Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 21: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bobby Eldridge
Asucena (talk | contribs)
102 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Deletetop|Articles for deletion|2007|March 20|March 22}}
{{Deletetop|Articles for deletion|2007|March 20|March 22}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian political violence}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOHO network}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOHO network}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thug (hip hop slang)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thug (hip hop slang)}}

Revision as of 15:13, 21 March 2007

< March 20
March 22 >
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian political violence

Palmiro and Arre suggested back in March on the talk page that the article be deleted as it is biased, inaccurate, and just generally "absolute crap." Not much has changed. I suggest we delete the article and start a new one with the correct nomenclature of Palestinian terrorism. Wikipedia is not ruled by the EU. KI 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because they're biased. We delete them because they're not notable or original research or vanity or POV forks. Speedy keep.--Urthogie 14:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this title. The idea that the term Palestinian Terrorism is somehow more neutral and less prejudicial that Palestinian Political Violence is utterly moronic. -- GWO
Delete, and delete almost-equally-bad Zionist political violence as well, and all articles created in order to show that group "x" or ideology "y" is evil. That said, this is my ideal vote, but several other people noted on the talk page that some or all of these articles had been nominated for deletion previously and survived. Nevertheless, even if other such articles survive, this one still doesn't deserve to exist. It combines factual inaccuracies with whopping POV and original research issues. I agree, however, with Gareth Owen that Palestinian Terrorism would not be an improvement. Palmiro | Talk 14:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the article is biased, why don't you edit it? If you don't like a sentance, discuss its modification or deletion the talk page. If you want a new sentance, add it and source it!----Urthogie 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the subject? The article, as it stands, is trying to draw a historical parallel between political - and not-so-political - violence perpetrated by Palestinians across various different points in history, and it is full of bias and errors. As for Zionist political violence, it looks rather like it too was created to help prove that Zionists are evil. Wikipedia can certainly do without articles that only exist to prove a political point. Palmiro | Talk 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been named at various times, Palestinian terrorism, Palestinian political violence, Palestinian militancy, and Palestinian terrorism and militancy. What is the subject? It looks to me like it's Palestinian terrorism. I think that's a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article, under whatever name. Tom Harrison Talk 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Small office/home office. Natalie 00:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO network

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

Barely discernible from a computer network. Topic is not notable. Kevin Walter 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thug (hip hop slang)

Thug (hip hop slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is simply cruft. WP is not a dictionary for slang. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to White Spot. Natalie 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitespot Restaurant

Whitespot_Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – This article smells of both OR, Copy Vio's & NN. The article reads as though someone has stripped it from a book & we all know how we hate copy vio's. Delete, if not speedy. Spawn Man 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - Thanks to Charlene below, this article is now confirmed to be a copy violation. Spawn Man 04:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Amélie (soundtrack) (done, edit history taken care of). utcursch | talk 12:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comptine D'Un Autre Été: L'Après-midi

Comptine D'Un Autre Été: L'Après-midi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article has not assessed its notability as a stand-alone article. The information could well be added into the main Amélie article, as no content has been added since its creation in November '06. The author has been notified for a week and no modifications have been made. ALTON .ıl 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpsehump

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

Unsourced, non-notable neologism. Belongs in Wiktionary. Chevinki 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete following transwikification to Wiktionary. WjBscribe 05:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thick and thin (phrase)

Thick and thin (phrase) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The creator moved this from a perfectly decent disambiguation page here. It will never have enough substance for a stand-alone article. Wiktionary is not a home since it is a phrase not a word and the Wikiquote would only be suitable if a specific quote is found (the example is just made up). I see no merit in a redirect since the article title will never be the search term. If deleted, I will restore the previous version of Thick and thin. Delete. TerriersFan 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The issue here is not whether this is self-promotion or not -- the issue is lack of multiple non-trivial mentions from independent sources. utcursch | talk 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Charles Smith

Michael Charles Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Keep, but reduced links to it. Presuming he appears on a ballot anywhere, he should be able to be found here, because people will be curious who he is. But he doesn't need to be given the treatment of being a full-fledged candidate, by having all other articles about the primary or candidates link to him along side the real candidates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.101 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Does not meet WP:BIO for notability in political figures and violates WP:SOAP for self-promotion. Merely filing FEC papers does not qualify for notability. See User:Mikesmth. Djma12 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-promotion. Mr. Smith has not demonstrated his own notability. Just filing with the FEC is insufficient basis for inclusion in Wikipedia; filing carries no guarantee of ballot status. —Sesel 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable candidate campaigning in one state for a nationwide office. This has resulted in failing to gain other than local media coverage. Article reads like a campaign brochure, non-encyclopedic. - Nhprman 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Yaf 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but cut most of the content. Article contains two citations from mainstream press. Smith may not be notable when judged on a nationwide scale, but his Oregon campaign appears just as notable to Oregonians as numerous articles of local significance. In addition, his approach to the Presidential race sounds unique, notable for its contrast with other candidates. I agree the current article reads way too much like a campaign brochure; the Platform section should be cut in its entirety, and much of the other sections as well. (Disclosure: I'm from Oregon, but know nothing about Smith beyond what I found via this WP article.) -Pete 04:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotion. /Blaxthos 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, slf promotion an he wants to be president? uuuuurgh. --Zedco 08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 3rd edit. Tyrenius 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Self promotion, and basically just his points of view on some issues and his ambition. Not worthy of an article. Bensmith53 09:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-evident campaign page, and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in the race. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While he does not meet the criteria for notability that in itself is not a criteria for deletion and should not stand alone. However, this article also does not adhere to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. That is why I believe it should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron t/c 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can any of those supporting deletion please comment on my remarks, and on whether my deletion of about 2/3 of the material impacts their position? -Pete 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's certainly shorter, but the (true) phrase in the article, "Smith is unknown outside of Oregon, and has no previous experience in political office," proves non-notability. An article on a movie actor who simply said he was an aspiring actor who hoped to be a movie star, but admitted he wasn't even actively seeking film roles, wouldn't meet muster for an article here, either, for the reasons Djma12 cited above. - Nhprman 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, another article's possible lack of validity is irrelevant to this one's possible deletion. That said, this is an eggregious and obvious case of a non-notable non-candidate with zero exposure nationally, while Cox is an increasingly irrelevent candidate who is at least making pretentions about campaigning nationally, and at least has done it in the past. But deal with that one on its own merits, and not just because this is a bad article. - Nhprman 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see my position is rather shaky, but the whole discussion seems perched on a slippery slope. Self-promotion? Much of politics is essentially self promotion. If you adopt that criteria, you need to be prepared to remove John Cox, and Michael Savage, Mike Gravel, Al Sharpton and probably all the Third Party candidates.

