamed). We'd have to have a separate list for the Japanese, NTSC, and PAL versions, and maintaining several lists from vandalism is too much work for very little gain. Internal links from the individual "real" cars could make mention of it's availability in GT2, and external links should do the job on the Gran Turismo 2 page, since a GT-related-Wiki already exists for this purpose. Formulanone 06:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Open-lobbying

Open-lobbying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research and wishful thinking. As well as being unsourced and a neologism. While there are efforts to make lobbying more transparent to the public, there isn't a generally accepted "open lobbying" methodology. And the article's premise that open lobbying is something that NGOs participate in contrast to corporations engaging in non-open lobbying seems to be entirely without evidence. The article is POV and un-savable in its current form. In case it's unclear, I'm in favor of deletion. Siobhan Hansa 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nn neologism, 1070 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 08:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - "open lobbying" does not exist, and the single referenced example is incomplete (FFII has plenty of private lists, meetings, etc.) Gronky 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV and unverifable and a distraction from the development of the main lobbying page. Madmedea 10:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. POV fork. Vassyana 11:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Elder Scrolls, satisfies everyone :) Daniel.Bryant 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaiden Shinji

Gaiden Shinji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete In a nutshell: talks in-universe and addresses extremely minor and unimportant character. I came across this article a little over a month ago, and it's in the exact same state it was back then: stub status, POV is horridly prevalent, and it addresses a character that isn't even physically in a game. Needs to be deleted. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Elder Scrolls. Minor characters are frequently dealt with in a list of characters in the main article, but if this guy's super minor a redirect will work fine. Redirects are cheap, and this one could be useful. delldot | talk 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Extremely minor character, mentioned in the backstory once or twice. There's nothing that could be added to the article, and most probably no sources outside the games themselves. Shimeru 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vassyana 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rossi Contractors

Rossi Contractors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'd placed a "notability" tag on this article, but the author removed it without comment. Fails WP:CORP janejellyroll 04:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as spamvertisement. Bucketsofg 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Definite snark possibility here: [39]. They won a plaque here: [40]. Other than that, just directory listings and brief asides. - Richfife 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and G11. Agent 86 06:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, they aren't even "lucky" enough to be in the Hired Truck Program scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. There are lots of contracting companies that have been around for numbers of years and are recognized in their communities. What makes this one any different? —Brim 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Hut 8.5 13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Squirepants101 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete per aboveOo7565 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ticu Isari

Ticu Isari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created within the past 48 hours. It asserts that the individual Ticu Isari is the founder of a television station, but no reliable sources are given to support this fact. In fact, Google gives 200 hits concerning this individual, the first of which is his own website. As no reliable sources can be given, this article should be deleted until any are provided.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The history shows a lot of pointless edits which seem like edit spam, as well as what I suspect to be 3RR violations, since as soon as I put up a 3RR warning on one of the accounts, it switches to an IP changing the exact same things. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Quick google search for TELE'M scares up a website that is under construction, a sattelite for a Slovenian television station (I think), and little else. Sounds largely like he's non-notable. --Dennisthe2 05:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Terence Ong 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• No delete First Ticu Isari is a writer in Romania and founder of a television ,tele M the site is under construction what is wrong with that.--
• Delete - fails WP:V and is, furthermore, terribly written. Biruitorul 01:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Turgidson 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Weathered Underground

The Weathered Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertisement and challenged. Not blatant in my opinion; listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Article says they're coming out later this year. Wait until they do and see if they become notable then. Don't expect there to be much to say about them until they do. Plymouths 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails notability, also crystal ball article. --NMChico24 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. MER-C 08:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement. Nkras 17:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on account of crystalballery and ...advertisementery? --Dennisthe2 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. The OED has a listing for an adjective "advertisemental," so I guess one could imagine a noun "advertisementality." Chick Bowen 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Would the emphasis here be on "mental"? =^_^= --Dennisthe2 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete LazyDaisy 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Delicatessen. - Daniel.Bryant 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Delis