I would propose you think more in terms of a broader wiki “mission.” Although it’s not practical to publish an all-encompassing catalogue – it should be the objective to capture meaningful perspectives and serve as a resource for voters to assess candidates on the basis of political philosophy. From that perspective it could be argued that my presence is more meaningful as a philosophical contrast than the myriad social conservatives who offer little meaningful distinction between their positions.

The internet and wikipedia hold a promise of increased information and “democracy” of ideas and access. You seem to be working contrary to that objective, ironically falling into patterns established by the conventional media that wikipedia aspires to replace.

Mikesmth 18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You raise some good points. On the other hand, Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for your philosophical contrast. We're just here to write a really good encyclopedia. As far as self-promtion, well, "That other guy over there is doing it" doesn't really hold water as an argument around here. Since interested third parties are involved, I would suggest you refrain from editing your own article and discuss any changes you want to make on the article's talk page. Katr67 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pete, with the caveat that outside editors maintain the article and not the candidate, per my comments above. (Full disclosure--another Oregonian here, but it's rare I vote for anybody of Smith's party.) Thinking in terms of Wikipedia being a useful resource, I would expect that interest in outsider candidates would be strong enough that a person searching for this candidate might expect to find an article on him, especially since his candidate profile is listed in the Baltimore Sun. Heck he's even got several interlanguage wikilinks. Or alternatively, a redirect to the page on 2008 Republican candidates that has a paragraph on him. Katr67 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It doesn't look like this fellow's thought of as notable IN Oregon either, given that a directed search has only 125 (not entirely relevant) G-hits [2]. To address Mr. Smith's altogether-too-familiar rebuttal, Wikipedia is a private website with the right to decide what it is. The Wikimedia Foundation has decided it is an encyclopedia ... not a blog, not a soapbox for self-promotion, not some fuzzy New Age outreach program. Many of those exist, and I suggest that this is less about What Wikipedia Could Become than in hijacking a popular and highly visible website for promotional purposes. RGTraynor 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There are a lot of minor presidential candidates who have no chance to win, that shouldn't be a reason to remove this article. If this candidate has enough coverage to have a fully-cited non-stubbed article, then keep. I will change my vote if this is rewritten according to that and I am notified on my talk page. Without this, anyone could run for president with no campaigning/notability and not even try to win just to get a Wikipedia article. — Pious7TalkContribs 21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is better with Pete's cuts (less violation of WP:SOAP), but still fails to meet WP:BIO notability. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "has minimal background as a politician," If he gets the party nomination, he'll be notable. DGG 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates (which actually does not have a paragraph on him, though he's link in the template at the bottom of the page). His name is a possible search term, and if we're going to remove the stand-alone article, at least send readers somewhere useful. Lyrl Talk C 18:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a declared and active (campaigning) candidate for President of the United States. The fact that he isn't a current office holder or subjective determinations that he "doesn't have a snowballs chance" are completely irrelevant. Smith has received press coverage and a lot of attention on the internet, and is embarking on a novel endeavor. Subjective determinations on how much press coverage is needed to justify an article are shaky at best, as the mainstream media tends to focus on the horse-race aspects of an election. Active campaigning is enough, and the "self-promotion" claim is basically irrelevant when it comes to political candidates. I'll close with this: when in doubt, keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.116.249 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC). — 172.164.116.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Active campaign is one thing, but his strategy of campaigning for a national office in one state (the equivalent of wanting to be a professional boxer but refusing to get into a boxing ring) makes him non-notable, and it can hardly be seen as "actively" campaigning. His coverage has been limited mostly to local papers curious about his Quixotic run. I'm extremely sympathetic to anyone who wants to run, and if he became notable for his longshot run, that's one thing, but many other candidates are putting efforts into all early primary states and have gotten coverage for doing so, making them notable. - Nhprman 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreaker (Pink song)

Heartbreaker (Pink song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is non-notable Pink song. It was the B-side to Stupid Girls, and was never released in it's own right. It is not going to be released. User:FergieFan101 created this article, and is linking to it as if it will be released. I nominated it for deletion and this user removed my deletion notice without giving any reasons why the article should remain. Guylikeu 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of romantic leads with actress older

List of romantic leads with actress older (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture examples of any film where the lead actress is older than the lead actor, regardless of whether the age difference has any significance either in the film or in the real-life relationship between the two. The entire intro is POV/OR, a number of the listed relationships are not clearly "romantic leads" which thus requires POV judgment in deciding to include them and the standard for inclusion can never be anything but arbitrary. Whoever made the list apparently decided that a three year age difference was the cutoff point since that's the closest in age that's listed, but there is no possible objective reason for setting the age gap at any number. Otto4711 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How much older is old enough to warrant inclusion? The editor who started the list seemed to feel that a three year difference was the cutoff point, but did not offer any explanation as to why. You have suggested that age differences of less than three years can be included. What objective standard is there for choosing any age difference? Otto4711 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a list is incomplete, or that the original author chose not to add to it any more after some point, is not grounds for deleting it; much less does it turn it into an "indiscriminate list" as the nominator claims. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By now I haven't a clue what you're continuing to argue about. The criterion is as simple as could be: if the figure from column A is greater than the one in B, it belongs. The fact that the creator chose not to go deeper than a certain point does not change that, and doesn't need to reflect an "objective standard"; it's just a point where they chose to stop writing, that is all. We should delete the article on pi until the final digit is reached, right? - Smerdis of Tlön 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying, I'm saying exactly that pi should be deleted unless it's calculated to the last number. Oh wait, I'm saying nothing even remotely similar to that and have no idea why you even bring it up! Otto4711 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley. utcursch | talk 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played Elvis Presley

List of actors who have played Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - actors play dozens or hundreds of parts in the course of a career. There is nothing so significant about playing Elvis Presley that warrants an article. Otto4711 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley. I agree there's nothing significant about this list of actors, but Elvis is an icon. If Elvis becomes the focus, rather than the actors, then it could be improved.
As it stands the current Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley doesn't seem to know what it is, and the first five sections don't even belong. (I was actually going to suggest renaming to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley, before I realised an article with that name already existed) Croxley 03:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, this is exactly why the rationale given for keeping the POTUS article is bogus. There is nothing culturally significant about playing either Elvis or a president. People advocating to keep the POTUS article did so on the basis of the POTUS being such a special case. Now here's another such article and the arguments about this being a special case start up. If every case is a special case, then there doesn't appear to be anything all that special about any of them. Otto4711 11:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two cases in which a rationale may apply does not make "every case a special case". As I've said before, I believe in judging each case on its merits, and accepting the consensus of the community. I do not see one or two AFD keeps as setting a precedent, or violating policy. --Canley 13:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All well and good to say, except that you cited the POTUS article being kept in your opinion to keep this article. You know as well as I do that people look to similar closed AFDs in evaluating new ones, and should another of these lists come up for deletion then just as sure as God made little green apples this AFD will be pointed to just like you pointed to the POTUS one. Otto4711 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, I was actually citing the POTUS example because I believe that your deletion rationale there was equally as questionable - that playing the President is not an important acting role out of many - not because it was kept. As you've correctly pointed out though, it looks like I'm citing a precedent and saying it's not a precedent! --Canley 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which points out yet another problem with these sorts of lists being kept under the premise of "the person being played is a cultural icon" or "the person is a special case." It requires editors to make POV judgments as to what historical characters are "icon" or "special" enough to warrant articles. There can be no objective definition of what historical personages have achieved that status so looking to such alleged status is problematic to say the least.
  • Nor, I have to say again, does keeping the article under the theory that people will use it as a research tool on how actors approach the role make any sense. These lists tell us nothing about how actors approach the role, only that they did. The same argument could be made for any role or character type and unless we want bloated lists of every actor who ever played a cop or a bank teller the argument should be put down as well. Otto4711 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but Wikipedia pretty much requires editors to make POV judgements on "cultural icons" and "specialness" every single day, especially on AfD, due to a little thing called "notability". Once again, you're conflating something notable with non-notable slippery slope portents like "unless we want lists of every actor who ever played a cop or a bank teller" - I would agree that such lists should probably be deleted (including last week's Nazi one): anyone, actors or otherwise can play many such roles - so I definitely see your point, but I don't agree that it applies in a small number of cases. --Canley 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. Unnecessary fork of an already existing topic. 23skidoo 13:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley, redundant, fork. Terence 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that in my opinion this probably passes the relevant section of WP:NOT, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", since the list's entries are directly associated with a specific topic (Elvis). As an example of how this could be useful, consider if someone is researching or writing about Elvis and wants to look at how various people have portrayed him. The first obvious course is to find a list of either movies and shows that have included Elvis as a character or to find a list of actors who have portrayed Elvis. Both lists would produce the same general list of entries for further study.
However, all that being said, I am concerned that the list appears to be original research as it is relying on an original collection of inclusion criteria not apparently found in previously published sources. So I'd only be willing to keep or merge the list if the consensus is that this list isn't a form of original research. Dugwiki 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Satter. NawlinWiki 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Satter

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a duplicate of the nominated article:

Michael (Mike) Satter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bridgeplayer 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include in the list the page Michael Satter SmartGuy 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Plaszczak

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

Not notable. Reads like business advert/cv.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Chumiecki

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

Not notable, advert/cv.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, no assertion of notability, how-to, nonsensical, made up in the pub one day, and several other things Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Bat

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

Non-notable drinking game. Google returns nothing relevant, beyond an urbandictionary entry. Neologism, WP:NOT a dictionary, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NFT Action Jackson IV 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Keller

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

Likely a hoax. Google search for "Nigel Keller"+MIT came up with nothing, and neither did a search for "Neuro-incisor" (or any of its variants). Contested prod. Delete due to lack of verification. ... discospinster talk 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete (the band). No assertion of notability, WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q (the band)

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

The article asserts no notability per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 03:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wood whisperer

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. Leuko 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just delete it. I have no desire to jump through hoops. Rtwpsom2 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN /Blaxthos 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete common newbie error, userfy if the creator wants it, but does not meet the guidelines and policies for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An anonymous post on Talk:The wood whisperer claims notability: -- intgr 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only suggested an edit a couple of times in wikipedia (once where someone had spelled my wife's name incorrectly as she is a notable person but just barely) thus if I am doing this incorrectly forgive me. A couple of things about Marc, his podcast is #1 in the catagory of hobbies on iTunes, He made the best or podcasting list on iTunes for 2006, his podcast was featured on television in Canada, he has been sponsored by Finewoodworking.com and has been featured in their print publication, he has also been sponsored by Festool and Powermatic which does not come easy. Within the woodworking (online) community he is very well known and well regarded.
    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.137.30.2 (talk)

I have added a link to the article published in WoodCraft Magazine. Rtwpsom2 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by FCYTravis. MER-C 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Confused

I'm Confused (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL. Article is full of nonsense - the album is coming out in either "late 07", "August 07", or may have already gone platinum. I say delete this, and recreate it when the album passes from quantum uncertainty to reality. Action Jackson IV 03:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was page reverted to redirect and nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goosing

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

This page led a happy little life as a redirect until someone decided to use it for something they made up it school one day. It's possibly speediable as patent nonsense as well Citicat 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert it[7] and it got put back. Needs to be protected. Citicat 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Try this page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - Richfife 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Military deception. Veinor (talk to me) 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maskirovka

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

del unnecessary russian language dicdef which is more than adequately rendered by the term military deception. A quote from Russian military encyclopedia is a definition of the Russian langauge term, which is exactly how "military deception" is defined. We are not going to have articles such as oborona (defense) Nastupleniye ("attack") just because the Russian military encyclopedia defines them. `'mikka 03:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S: Society topics. ◄Zahakiel► 05:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Donegan

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

One of many people to lose their job over offensive personal blog postings. Does it suck? Yes. Is this particular case notable? Not really. Richfife 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. MaxSem 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight

The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm completing a nomination for an anon who's attempted two separate PRODs. According to the message left at my talk page, "It is hardly a noteworthy book. Rather it is a book that is part of a noteworthy series. This page provides nothing except blatant plot summary and does not benefit Wikipedia at all. Clearly nobody has bothered to improve on it. Instead they create new pages for other books in the series with only one sentence descriptions. If someone needs a summary of every single book in this series, they can go to Google." The edit to the prior debate is here. Keep in mind, this was recently kept as a unanimous keep in February at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight.

  • My personal opinion is keep as before. One of the most noteworthy series in young adult literature, highlight notable author, parts of the book were used for the second film in the series, it's a bestselling novel, plenty of reviews can be dug up, etc etc etc. badlydrawnjeff talk 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I think deletion and/or a merge is necessary but you continue to delete any nomination for deletion I post. It is hardly a noteworthy book. Rather it is a book that is part of a noteworthy series. This page provides nothing except blatant plot summary and does not benefit Wikipedia at all. Clearly nobody has bothered to improve on it. Instead they create new pages for other books in the series with only one sentence descriptions. If someone needs a summary of every single book in this series, they can go to Google. 137.238.121.34 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Professionally published novels are inherently notable per the Novels WikiProject. If we start picking-and-choosing what we consider to be notable works then there are hundreds of other articles that might as well go to AFD, and to decide which ones should go would be a violation of WP:NPOV. 23skidoo 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Any of the books in the series is notable up through the present, as author Meg Cabot... is notable, as is the fact... her series has spawned two major Hollywood releases so far. - Denny 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep notable author, series and therefore book. Proposed deletion and AfD are not cleanup. --Canley 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep very obviously notable book, and part of a very notable series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, obviously notable, no proper reason for AFD, do not use AFD for poor quality articles that desperately needs cleanup. Terence 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Taken from Wikipedia:NOT: Plot summaries. 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. As it stands now, this article is just a plot summary. While that in itself is not a criterion for deletion, the article is in need of some repair before it becomes respectable. How long can it exist in its present state before action should be taken? --Cyrus Andiron t/c 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I'm feeling rowdy, I usually remove the plot summaries until the articles can be expanded otherwise. I've been dealing with other things rather than the Princess Diaries as of late, but it's something that can be dealt with via editing - the article is still a functionally acceptable stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chrisman