Delis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, difficult to verify due to the production of other uses of the term in web search results, and does not assert the notability of the surname described. John254 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable surname, disambiguation page unrequired. MER-C 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Remove AfD This article is the first work of a new editor Special:Contributions/Muelves and got a AfD before it was 10 hours old. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Signed Jeepday 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- WP:BITE concerns do not justify a reduction in Wikipedia's quality through the retention of inappropriate articles. John254 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment might as well delete the User talk:Muelves as well it this is the only contribution. Jeepday 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Delicatessen as possible search term. ("Deli" already redirects there.) Shimeru 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. See other recent deletion activity regarding names. Agree with Shimeru that it should probably redirect to Delicatessen. Vassyana 11:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. - grubber 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete (no place given to merge to). Cbrown1023 talk 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Tipper (TimeSplitters)

Harry Tipper (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge The character is not notable enough for his own article. Plain and simple. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge per nom. Timesplitters is not the Simpsons; it doesn't deserve it's own article for each new character. Part Deux 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete This charecter is noteable enough, he is the base of an existing joke thoughout the series. Also he is not a new character, he is in all 3 of the TimeSplitters games.
  • That doesn't mean anything. He still isn't noteworthy enough for his own article, mainly because of lack of info. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

--Mark D. 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• If there is not enough verifiable information for a full article, then the correct action, per WP:FICT, is merger into List of characters in TimeSplitters series. Uncle G 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of characters in TimeSplitters series per Uncle G. No need to delete, and the redirect could be useful. delldot | talk 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now. This would be appropriate content for a list or article on characters, but the list that had existed is gone.--Kubigula (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Skot Olsen

Skot Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist Mhking 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete has press coverage, but it seems to be mostly local to Florida. Just being mentioned in a newspaper, though, doesn't guarantee notability, and likely there are WP:COI issues here. Part Deux 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless problems with WP:COI are fixed and properly sourced and referenced Alf photoman 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Advertisement/self-promotion. Vassyana 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 12:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Axle (band)

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

They're working on various songs and they're going to be ready to play live by April. One guy does guitar and vocals--"sort of." I placed a speedy deletion tag, but an IP user removed it saying they didn't think the article should be deleted. janejellyroll 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and tagged as such. [41] and [42] provide 0 ghits. Part Deux 08:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. MER-C 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahmo Hight

Ahmo Hight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable actress/porn star Part Deux 07:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Notable model in the fitness modelling genre, and has also appeared in numerous films in leading roles. Article might need to be expanded, but that makes her notable enough. She is not a porn star so WP:PORNBIO does not apply; the article is wrong in that respect. I'm going to see about expanding it a little. 23skidoo 17:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's why I said actress/pornstar. She's both. And I probably should have put model in there too. Part Deux 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Reasonably notable. Tag for cleanup. Vassyana 11:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Danger*gang

Danger*gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomOo7565 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm. They get about 24K Ghits under their Japanese name with the star in the middle, and 10K under the Japanese name without the star. Their older music is available on amazon.co.jp and they are listed as having a label (Universal International). Their newest single is available at Tower Records and they are again listed with a label, Zenit Music Factory. But am I going to be defending this article, which looks so bad? There's no evidence that they have charted, and the clincher for me is the lack of an article on the JA Wiki. I am going to go with delete without bias against recreation of a better article in the future. The current article fails to assert notability, and it's off to Wiki heaven just for that. Dekimasu 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Extra comment. The original version of the article at this rev was somewhat more encyclopedic in tone but also failed to assert notability. Dekimasu 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. They're apparenly one of very few all-female visual kei bands out there. They ARE going on a national tour of Japan, but I have no way of evaluating the venues listed on the website. They released an album just recently. It would be a good transwiki to, wiki.theppn.org, though.. --Kunzite 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Delete They've released two mini-albums and a couple of singles. They're with what appears to be a fairly major label, and touring in some reasonably sized venues nationally. They've had at least one major article, in Cure (a Japanese music/culture magazine -- unfortunately I haven't got a copy to use as a source). I think they're at least borderline with WP:BAND and arguably pass. But lack of sources tips it for me. Would switch to keep if even one independent reliable source were employed. Shimeru 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Only blogs and a fan site for sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:V Cricket02 07:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pippa Jefferys