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

Delete What makes this man notable? Avi 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Wile E. Heresiarch at 23:42, 20 March 2007. ◄Zahakiel► 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex dizon

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

Non-notable biography, only source is IMDB, where he has very very minimal credits. Not written in an encyclopedic manner, very close to advert. Prodded by myself, de-prodded by author. Delete. Mak (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge into Lord of the Flies. Natalie 22:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Flies in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another cruft filled article that isn't very useful. Trim the section in the main article, instead of just branching off to these crufty "pop culture/cultural references" articles. RobJ1981 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S: Society topics. ◄Zahakiel► 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete paging Dr. Cruft, please pick up the white courtesy phone. /Blaxthos 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate information, plus much original research - "People have found many similarities", "has been speculated that", "is similar to", "It is claimed that". Croxley 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per indiscriminate OR concerns. Otto4711 11:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Lord of the Flies. Do not fear to convert the list into paragraphs analysing these several allusions on the bogus grounds that the analysis needed to turn the lists into running discourse is "unreferenced" or "original research". Only allusions in notable works should be included, and in a notable work, a Wikilink is all the reference you need; and the fear that the brief synopses needed to explain allusions are "original research" is just silly. The *Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction, originally written to entertain: it already is popular culture, even if it is taught. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm starting to feel like a broken record saying how these things violate WP:NOT and are devoid of encyclopedic content, et. Arkyan 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not fail WP:NOT#IINFO, but does appear to be OR and unreferenced This does not appear to violate WP:NOT#IINFO. That section of WP:NOT is very specific about what it prohibits, and lists of popular culture references are not part of that section. (See previous discussions on the incorrect application of WP:NOT#IINFO on the archived talk page.) However, it does appear to be largely unreferenced original research. Therefore the article should probably be trimmed down to clear referenced entries and, space permitting, merged back into the Lord of the Flies main article. Dugwiki 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, P.S., "cruft" is never a reason for deletion. Dugwiki 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's not summarizing a plot. In fact, it's specifically talking about real world references to the plot, which is explicitly what WP:NOT#IINFO says is supposed to happen. Dugwiki 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lord of the Flies. The book is already popular culture. It is very appropiate to discuss the influence of the book on other elements of poplular culture. In this case, why would you want to split them? -- Michael Johnson 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lack of deletion rationale. Too long for lord of the flies article. SakotGrimshine 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is not indiscriminate information per WP:NOT#IINFO as Dugwiki has noted above. Nor would I say that it is indiscriminate per the common definition of the term; there is a clear discriminating criterion, namely, reference to LOTF. Also, this is not unsourced: it is sourced by primary sources. For instance, the reference to LOTF in Hook (film) is sourced by the film itself. However, despite the fact that a nomination based merely in the vague accusation of "cruft" is just begging for a "Strong keep", this article violates WP:TRIV and should not remain as a stand-alone article. Most of the entries in the article are merely passing mentions, but some are more significant. Per Smerdis of Tlön, I will trim the article so that an admin may easily merge it if that is the consensus. -- Black Falcon 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewritten. I have rewritten the article: deleting most of the content, converting the remainder into prose form, and adding some references (see diff). I have made statements that tie the various elements together, but also deliberately limited their scope to keep them factual: I can't say that LOTF has greatly impacted future literary works, but I can say that it "has influenced or inspired multiple cultural works". Any additional cleanup would be appreciated, as I'm rather tired now and may have missed something (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, content organisation, etc.). I feel this is short and selective enough (and also sourced) to be merged back into Lord of the Flies. -- Black Falcon 06:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Bobo192. MER-C 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Droid (album)

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

Future album of a band whose page was already deleted. No apparent notability. --Wildnox(talk) 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gamboa Potter

Samuel Gamboa Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability is questionable; primary edits appear autobiographical; Google searches seem to return only Wikipedia references Travisl 04:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promo an refs not inependnt enough. dont say i sed so tho as i note hes got a gun!!!!!!!!!--Zedco 08:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 6th edit. Tyrenius 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does not assert notablity per WP:BIO --Roswell native 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, it does assert notability of a sort, but I think it falls slightly short of passing WP:BIO. The television show he co-hosts seems to be limited to Pacific Northwest (so far), and as for being "the first person to effectively capture the behavior of salmon and other fish in freshwater striking lures and baits with underwater cameras", that's moderately impressive, but not quite enough, IMO. But mainly I'm concerned by the weakness of the references. Two seem to be mostly press-releases, and the third appears to come from a blog. And much of the personal information appears completely unsourced. Seems like someone who could easily achieve sufficient notability, but unless and until there's better coverage from more independent sources, I think this has to go. Xtifr tälk 08:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7. kingboyk 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Da yunginz

Da yunginz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Categorizing debate: M: Media and music. ◄Zahakiel► 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this articleMarvinwillis 05:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean family names (2nd nomination)

List of Korean family names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I previously closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names as "delete", but it has been noted that that AFD was weak on consensus, having only two users other than the nominator commenting. Therefore I have undeleted the article and opened a new AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 05:23Z

Comment: at Wikipedia, I believe *reasonableness* is more important in such cases than stringent, legalistic rulings like "delete all lists of names." The fact that there are so few Korean (and Chinese, and Vietnamese) surnames makes it possible to list, and explain them, and I, for one, use these articles as a reference. Cutting them out to fulfill the stipulations of some sort of severe ruling does not advance the cause of knowledge, nor our encyclopedia. Badagnani 06:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: don't you think a list of, for example, European surnames (with all their infinite spelling variations) would be unworkably huge? I think that's been largely agreed on by consensus, with the exception being for the Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese surnames since there are so few of them. Just my comment. Badagnani 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese surnames may be relatively few, but they're not that few. The Hundred Family Surnames are not comprehensive, and there are many, many rarer surnames that nevertheless are used. I suspect that to be the case with Korean and Vietnamese names as well. I do believe that they're few enough that a list will still have some use, but I think that if the other lists are all deleted, this should go, too, for consistency. --Nlu (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Korean surnames, this list is fully comprehensive, as it includes all surnames registered in the South Korean census. The only thing it leaves out are a handful of names which are attested historically but are not carried by any living person (or at least not by anyone in South Korea). -- Visviva 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 13:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bosley

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

Appears to be violation of WP:COI, does not assert notability, does not cite reliable published sources, contains many unverified statements about working for clandestine organization. Jokestress 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. For some reason, I can never follow the byzantine instructions to make these work. Please check the other parts of this, especially the log. Jokestress 05:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability: main claims seem to be thinking that a nine foot tall person could leave no mark on the genetic record and books about transgender Amazons. Whether or not COI, it's not a list of world's biggest idiots just yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callix (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and bury under jungle tumulus: Alright, let's start. First off, according to Amazon, the most popular (self-published) book this fellow claims to have written (and I emphasize "claims," since there is no attribution to "E.A.Guest" being Walter Bosley) ranks a whopping 1.8 million on Amazon's sales rankings [10] . There are only 110 Google hits (excluding one of Bosley's own websites), most of which are genealogical posts [11]. A search of the Air Force archival section shows no evidence Bosley was ever in the service [12]. The Redlands Daily Facts article he cites doesn't exist [13]. Need I go on? Fails WP:ATT, WP:COI and probably WP:HOAX as well. Certainly fails WP:BULLSHIT. RGTraynor 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at best WP:OR; more likely a hoax, with completely unverifiable sources. --MCB 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you all seem to have reached the consensus that I'm a liar. I suggest you call the Redlands Daily Facts ( and ask for STEVEN SABEL who wrote the article himself which ran on THURSDAY 12 JANUARY 2006 on PAGE C1. You might also want to ask DIANE SHOLLEY of the INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN who wrote the article about me that ran TUESDAY 3 OCTOBER 2006. The reason your lazy research efforts can't find the article is because it is cleared off the internet after so many weeks, and obviously you do nothing BUT the internet. Also, I recommend you research the AFOSI; do real research and make a phone call. I carried BADGE NUMBER 1911, from April 1994 to June of 1999. In fact, I recently received a call from an AFOSI agent in Los Angeles who knows me: NELSON FINK, assigned to LAAFB, El Segundo, AFOSI Detachment 110, as does SPECIAL AGENT DAVID HARPER. Call the FBI HQ and ask to contact SA LES SZASZ, he'll tell you who I am. Better yet, call my ex-wife LAURA EIMILLER, MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE for the FBI in Los Angeles (That's a good task for you, Jokestress). She hates me, but she'll tell you who I worked for. You can also contact General FRANCIS X. TAYLOR, retired AFOSI commander, former Ambassador at Large for Terrorism at the U.S. State Department and ask him to tell you who I am. You can contact my last commander LT COL JAMES MCDONOUGH. I can provide each of you with a copy of my DD214 discharge paper. What access do you have to USAF records? Oh, you don't have access to AFOSI records??? You may also contact author GREG BISHOP who has checked on my bonafides as a journalist. Oh and Miss Jokestress, you may contact a writer named CINDY ROBERTS who worked for ALIAS, because I was referred to her by the FBI in Los Angeles, and she has used me as a source for a couple of years now for that show and other scripts she has written. If she uses a different last name when writing, I'll gladly provide you with her phone number. And also talk to KEVIN SMITH at kevinsmithshow.com because he's checked me out. Do you people do ANYTHING but internet searches??? That's why you haven't even gathered the basic facts because if you can't find them on the web, you give up! Some encyclopedia! Why couldn't you just ask me? Because it's more fun and makes you feel more significant to be cocksure. You guys really need to get out more often; there's a lot more in the world besides your Google. Go ahead and make fun of the theories about nine-foot-tall men. I'm perfectly OK with that. Go ahead and make fun of my publishing company and the fact that, among OTHER authors, I publish my own works. I'm OK with that, too. Contact CHRISTOPHER SPELLMAN at SPELLMAN PAUL ENTERTAINMENT in LA or New York, he's my agent. Ask me to provide contact numbers for these sources, or ask me to provide better backup for the archeology stuff. But don't be morons when it comes to professional things I can prove or YOU can prove by doing more than a Google on so-called USAF 'archives'. Someone who works for me thought it would be a good idea to have this page up on me, because they believe what I do is interesting enough. I don't need to be on Wikipedia to serve my ego, believe me, but I do not like being called a liar where my professional credentials are concerned, especially by the likes of what I see in your profiles.{Lostcontinentlib 07:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)lostcontinentlibLostcontinentlib 07:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
  • To the above: please understand that notability and importance are not the same thing. Contacting primary sources requires resources that not all people have access to, so primary personal sources do not, sadly, meet the requirements of Verifibility. No one doubts that you exist, but in order to have a properly sourced wikipedia article, multiple, secondary, reliable sources need to be found; ones that talk *about* you, not merely confirm your existance. Without that, there just isn't enough verifiable information for a wikipedia article. Also note that in general subjects are discouraged from writing their own wikipedia articles, under the grounds of Conflict of Interest issues. Please remember importance, existance and notability are not the same. The standards of Notability apply to all articles of wikipedia, they're our last protection against spam in many cases, unfortunately people can and do get caught by that standard, but they're very important to the project. Wintermut3 08:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and also, please refrain from personal attacks, they're unconstructive, may hurt your case and are generally a bad idea. If reliable sources do exist however, feel free to add them to the article, drop me a line at my talk page or mention them here so they can be added. Wintermut3 08:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can think of no reputable encyclopedia that exists that would take someone's naked, unsupported word for a damn thing (or, alternatively, "call up my friends and they'll vouch for me"); if Mr. Bosley doesn't believe that, he should feel free to contact the Brittanica or Encarta with the exact same information and the exact same lack of verifiable sources, and see if they'd be any more likely to give him his own article. RGTraynor 13:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think you'd take the time to really verify anything beyond Google. My sources are officials who can verify the fact of what was entered about me, but because they don't splash it all over the internet, it's not valid. Because they don't 'talk about' me in internet articles, I'm not valid. I didn't write the article. An employee logged on with my email address to create it. Sorry that person violated the 'standards'. I see now. You essentially Google for your facts and go no further. It's sort of like television. Higher ratings mean 'better', rather 'it must be good'. It's all based on popularity, really. Yes, I get it now. By the way, very funny Mr Traynor, putting yourself and Wikipedia in the same class as Encyclopedia Britannica. Remove the article, if you want. It really doesn't matter to me at this point. I recommend you read 'Atlas Shrugged', if you can understand it. Oh, and RG, you state on your own page that grammar and punctuation are peeves of yours? For crying out loud, learn how to spell 'Britannica' correctly in a public forum, OK? That alone makes your contributions to an encyclopedia suspect already.{Lostcontinentlib 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Comment: Leaving the personal attack aside (I'd recommend a peek at WP:NPA myself), suppose you review the provisions of WP:BIO (governing notability) and WP:ATT (governing verifiability). In particular, the mandatory policy expressed in WP:ATT runs "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis mine) Further, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process ... Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable ... Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately." As someone who claims to have had a career in the military and law enforcement, you cannot be unaware that rules and standards exist. Meeting these thresholds are fundamental to Wikipedia's standards, and working to meet those standards is a far more productive use of your time here than chastising or insulting us for following them. RGTraynor 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per all the comments above, I will ignore the personal attacks to note one thing. In one of the few published sources cited, the Redlands Daily Facts, you are merely quoted. It is not a biographical interview about you. The threshold for notability is multiple non-trivial works. See WP:N. Please add more published sources where you are the subject of the article. It's a more producitve tactic than attempting to insult people. Thank you. Jokestress 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as to the accusations of using only google as a source I can assure you that most of our best articles, in fact many of our articles period, cite published books and scholarly journals. Google is used, along with things like Alexa pagerank (for websites) or Amazon rankings to determine the likelihood of the existance of sources. In an AfD debate, we don't often care what the sources are (beyond the requirements of reliability and verifibility) simply that they exist or could be found to improve an article. For a biography it's not always accurate, but in the abscence of compelling sources, a low number of gHits (especially when news articles are often indexed by Google) is oftentimes indicative of non-notability. This doesn't mean it's a foolproof test, but it does often allow us to either say "woah, this subject has a solid web presence, maybe it's more notable than the article leads on" or confirm that no sources exist. Wintermut3 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as major improvements made to ensure compliance of verifiability. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Sankaran