Pippa Jefferys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement, creator was BGModels (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 07:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, gsearch turns up less than stellar results. I'm sure she's a great person, but she's not notable of an encyclopedia entry. Part Deux 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, aging part-time model, one of thousands, with no notable accomplishments, likely creating entry for personal publicity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.77.234.75 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Note above from IP: 142.77.234.75 obviously made with prejudice. Please sign comments. Name of model remains linked from recently edited plus-size model page so apparent merit for entry to remain. BGModels 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (please don't vote twice Part Deux 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC))Page has been updated, more substantial information added. Question what kind of accomplishments would satisfy when business criteria does not demand Ph.D? LOL Suggest retaining to broaden international content under plus-size model banner which is very US-heavy. BGModels 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why not MOVE? Can someone with more Wiki-mojo create a multi-level entry at plus-size model so that separate pages for individuals are unnecessary? Just trying to figure out Wiki... BGModels 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn, not encyclopedic entry. --MaNeMeBasat 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil Edman

Phil Edman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable losing election candidate, fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 07:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete resume, political advertising. Part Deux 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just by the article, don't know what country this is even in! That aside, also-rans normally don't rate notability. SkierRMH 09:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced and quoted by i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a textbook example of POV autobiography (or possibly fancruft). YechielMan 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Camp Bauercrest

Camp Bauercrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable summer camp, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Most of the article is made up of the kind of material that should either be on the camp's own website, or on an internet forum set up for campers and counselors - Wikipedia is not a webstace provider or social networking site. Article does not provide any reliable sources except for its own website and the websites of two people who supposedly attended the camp. The two 'alumini' websites do not make any mention of the particular summer camp or summer camps in general, and the camp's website is a self-reference, so we have a lack of external verification for the information provided. There are thousands of camps in the United States alone, and this one does not demonstrate how this particular camp stands above and beyond all others. Delete. -- saberwyn 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

comment, do any of the camps at Category:Local council camps (Boy Scouts of America) also fail notability? Chris 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They probably do need to be looked at by someone with the time. In general, camps like these are not notable. They are of local importance so moving the information to another article is an option. Vegaswikian 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a point I have been making at the Scouting WikiProject, there is an irascible user who insists otherwise. Chris 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. Moving the contents to an article for the area, may also be considered an option. I suspect that the template may need to go also since it may be the cause for articles to be created that will not pass an AfD. Vegaswikian 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete nn, likewise about template. Chris 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Camp Shohola

Camp Shohola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable summer camp, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• The only websites linked/sources provided are three web pages from the website of the camp itself. Thus, the information is currently independantly verifiable through the use of third party sources. The article only contains a brief history and an exhaustive list of what happens at summer camps across the world this particular camp, information that should be provided on the camp's own website. Wikipedia is not in the business of providing free webspace, providing free advertising, or duplicating/replacing an organisation's website. Delete. -- saberwyn 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Moving the contents to an article for the area, may also be considered an option. I suspect that the template may need to go also since it may be the cause for articles to be created that will not pass an AfD. Vegaswikian 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Not notable. Vassyana 12:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete — G11 (advertising), A7 (notability), G7 (author request - see MacMonster's final coments in this AFD). — ERcheck (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lords of the Nine