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

Despite confident assertions to the contrary in the last AfD, the article still doesn't assert notability, and no evidence for his notability has ever been provided. Indeed, it's practically at speedy delete level at the moment because of this. Certainly, if there's actual evidence that fits WP:RS and so on that shows he's notable, and we can use them to improve the article, he shouldn't be deleted, but no such evidence exists in the article, and, even in the last AfD, none was ever provided.

Allow me to summarise the current article, because it might help anyone objecting to the deletion see why it needs improved:

Rajan Sankaran is educated as a homeopath, and has a business he inherited from his father. He developed a few theories about homeopathy, and self-publishes books [14] (note the company site is a subpage of his website) and has a computer program for sale [15]. He has learned an effective way to get information from patients - just like every new practitioner of any form of medicine, conventional or alternative, does after a time.

If there's more about him that makes him unambiguously notable, please, please, add it to the article. Because the current article is not showing it. Adam Cuerden talk 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE FROM NOMINATOR: Since this nomination (and after most of the votes), Abridged has improved the article significantly. The deletes and comments will need judged to see if they still apply. Adam Cuerden talk 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person has received notable awards or honors--NO
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors--YES
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique--YES, new miasms and kingdoms analysis
  • The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work (YES, see bibiolography) which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (YES--many book reviews cited in the ext links section. All of his books have been reviewed in major homeopathic journals). Abridged 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arr, just needs massive improvement, then? Adam Cuerden talk 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (o rly?) 10:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A very notable homeopath. His books are widely distributed and influential[17]. He lectures to sold-out audiences around the world. He is frequently cited in other publications in his field. His writings have been incorporated into the main homeopathic databases. Note that he's far more notable than Anthony Campbell, a virtually unknown critic of homeopathy that Adam Cuerden, Skinwalker and others have supported in an AFD. It is especially fascinating that the points they used to support Campbell (i.e. editor of a homeopathic journal, prominent member of an association, author of a number of books) are, in Sankaran's case not given any validity. The only discernible difference between the two (other than Sankaran being obviously more well-known and respected) is that one has criticized homeopathy and one has promoted it. There has been an obvious effort to remove articles about extremely well-known and well-regarded homeopaths (the AFD for George Vithoulkas was a striking, even breathtaking example) and to promote articles of insignificant critics. --Lee Hunter 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DGG has a good point in that we probably should be comparing notability to the notability of others in the field. But this begs the question then: despite insistence otherwise, would this actually make notability subjective? --Dennisthe2 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following improvements to article. Notability needs to be assessed as against other homeopaths, not the medical profession generally. This person appears sufficiently notable in that field. WjBscribe 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30,000 pounds of bananas

30,000 pounds of bananas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A song with little to no media coverage. They only importance this song seems to have is it's inclusion in a notable albumn. Mr. Berry 07:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure I agree about the usefulness as a search term. Wouldn't someone who searched this term be looking for information about the actual song rather than for a trivia item in another song? I don't think we would do much of a service to a seeker by redirecting them to a different song.--Kubigula (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. You make a good point. If it was the other way around, it would make more sense: a person searching for "Yes, We Have No Bananas" might be looking for this song, which uses the phrase in its chorus. The reverse, however, does not apply. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6-card poker

6-card poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like the article is here to promote a new game rather then report on a well known game. I see no references or citation and I doubt very much there will ever be any found. Mr. Berry 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is evidence that this version of poker does indeed exist [18] [19] [20] to name a few. It's a little problematic however as there seems to be no "official" set of rules and this article does indeed appear to be one person's version of it. In need of more than a little cleanup though. Arkyan 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those look like sources that an encyclopedia could rely on to build an article. Can you find any notes in a book? What about any news stories? Does Britannica cover this? Mr. Berry 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Poker Is the Name of the Game by Walter Gibson has a chapter on six-card poker hands. Arkyan 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not give it a mention in poker then? Mr. Berry 19:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the narrow scope of the article I would not be opposed to a merge/redirect to poker or a related page - but not outright deletion. Arkyan 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the Bicycle book on poker also gives rules for a 6-card variant using all six cards to make the hand. I don't believe the rules match this, but I can't be sure because I can't find my copy (curse it all!). At any rate, the bit on increasing "fairness" is POV, and sort of irrelevant. — Gwalla | Talk 05:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge/Redirect. utcursch | talk 13:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agate Prison

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

Unsourced article, lacking real world context as required per WP:NOT, on an insufficiently notable fictional location. Contested prod. MER-C 07:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been bold and redirected it. SnowFire 02:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non notable. Natalie 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logolite Entertainment

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

Non-notable production company, possible vanity/advertising page. Google search on name brings back only 17 unique on 24 returns total. Company is somehow listed on IMDB, but no films linked, another red flag. Delete. MikeWazowski 07:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per lack of independent sources. --Tikiwont
  • Keep Just heard a pitch from this company. Thier company agenda is great. J jons