The Lords of the Nine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online D&D resource. Fancruft and WP:NOT#OR #2 and WP:NOT#SOAP #2 and WP:NFT. JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating related article Bael The Warlord of Avernus. I do vote delete for both. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Very sorry for the trouble, but I was requested to do this by the person behind the creation of The Gates of Hell. I'm not exactly certain if it fits the criteria of being published, as it's only available online. This is really the first thing I've posted, so hopefully someone else from Dicefreaks.comwill be here shortly to edit the articles to fix the problems. Please hold off deleting the articles until someone more experienced can come along and remedy this problem. MacMonster 08:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hold off indeed! Speedy delete more like. Notability not established. Also the monster above essentially admits that it it spam. -- RHaworth 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - the only way to remedy this this problem is with the delete button. So tagged. MER-C 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the articles then, hopefully someone who actually know what they're doing will be able to do it within the next few days. Sorry for the trouble. MacMonster 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Let's not bite here guys. Play nice. Agreed that it's crufty, though, and probably not worth its own article unless you can provide some sources for notability - see WP:NOTE. Part Deux 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• My intent was to first set up the articles for each of the pages to be linked to, then create a page for The Gates of Hell, but it seems apparent that such things are best left to others. In retrospect it would seem best to do it all on one page, however I wanted to avoid a post that neared five feet long. Delete it, someone else will do a better job of it, or merge the articles together, whichever is best. However, please note that I in no way had a hand in the creation process of The Gates of Hell or it's contents. The creators are listed on the first page of all the chapters.MacMonster 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's fine. No one's perfect at this at first. Stay around for a few days and everythign will become clearer. Anyway, you can tag the article with {{db-author}}, and it will be speedy deleted for you. Part Deux 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You didn't do anything "wrong" by creating these articles, and there was nothing inappropriate about their content. It's just that the topics themselves are not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. However, they might be perfect for the D&D Wiki website. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 10:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and rename. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Schools in DeKalb County, Indiana

Schools in DeKalb County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Contested prod. MER-C 07:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If this list contained contact info like phone numbers or mail addresses, the WP:NOT#DIR claim would be valid. As is, it is just a list, and well-organized at that. Neier 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep just needs to be turned into a proper list and called as such Madmedea 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename list of schools in DeKalb County, Indiana, USA perfectly good list. Jcuk 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent. We are not a collection of lists, nor are we a directory. WMMartin 14:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 25 (U.S. series)

Now That's What I Call Music! 25 (U.S. series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Rumours. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- RHaworth 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I'd say WP:CRYSTAL can be overused sometimes to call for deletion, but not here. Pure rumors. Part Deux 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: that's delete without prejudice to recreation in several months if we can get some WP:RS sources. Part Deux 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being unsourced, it's just crystalballism. eaolson 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Cricket02 07:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Darius Jordi Lassus

Darius Jordi Lassus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced autobiograpical vanispamcruftisement, questionable encyclopedic notability. Note the use of the word "rumoured". Contested prod. MER-C 07:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this one may be more notable than appears, possible COI aside. She is the new manager of Jon Secada [43], and that is of some notability. I would say it looks rather borderline. Part Deux 08:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Skates in as notable as above. Tag for cleanup. Vassyana 12:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable in my opinion, and a vanity article. PKT 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this vanispamcruftisement. Edeans 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I get no more than 8 unique Ghits, whether for "Darius Lassus", "Darius Jordi Lassus", or "Jordi Lassus, strip out the wiki mirrors, and there are no non-trivial mentions of the subject. Ohconfucius 08:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 information to merge into List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes, so Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode)

Pieface (The Buzz on Maggie episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The parent TV show is not notable enough to have this level of detail. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 08:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." (Emphasis mine.) Extraordinary Machine 12:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable TV series, + per Wikipedia is Not Paper! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There is a consensus to improve articles like this, not delete them. - Peregrine Fisher 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Get out of the old state of mind, people. These articles suck ass, no one will ever fix them, and they only encourage people to use Wikipedia as their "OMG" fansite of useless trivia. There never was a consensus to make articles for every episode because a minority can so easily make episode articles. Then people come on to Wikipedia, see that, and assume it was a thought out decision. It's not, it's just a big mess of "OMG, others have episode articles, we should have episode articles" misconception. Why can't we end this insanity? This episode is not notable on it's own, and does not need a dedicated article. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I would also be fine with a merge. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Extraordinary Machine and agreed with Ned Scott comments. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Per Extraordinary Machine and Ned Scott. Vassyana 12:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Peregrine Fisher, these just need to be expanded, not deleted.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Buddy

Brandon Buddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO as subject is an entertainment personality with non-widespread recognition. as a quick google search will confirm. Personally, from Australia, I don't know him from a hole in the ground. Contested prod. MER-C 08:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Actor doesn't even have a IMDB listing as far as I can tell. Mitaphane _?|! 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom and as above. Vassyana 12:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Principle of Swiss Cheese Management

Principle of Swiss Cheese Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not even really sure what this is, but it seems to be an OR essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and 0 ghits. This is a case where WP:OR requires deletion. Wikipedia is not an academic journal where you come to publish your ideas. Part Deux 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Responded below. Part Deux 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, unencyclopedic material. Terence Ong 10:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per UncleG's excellent comments below and complete rewrite of the article. CiaranG 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Delete I hope it's a joke. It's surely original research. (Is this AfD listed properly by the way, it doesn't look right to me) CiaranG 13:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, along with The Principle of Swiss Cheese Management. While the first-person storytelling narrative has been removed from this version, it is still a personal essay, promoting a particular viewpoint that is not notable in itself as an encyclopedia subject. If "Swiss Cheese Management" were being referred to as a term, it would be a protologism, but it isn't. None of the statements seem directly attributable to reliable sources, failing verifiability, and more specifically original research content policies. Dancter 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is an excellent case of where counting Google hits is not research. Research turns up the Swiss Cheese model of accidents, and the concomitant notion of having multiple defences against error, where errors occur when all of the holes in the various slices of cheese align, being discussed on pages 16 and 17 of ISBN 0826133460. (There's a diagram on page 17.) This in turn cites a paper by James T. Reason entitled Human Error published in 1990 by Cambridge University Press. Reason's "Swiss Cheese" model is also discussed on page 1065 of ISBN 9058095517, where it is described as "widely accepted in the health sector[s]" of the U.K., the U.S., and Australia. Page 16 of ISBN 075461591X also points to another paper by Reason discussing this Swiss Cheese model: Managing the risks of organizational accidents (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997). You can read about one application of Reason's Swiss Cheese model (in the aviation industry) on pages xv to xvii of ISBN 0071373624. (There's another diagram on page xvii.) You can read about its application to the firefighting emergency services (which discusses preventing firefighting errors by "inserting additional layers of cheese into the system") on page 20 of ISBN 1593700067. (This has yet another diagram.) You can also read about it on pages 11, 12, 353, and 354 of ISBN 0754646416. (The diagram is on page 12 in this book.)

  This idea is not original research. It is simply the case that this article is unreferenced, badly written, and incorrectly titled. Feel free to take the sources cited above, and the many more sources than a simple search for the common name of the concept (the "Swiss Cheese model") will turn up, and cleanup the article. Uncle G 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That raises some new questions. Could the text of The Principle of Swiss Cheese Management be lifted from somewhere? That would probably qualify it for deletion for a different reason. Dancter 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that would qualify it for a rewrite rather than a delete, but since it's now redundant I took the bold step of redirecting it to UncleG's rewritten article that we're discussing here. (The two different articles make this discussion rather confusing anyway) CiaranG 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G and CiaranG. Dancter 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. Thanks to his good research, we now have a solution. See a gsearch for "Swiss Cheese Model". Therefore, I heavilly suggest renaming the article as well to Swiss Cheese Model when this is all said and done. Part Deux 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's already a redirect at Swiss Cheese model waiting to be renamed over. Uncle G 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, fine article after excellent complete rewrite. Sandstein 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, (I think it's an obvious keep now, but this is my first vote on a deletion, and the article happens to be about something I've actually read about before. Kudos to Uncle G.) ---Sluzzelin 02:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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