— J jons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Tikiwont 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Scienter 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I have been to the company, it is credible and has several prospective projects with major studios entering into production this year. The company has 14 projects listed in development on IMDBpro--regular IMDB does not allow users to access projects in development. The article is one of the better written articles on this site, and an encyclopedia by and for the entire world should promote independent art whenever possible. Peety1 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Peety1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Tikiwont 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Peety1 claims that IMDBpro shows multiple films in development - unfortunately, this is either a lie or fabrication. Since a direct link is impossible, due to the pay nature of IMDBpro, this image, captured this afternoon from that site, shows that Logolite has no films listed in development on the IMDB. I repeat, absolutely zero films. My original assessment of non-notability stands. MikeWazowski 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neither "their agenda is great" nor "has several prospective projects" are reasons for keeping an article on an obscure company that clearly fails to meet WP:CORP. As for the article being "one of the better written articles on this site", allow me to disagree. This is an uncited, unsourced stub with spammish overtones. And if my own quick searches are any indication, there's no reliable sources out there to expand the article with. Xtifr tälk 08:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having written "there's no reliable sources out there to expand the article with" where "there's" is a contraction for "there is," making the sentence "There is no reliable sources our there...," I'd hardly consider Xtifr the authority on good writing. An encyclopedia is meant to inform the world and community at large. If I was considering submitting a screenplay to Logolite Entertainment, the more I can read about the company the better. If you find any of their statements to be false, edit the page--who are you to judge who might benefit from the information given. Give the company a call, I checked their website, the phone number is listed. — Sepul101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - Twice now, comments detrimental to Logolite's claim of notability have been removed by anonymous editors. The first, 74.10.5.226, resolves to Marketshare Partners whose address is 11100 Santa Monica Blvd. in Los Angeles, coincidentally the same address listed for Logolite Entertainment. The second anonymous IP, 76.166.26.252 resolves to RoadRunner HoldCo LLC. While the IP owner is based in Virgina, the page states Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential customers out of the Honolulu, HI, Kansas City, KS, Orange, CA and San Diego, CA. According to the WHOIS information for logolite-ent.com, the registrant (and Logolite founder) lives in Orange, CA. I'm not going to directly say that we're seeing a meat/sockpuppeting campaign by Logolite or people acting on their behalf, but it seems likely, based on the evidence. MikeWazowski 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Comment"" It seems to me that the only thing [MikeWazowski] has demonstrated is that users up and down the california coast disagree with his unfounded comments. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of objection to the entry, otherwise. Peety1 20:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - vandalized again (here and here) by 216.59.169.98. For Peety1 (who last edited within four minutes of 216.59.169.98, I would remind the editor that if my comments are unfounded, please show evidence otherwise. Everything I've presented can be backed up, and I will also remind the other editors that comments are not allowed to be removed from AfD discussions. MikeWazowski 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Open Source Geospatial Foundation. WjBscribe 06:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GeoNetwork opensource

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

Non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 07:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep Natalie 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiak tobacco

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

POV issues, lack of citations, & disorganized content Old american century 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just edited the article as well. Looks sooo much better, thanks for the help y'all. --old american century (oac) | Talk 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Sound System

Dissident Sound System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group. Do not even claim to create any original music. -- RHaworth 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the mention of dissident's Jungletek Movement record label, on its 5th release of a 4 track EP featuring original music? A notable contributor to the UK party scene, one of only a handful of soundsystem's that represent the UK on an international level at the European teknivals. People calling for deletion would do well to research freetekno rave culture before shooting their mouths off calling for deletion. Claims of "background music" are ridiculous, have you ever heard background music on a 12 killowatt soundsystem? Activities are not limited to the Bristol area, or even to this country, as they have been as far as Czech republic, Italy, France etc. with the soundsystem. For someone whose sole interest appears to be ice hockey, Ravenswing's ego outsrips his knowledge on this matter and should keep his ill informed oopinions to himself.

Comment: Wikipedia's rules about personal attacks aside (which I don't expect a first-time edit anon IP to have known), that's gerat. So source it. Wikipedia's rules (which you can find, pertinent to this AfD, at WP:ATT and WP:BAND) require reliable, published, independent sources for any such claims. It is not our job to research anyone's so-called culture; it is up to the editors responsible for this article to do so, and to prove their claims. Ravenswing 15:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

very difficult to maintain, to source and generally not a good article, as the criteria is too broad. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics). ◄Zahakiel► 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedic article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you going to include my former barber? AlfPhotoman 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does your former barber have sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, and are there reliable sources for his/her statements? Then, yeah, I'd include your barber. Otto4711 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your list does not specify that it is about people included in WP, besides, who is going to control if everyone IS being on the list... as I said uncontrollable. AlfPhotoman 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my list. I had no idea it existed before finding this AFD. Nor do I particularly care if the list is restricted to people with articles or not but this sort of list in my experience tends to end up with mostly bluelinks anyway. As for the list being "controllable," it does not appear that there has been any great rush to add people to it at all, let alone add people inappropriately. And if people are being added inappropriately, well, that's what editing is supposed to be for. Otto4711 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any list on Wikipedia is, by definition, only for people included in WP. This fact doesn't need special attention called to it; it's the very nature of the beast. Bearcat 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is split by alphabet due to its size (A-E, F-J, etc.). I assume whoever started the article was merely following precedent. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATT, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV: Yikes, this is a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen. Per the "aggressive deletion" clause in WP:BLP, I've just deleted out those entries in the article that were unsourced. Quite aside from all of that, what is the attribution, never mind the criteria, for calling some of those people gay/bi, and what is the attribution, never mind the criteria, for declaring any such "no longer identified?" I hear what Otto's saying, but frankly, barring an attribution in print from a reliable source of one of these people saying "I used to be gay but now I'm not," any such citation is garbage. RGTraynor 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - potentially a very large/unmaintainable list, not convinced as to encyclopedic value. Oh, and a BLP disaster waiting to happen. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually quite neutral on whether this should exist or not, but I can clarify that the reason it does exist is because people such as David Bowie and Lou Reed kept being added to the main LGB people lists. Every person listed at present is reliably documented as having changed their identification. And Anne Heche is reliably documented as someone who hasn't changed her identification even though she's commonly cited as someone who has. The list is monitored for problematic inclusions, and sources are available for every single name on the list. So there simply isn't any "BLP disaster waiting to happen" here. Accordingly, while I'm not really all that convinced that it's actually necessary, I'm going to say keep if only because the main reason being cited for deletion here is completely out to lunch. Bearcat 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. It provides useful information on the public debate as to whether sexual identity is reversible or not. Where else could you find such an article but here, and any errors can be corrected. --MBHiii 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a general comment to those who fear a lawsuit because of this list: I am not an attorney but the last I heard calling someone a heterosexual was not actionable in any court on the planet. Calling someone formerly gay if there's reliable sourcing is not actionable. Otto4711 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this a joke? Once gay, always gay.--Sefringle 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't provide useful imformation -Apple 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, sourced, case studies are used in many public debates - this one is no exception. Note: If the article is kept, it should be renamed. "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors…" (from WP:NAMING) - Wolphii 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and susceptible to BLP. I agree with RGTraynor above. A person has there right to decide how he wishes to be labeled. If this list were limited strictly to those who had publicly announced something to indicate that they wanted this notified, it would be appropriate. I think most people would be just as offended to be put in the wrong category either way. The legal assumption you mention is an assumption of prejudice against homosexuals. I might not even be true now, DGG 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that a person's right to choose their own label is modified by actions that they take. Regardless, this list is for people who have publicly announced what label they want. Otto4711 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Hatteras Anglers Club

Cape Hatteras Anglers Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Definitely not encyclopedic in current form. 219.89.23.251 08:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect per point one in this guideline (nominator agreed to redirect). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado state quarter

Colorado state quarter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article will never grow into a full article. Will be a stub for a long time. There is no other state quarter that has its own article. The best place for the information is 50 State Quarters. I also imported the missing information to 50 State Quarters. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was userfied by request. Speedy delete due to having been {{prod}}ded for more than 5 days

List of Australians in politics

List of Australians in politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Category is too broad and could include thousands of people. Much better if it is repopulated into more specific categories based on Parliaments. I vote we Delete this on the condition that ten new lists are created, with two for each house of Federal Parliament, and another for each state or territory (split into one for each state or territory house if appropriate and needed). That way comprehensive lists can be created. Please userfy this list to myself so I can include everyone in it. JRG 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Torrance

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

It seems it fails notability, I was unable to find relevant information in the google as young singer should have. Try to search "She's In Love Torrance" which is his album and you will find wikipedia and last.fm ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Sensation

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

Procedureal nomination. Speedied as a repost, but not a repost as it was deleted via PROD not AfD; recreating the article may be seen as contesting the PROD deletion, in a sense, and the speedy deletion of this article is contested, thus here we are. Previous deletion was summarized as "nn, fails WP:BIO, only on WWF tv twice, could be merged at worse". The rest is up to you. Herostratus 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete nonsense. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Vista worth the upgrade?

Is Vista worth the upgrade? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear violation of No Original Research; creator removed prod without comment FisherQueen (Talk) 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Natalie 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Silva

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

No assertion of notability per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Goddess Rosemary. 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 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cart00ney

Cart00ney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable sources on this, so it fails Wikipedia:Attribution. A previous AfD from a year ago ended in No Consensus; apparently at that time reliable sources weren't needed, but they are now Xyzzyplugh 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merged into Geography of Aberdeen. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of Aberdeen

Statistics of Aberdeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a few tables with the average temperature and precipitation per month. Such data is better obtained from the local meteorological institute through external linkage, and is pretty much self-outdating and unmaintainable here. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. >Radiant< 13:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge trimmed-down version of the tables into Aberdeen. Many major cities have a simpler "climate" table that includes temperature and percipitation averages, and there's no reason not to move that information over to the main article, but the bulk of this is fluff and WP:NOT encyclopedic. Arkyan 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fairly good precedent for putting the table under the "Climate" section - check any of the entries for major cities like London, Madrid, New York City etc. It seems to be standard practice for many US cities as well. For the sake of consistency it ought to be located there as well, rather than the Geography in Aberdeen article. Arkyan 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Bubba hotep 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPIXO In Action: Mission in Snowdriftland

UPIXO In Action: Mission in Snowdriftland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable video game. Tikiwont 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can list a ton of video games that aren't notable yet have Wikipedia pages consisting of like 2 lines of text anyway, what especially makes this one not notable? MrDrake 13:54, 21 March 2007 (GMT)
You may be right about other non notable video games in Wikipedia, but the question here is, if there exists any independent non-trivial coverage, that would make this Nintendo marketing game notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you see other worse video game articles, nominate them! The existance of worse articles doesn't mean this one gets to stay, though. See also WP:INN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I actually searched for 'UPIXO in Action' as per the first article line. For 'Mission in Snowdriftland' there are indeed many more links and I'm open to change my mind if some good sources can be selected therefrom. If kept the article should be renamed. --Tikiwont 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, if that's the actual name of the game? We shouldn't go around renaming articles for the sole reason of making Google searches more intuitively easy. RGTraynor 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things. Mission in Snowdriftland is far more common, printed in large on the inactive website, and part of the http adress.--Tikiwont 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: MIS is more than a cheap flash game that some nerd whipped up in his spare time. The resulting title was top-notch in animation, controls, made small waves on the Internet...and was really fun to play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheListUpdater (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Traintake the 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death to the Extremist

Death to the Extremist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Asserted to be notable by people who know webcomics, which I don't dispute even if it is WP:IHEARDOFIT, but there are no external sources here, the comic is defunct and the entire article is sourced from the comic's own website. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: W (Web or internet). ◄Zahakiel► 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was also mentioned in an article cited on the BOASAS page: ref KamuiShirou 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm? It really is all the things I said. It's a pioneer in constrained webcomics because it predates other constrained comics. I call it long lasting because it was updated, regularly, for seven years - and webcomics have only been a popular medium for fifteen years or less. It's also gotten favorable coverage on well known web culture sites. (Boing Boing in 2003 [30] and 2004 [31]) Tocky 02:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tractor (band) and Chris Hewitt

Contested prod. Sixties band, but lacking in sources. Not sure if this is truly notable, or if it's all self-published. >Radiant< 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Tractor is definitely real and almost certainly notable, but the bulk of the article is a copyvio from Allmusic Guide (one of the more common sources for music-related copyvios). There's been a bunch of editing since the original copyvio was posted, so I'm not sure if the result is salvageable or not. As for Hewitt, he seems to be real, and was associated with the band, but even so, the notability seems marginal. Dunno. Xtifr tälk 08:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintake the 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the rash step of including "things I saw at Deeply Vale in 1979" in the category of "things that exist in the real world" then this band exists.I am sure it is recalled with affection by the 20,000 or so ageing hippies who were there and even if it's fame has spread no further than this I think it is enough to count as notable.

  • Comment. I agree, it needs a lot of work. But, per WP:MUSIC (criteria #4), all the band has to do is release two albums on a major or notable indie, and Tractor's fulfills that aspect (see here). So I agree citations are needed for the improvement of the article -- and they will be added -- but are not for its keeping. As it stands, per WP:MUSIC, the article should be kept and then improved sans a time frame. Rockstar915 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic[32]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Eldridge

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

Written like an ad and seems like the guy's personal resume. I don't know diddly about golf so this guy may be notable, but the article seems like pure spam SmartGuy 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_21&oldid=116790749"